PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Table of Contents January 22, 2004, 12:00 P.M

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Table of Contents January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m...... 1

February 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m...... 59

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m...... 78

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m...... 127

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m...... 219

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m...... 272

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m...... 367

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m...... 446

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m...... 518

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m...... 577

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m...... 611

i January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m.

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Subdivisions)

PRESENT: Brown, Campbell, Carter, DiGiacomo, Farrell, Kilby, Moore, Mortimer, Prickett, Sennstrom, Woodhall, and Jones

ABSENT: Murray, Walbeck and Williams

MINUTES: Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Prickett, and unanimously carried to approve the December 15, 2003 minutes as mailed.

1. Arthur Leonard presented Pines at Cherry Hill, Section 1; Lots 1-9, 31 38, 47 -54, 69 70 and 84 -90, Cherry Hill Road, Final Plat, Site Resources, Third Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Leonard stated that he was representing the owners of Pines at Cherry Hill. Due to previously scheduled appointments neither of the owners, who are coordinating the project, were able to attend todays meeting. Therefore Mr. Leonard respectfully asked that the Planning Commission grant a one year extension of the Preliminary Plat, instead of hearing discussion on the Final Plat submittal.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated that the zoning was VR (Village Residential). The Concept Plat for the Pines at Cherry Hill, with 90 lots on 37.6 acres with 38% common open space, was on approved 12/18/00, conditioned on:

1) The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) being approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat;

2) The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) being approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat;

3) The Landscape Plan, including street trees and bufferyards from roads, adjacent SR-zoned properties, and any properties in agriculture use, being approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat;

4) No street trees being planted within 20 of sewer laterals and cleanouts;

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 5) Confirmation of sewer allocation being received from the Cecil County DPW prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission;

6) Confirmation of water allocation being received from the CECO Utilities prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission;

7) MDE verifying that CECO Utilities has adequate capacity to serve these lots prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission;

8) MDE verifying that the GAP is adequate to serve these lots prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission;

9) Plans for the extension of water facilities demonstrating the ability to provide and maintain adequate quality and pressure, and being verified by MDE and the Cecil County Department of Public Works prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission;

10) A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space being established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation;

11) Deed restrictions for the long-term protection of the Forest Retention/Afforestation Areas (FRAs) being recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation. The metes and bounds description of the FRA must be shown on the record plat;

12) The woodline on the FCP matching the woodline on the Preliminary Plat presented for TAC review;

13) The gazebo and tennis courts being included in the Public Works Agreement;

14) A jurisdictional determination being done prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat; and

15) The Maryland Department of the Environment being urged to carefully consider the impact on existing wells in their review of the Groundwater Appropriation Permit.

The Preliminary Plat was approved by the Planning Commission on 3/19/01, conditioned on:

1) That Health Department requirements be met;

2) That DPW requirements be met;

3) The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) being approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat;

4) The Landscape Plan, including street trees and bufferyards from roads, adjacent SR-zoned properties, and any properties in agriculture use, being approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat;

5) No street trees being planted within 20 of sewer laterals and cleanouts;

6) Confirmation of sewer allocation being received from the Cecil County DPW prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission;

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 7) Note # 11 indicating that it is Cecil County sewerage service being proposed;

8) Confirmation of water allocation being received from the CECO Utilities prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission;

9) MDE verifying that CECO Utilities has adequate capacity to serve these lots prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission;

10) MDE verifying that the GAP is adequate to serve these lots prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission;

11) Plans for the extension of water facilities demonstrating the ability to provide and maintain adequate quality and pressure, and being verified by MDE and the Cecil County Department of Public Works prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission;

12) A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space being established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation;

13) Deed restrictions for the long-term protection of the Forest Retention/Afforestation Areas (FRAs) being recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation. The metes and bounds description of the FRA must be shown on the record plat;

14) The gazebo and tennis courts being included in the Public Works Agreement;

15) The rear lot lines for Lots 45 and 46 being modified to accommodate preservation of the specimen trees. Further, the developer is encouraged to provide a variety of housing models to avoid the appearance of identical subdivision types.

§4.1.17 of the Cecil County Subdivision Regulations provides that Preliminary Plats shall be valid for two years from date of approval. Thus, the Preliminary Plat approval granted on 3/19/01 was set to expire on 3/19/03. The Planning Commission granted a one-year extension of Preliminary Plat approval on 2/24/03.

At issue today is solely the question of granting a second one-year extension of the Preliminary Plat approval.

Should the Planning Commission grant an extension, it will be valid for one year, until 1/22/05. At that time, if necessary, the applicant may again request a subsequent one-year extension of Preliminary Plat approval. It would then be incumbent upon the applicant to demonstrate the rationale for an additional extension.

§4.1.18 of the Subdivision Regulations stipulates, The Planning Commission may, at their regular monthly meeting, grant an extension of the Preliminary approval upon application of the developer. In connection with such request, the Commission shall consider the following: a) Change of adjoining land use. b) Change in street or highway plan.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 c) Change in zoning or subdivision regulations.

There have been no such changes.

Mr. Brown asked Mr. Leonard to explain why an extension was needed. Mr. Leonard stated that there were community water improvements that impacted their project. Mr. Leonard stated that it was his understanding that the engineer was slated to submit the final plan to MDE for consideration by the end of this week. The treatment plant workings as well as improvements of the controls features for the water treatment plant would be included in this final plan. There was also a water tank construction project that was necessary for this project to come on line. The owner is working on negotiating a contract with a design built contractor.

Mr. Mortimer asked if they were waiting on the waste treatment facility and Mr. Leonard responded no, the waste water treatment facility was already online and in operation. They are waiting on community water.

Mr. Farrell asked Mr. Leonard if he believed that the water would be online in one year. Mr. Leonard answered yes, he believed that his company would be back in front of the Planning Commission before one year was up.

Mr. Woodhull stated that the Stormwater Management Plan had been granted technical approval based on the existing configuration. Administrative requirements (plans review & inspection fees, PWAs, I&M Agreement, and financial assurance remain outstanding.

Because of the likely impacts from construction of the rear lots, the department will require that 80% of the entire lots be constructed before Shannon Drive is accepted as a County Road and the performance bond is released. Lots 36 & 37 must be denied access to Shannon Drive, except for the northwestern most 30 of road frontage. Lots 1 & 69 must be denied access to Shannon Drive except for the eastern most 30 of road frontage.

Sanitary sewer allocation has been granted (1/14/04) for 90 single-family homes.

Approval of the water distribution system, including hydrants, will be the primary responsibility of Maryland Department of the Environment; however, DPW will also review the system design and pressure distribution analyses to assure adequate system pressure and fire flow. If necessary, improvements to the existing water system must be made to assure adequate quality, quantity, and pressure for the entire service district.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 A Utility and Easement Agreement is required for private water utilities within a County ROW prior to Final Plat recordation. An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities. A PWA will be required for internal streets, stormdrains, sanitary sewers, and any private utility improvements.

Mr. Moore read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

2. Tory Pierce presented Wyndale Farm, Childs Road, Concept Plat, Frederick Ward Associates, Third Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Pierce advised that they are proposing a subdivision of a 128 single family homes on be Fabrizi property located at northwest corner of Childs Road and Rte 213. The property will be served by the CECO Utilities water system and sanitary sewer system in order to meet the allowable density of two units per acre. All TAC comments have been addressed. Acknowledgement was made that a couple of road code variances needed. They will be working with DPW prior to the Preliminary Plat submittal. SMW will be provided on site. The client has been in contact with adjacent property owners and the school located on Childs Road in reference to buffers etc.

Mr. Moore read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated that the zoning is SR. The SR zone permits a maximum base density of one dwelling unit per acre, or 2/1 with the presence of community facilities. This Concept Plat proposes 128 lots on 64.89 acres, for a proposed density of 1.97/1, using CECO Utilities for water and sewer service.

However, the property is not located in an existing sewer and water service area nor is it located in a planned sewer and water service area. Therefore, the Master Water & Sewer Plan would need to be amended prior to final plat review by the Planning Commission.

A boundary line survey must be done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Dwellings or impervious surfaces shall not occur on slopes with a grade of 25% or more covering a contiguous area of 10,000 ft2 or more. On slopes between 15 and 25%, good engineering practices shall be used to ensure sediment and erosion control and slope stabilization before, during and after disturbance activities.

Slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the Preliminary Plat.

A 110 perennial stream buffer is required from all perennial streams present. This buffer shall be expanded to include contiguous areas of hydric soils, highly erodible soils, and soils on slopes greater than 15% -- to a maximum distance of 160.

A 25 buffer, expandable to 50 in Forest Retention Areas, is required around all intermittent streams. A 25 buffer is required around all non-tidal wetlands present. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland and stream impacts prior to recordation. A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) must be done prior to preliminary plat review by the Planning Commission.

A minimum of 15% common open space is required; 21%, or 13.8 acres, is proposed. No more than 40% of the common open space shall consist of those areas designated as nontidal or tidal wetlands and 15% of the common space shall not consist of perennial or intermittent stream buffers, nontidal wetland buffers, steep slopes or habitats of rare threatened or endangered species. As presently proposed, the common open space exceeds this requirement (44% or 6.12 Acres). These calculations must be included on the Preliminary Plat.

Twenty percent landscaping of the development envelope is required in the SR zone. Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of MD Route 213 and Childs Road. Rows of street trees are required, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of all internal roads.

Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements. In areas with community facilities, no street trees shall be planted within 20 feet of sewer laterals and cleanouts. Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) was approved on 12/22/03. The site is not home to any rare, threatened and endangered species. The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat. The Final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat. A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Deed restrictions for the long-term protection of the Forest Retention/Afforestation Areas (FRAs) must be recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation. The metes and bounds description of the FRA must be shown on the record plat.

Minor Subdivision 2609 must be referenced on the plat. The internal road names will need to be approved by the County 911 Emergency Center prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat. Sidewalks are recommended on at least one side of all internal roads. Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

The Development Summary and Typical Lot Layout must be revised to indicate the correct rear yard setback of 40.

Verification must be received from MDE and CECO Utilities that CECO is capable of serving, and that CECO has water and sewer capacity available for allocation, for the proposed development prior to final plat review by the Planning Commission. A public works agreement must be consummated with the DPW for the water and sewer facilities.

Documentation of all Public Service Commission approvals must be provided prior to Final Plat Review. Water supply and sewer service notes, consistent with Sections 4.2.13 (t) & (u) of the Subdivision Regulations must appear on the Final and Record Plats stating that such services shall be made available to all lots. A Traffic Impact Study is recommended prior to TAC review of the preliminary plat.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

Mr. Woodhull stated that A SWM Plan, Road and Storm Drain Plan, Sanitary Sewer Plan, Water Distribution Plan and a Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as-built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon.).

The downstream conveyance of stormwater must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance. If stormwater discharge is directed off of the site on to adjacent property owners it is the responsibility of the developer to obtain appropriate easements from the affected property owners per

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Section 251-13 of the Cecil County SWM Ordinance. Section 3.07.15 of the Road Code directs that Childs Road must be upgraded to a Minor Collector Standard for a minimum distance of 100 either side of the point of intersection between Childs Road and the proposed entrance. However, due to the width and condition of Childs Road the developer will be responsible for providing this upgrade to Childs Road from their western property line to MD Rte 213.

Sight distance measurements must be provided to the DPW to establish compliance with the Cecil County Road Code. The centerline of the proposed entrance and driveways must be marked in the field. Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the Owners expense.

The internal streets do not meet Road Code Standards. Cul-de-sacs must be 75 radius and both Latham Road and Keswick Drive must be constructed to Minor Collector Road Standard. Any applicable Road Code Variances must be requested prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat approval. All lots must access the least major road and be denied access accordingly. Lot 104 must be denied access to Latham Road, with the exception of the northwestern most 30 of road frontage.

Regardless of phasing, the department will not accept the internal roads until 80% of all the lots are complete, unless the developer includes a separate, dedicated construction entrance beyond the first phase of construction. The dedication note on the Final Plat for the ROW on Childs Road should read, 30 wide strip to be dedicated in fee simple to the Board of County Commissioners of Cecil County. for the 30 wide ROW indicated on Childs Road.

If the Planning Commission requires sidewalks, the Final Plats should include a note indicating that sidewalks maintenance will be the responsibility of the adjacent property owner, as required by the Cecil County Road Code.

This property is outside the service district of the Cherry Hill WWTF and may not hook up to it. It is understood that this development was part of the CECO Utilities water study and is consistent with it. The department recommends that any approval be conditioned upon demonstration to DPW of adequate fire flow and pressure. The water and sewer design must meet or exceed the countys standards.

The Department recommends that fire hydrants be space at no more than 600 maximum and at every intersection.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities. A PWA will be required for the streets and storm drains.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

Mr. Mortimer asked what the proposal to deal with the utilities was. Mr. Leonard stated that the developer was currently negotiating an agreement with CECO Utilities. The water system that was originally slated to serve the Pines of Cherry Hill was also sized going to include Wyndale and the rest of Manchester Park development. These plans are currently being reviewed by MDE and are slated to be approved by Spring 2004. The elevated tank is planned to be installed sometime in the summer of 2004. The sewage treatment capacity is permitted by MDE with an expansion plan of the plant; however, Wyndale was not part of the planning limits of that treatment facility and therefore have initiated a process to amended planning limits so that it can be served.

Mr. Mortimer questioned the space and density requirements. Mr. Pierce responded that they had not exceeded the open space and were just under the allowable density.

Mr. Moore asked if he had any communication with the Oblate Sisters.

Harry Hammond of Fair Hill, Chairman of the Board of Mount Aviat Academy, appeared in opposition of the proposal. He was duly sworn according to law and stated that Mr. Ault had contacted the developer back in September and asked if they could meet with them to discuss the project. The developer was also informed at that time that there were concerns about the inadequate buffer around the school. There are approximately 300 children enrolled at Mount Aviat. The school was told that a representative would be down to talk to them. The person never showed. The school received a hand delivered package last Friday which contained the project plan in it. There is a concern of density and traffic. Has a road study been done? Mr. Hammond asked the Planning Commission table the project until Mount Aviat Academy has a chance to talk with the developer.

Tom Minor spoke in favor of the proposal. He was duly sworn according to law and stated he had been in contact with Mr. Ault in the fall and again after the concept plat was completed at which time he dropped a copy off at the school. Mr. Minor stated that he has been in contact with Mr. Ault on several occasions including the evening prior to hand delivering the plat to the school at which time Mr. Ault informed him that he would be back in contact once he and the Mount Aviat Academy board reviewed the plans. Mr. Minor stated that in a previous conversation he had notified Mr. Ault that the developer would pay to have a 50 landscape buffer established between the two parcels. Mr. Minor had requested that they share the deed restriction 25 on each property but they would pay for all the landscaping cost. Mr. Minor also stated that this is only the concept plat and that there is plenty of time to sit down and address the issues with the school rather than table the issue at this point.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Mortimer asked, when he had contacted the school. Mr. Minor stated that it was at least two weeks ago. One week prior to the TAC meeting.

Ms. Kilby commented that the density issues are addressed at the concept stage. This is when density is addressed. Ms. Kilby spoke directly to Mr. Hammond that they have been working on some type of provisions that would influence developers to meet with community groups to iron out concerns.

Ms. Kilby asked Mr. Woodhall, concerning the engineers statement that they were working with MDE with respect to Cherry Hill plant not being up to capacity. Mr. Woodhall answered, that they were working with CECO, and, therefore, Cherry Hill would not be usable.

3. Pat McClary presented Francis H. Otenasek et ux (Lands of), Cassidy Wharf Road, Concept Plat, Michael Scott, Inc., First Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. McClary advised that this property owners are Frank and Courtney Otenasek. This is their primary residents although they currently working on an assignment in England. They have a total of 95.5 acres along the Sassafras River. They would like to subdivide the property into four parcels, in the hope that each child will someday have a home on this land. They have no intentions, at this time, of selling any property.

Mr. Moore read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning is SAR & RCA. The SAR zone permits a maximum base density of one dwelling unit per eight acres Bonus density eligibility is not being sought. This Concept Plat proposes four lots on 95.965 acres, for a proposed overall density of 1/23.99. A total of 88.163 acres are designated RCA. The RCA zone permits a maximum density of 1/20. The proposed density for the Critical Area portion is 1/22.04.

A boundary line survey must be done, for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat, for density calculation purposes.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 used to ensure sediment and erosion control and slope stabilization before, during and after disturbance activities. Any slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the preliminary plat.

A 25 buffer is required around all non-tidal wetlands present. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland impacts prior to recordation. The pond depicted by the vicinity map on proposed Lot 3 is also depicted on the official wetlands maps and the USGS quad map. A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) must be done prior to preliminary plat review by the Planning Commission.

The habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided. An environmental assessment must be submitted. No open space is required.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the SAR zone. As Cassidy Wharf Road is a local County road, a Bufferyard Standard C is not required.

Bufferyard Standard A is required along the lot lines of proposed Lot 1 to buffer adjacent agricultural uses. For subdivisions proposed on property contiguous to operating farms, notice shall be provided on the plat that an agricultural operation is being conducted on a contiguous property and said agricultural operation is protected from nuisance claims provided the conditions of Article I, § 4 are being complied with.

Rows of street trees are required, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of the proposed mini-road. Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements. Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

A 110 tidal wetland and tidal waters buffer shall be established in natural vegetation. This buffer shall be expanded to include contiguous sensitive areas featuring hydric soils, highly erodible soils on slopes greater than 15%, or areas of impact including streams, wetlands, or other aquatic environments.

No development is permitted in the tidal wetlands and tidal waters buffer, including septic systems, impervious surfaces, parking areas, roads, or structures. Therefore, if the buffers need to be expanded, one or more of the proposed building pad sites may need to be moved. For that reason, the topo and soils

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 information must be included on the plat submitted for Planning Commission review. No more than 15% of the surface area can be converted to impervious surface in the RCA. No more than 20% of the forest or developed woodland may be removed.

In the critical area, no structure shall exceed 35 in height.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) and Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) were approved 10/31/03. The area inside the Critical Area is exempt, per §3.2.B. Subsequently, the Environmental Assessment, as well as a revised FSD and FCP were approved on 12/23/03.

The Natural Heritage Letter indicates that the site contains two Habitat Protection Areas for thee rare species (Sandbar Willow, American Lotus, and a hemlock forest community). In addition, the Natural Heritage Service noted that three other rare species (Parkers Pipwort, Mudwort, and Spongy Lophotocarpus) are known to occur within the vicinity of the site. The Environmental Assessment indicates that the proposed development activities shall not impact any suitable habitat for any of the species.

A Great Blue Heron colony is located on the site, and the buffering required by state law is correctly depicted on the plat.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The mini-road name will need to be approved by the County 911 Emergency Center prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat. A Mini-road Maintenance Association must be established w/ all lot owners becoming members.

As previously noted, the name of the owner/developer must be included on the plat submitted for Planning Commission review.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 12 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Woodhull stated that a SWM Plan, a Street and Storm Drain Plan and a Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by the DPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include a note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDWP for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as-built shall be submitted to the CCDWP prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon.)

Section 2.13 of the Road Code must be adhered to for the construction of the private road. These requirements include a statement clearly outlining the responsibilities of the Mini-Road Maintenance Association in the maintenance of roads and storm drainage systems must be approved by the Planning Commission and placed on the final plat. The Department proposes the following note: (The proposed internal roads will not be dedicated for public ownership or maintenance. The Mini-Road Maintenance Association shall retain title to the road and all maintenance responsibilities.).

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

A PWA will be required for the extension of Cassidy Warf Road and the proposed Private Mini-Road.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

4. Joseph Brueckner presented Village of Cecil Woods, Preliminary Plat, Trilogy Investments, Request for a six month extension of the Preliminary Plat Approval, Fifth Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Brockner advised that they were seeking an extension of the preliminary approval. It has almost been two years, February 2000, since the project was first approved. The resolution to the Rte 40 sewer problem, is one major item holding the project up,

Mr. Moore read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated that the current zoning is MH and OS. The MH, or Manufactured Home, District permits a maximum base density of two dwelling units per one acre, or up to six dwelling units per one acre. if a manufactured home park, as stipulated in §s 30 and 78 of the Cecil County Zoning Ordinance.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 13 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The Concept Plat was approved on 11/18/01, conditioned on:

1) Road names being approved by the County 911 Emergency Center prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat, and

2) A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) being completed prior to TAC review of the Preliminary Plat.

This Preliminary Plat was approved on 2/19/02, conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) Department of Public Works requirements being met;

3) Sites 207-213 being referenced regarding an adjacent agricultural operation;

4) A modification to the bufferyard D requirement at the Wetland/Buffer Crossing location being granted, to reduce the width to 10 and to shift the road 5 toward the eastern property boundary;

5) The Cecil County Master Water & Sewer Plan being amended prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission;

6) The sewer capacity to serve these proposed sites being verified by the Department of Public Works prior to Final Plat review;

7) Water supply and sewer service notes, consistent with Sections 4.2.13 (t) & (u) of the Subdivision Regulations, appearing on the Record Plat stating that such services shall be made available to all sites;

8) The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan being approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat;

9) Verification that 15% of the required open space does not consist of perennial or intermittent stream buffers, nontidal wetlands or buffers, steep slopes, or habitats of rare, threatened and endangered species;

10) Receiving verification from MDE prior to Final Plat review that the proposed water system is capable of serving these proposed sites;

12) The title block indicating that this is a manufactured home park prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission; and

13) All references to lots being changed to sites prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission.

If approved by the Planning Commission, then this development will require that the existing manufactured home park license be amended to include the additional 103 sites.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 14 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) has been completed.

§4.1.17 of the Subdivision Regulations provides that Preliminary Plats shall be valid for two years from date of approval. Therefore, the Cecil Woods Manufactured Home Parks Preliminary Plat approval will expire on 2/19/04 unless and extension was granted. An extension of approval would prolong Preliminary Plat validity for one year.

§4.1.18 of the Cecil County Subdivision Regulations stipulates, The Planning Commission may, at their regular monthly meeting, grant an extension of the Preliminary approval upon application of the developer. In connection with such request, the Commission shall consider the following: a) Change of the green land use. b) Change in street or highway plan. c) Change in zoning or subdivision regulations.

There have been no such changes.

Mr. Woodhull stated that A SWM Plan must be approved by the DPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. A submittal substantiating the Flood Plain delineation must be made prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. A Street and Storm Drain Plan must be approved by the DPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval.

A Sanitary Sewer Plan must be approved by the DPW for the sewer improvements prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. Sewer capacity is not available at this time. The applicant must demonstrate that sufficient buildout capacity exists for the existing line along Route 40 (including consideration of other proposed projects) and the North East Interceptor must be upgraded before sewer allocation can be made for this and other similar projects along the corridor.

A public/private solution to this has been discussed with Mechanics Valley, LLC but has not yet been executed via an agreement with the Board of County Commissioners. As such, the timing is uncertain.

MDE is primarily responsible for the water system approval. However, a submittal must be copied to DPW for review given the paternal relationship that MDE may create for the County should the developer ever fail

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 15 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 to adequately operate the system.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

A PWA will be required for internal streets, stormdrains, sanitary sewers, and any private utility improvements.

Mr. Mortimer asked if the entrance was one section all the way back. Mr. Brueckner answered yes. It comes off the current community. There are two smaller cul-de-sacs.

Mr. Mortimer asked for a specific reason for the request for extension. Mr. Brueckner answered because they have come across two years and they were told that they cannot have final approval until Rte 40 sewer matter is concluded and two years has come and gone and the Rte 40 sewer matter has not been concluded. Therefore, they are captive.

Mr. Mortimer asked, what was the prognosis of this matter being concluded in the next year. Mr. Brueckner asked Mr. Kirk to help him answer this question. Mr. Kirk stated that it was uncertain but probable if the details are worked out with Mechanics Valley LLC. Mr. Kirks estimation is that other facets of the project would be looked at before the trigger is pulled on the agreement. If the agreement was executed the expectation is that it would take 18 months for design, permit and construction to begin.

Ms. Kilby asked Mr. DiGiacomo, if this project was approved would there be more mobile homes than usual. Mr. DiGiacomo responded that the reason for the proposal was to expand the Village of Cecil Woods Manufactured Home Park and that where there is a manufactured home park each park has to have a license which stipulates the number of units or sites. The proposal is for an additional 103 sites, therefore, that license would have been logged accordingly.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

5. Stan Granger presented Country Manor Estates, Principio Road, Preliminary Plat, American Engineering and Surveying, Inc., Fifth Election District

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 16 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Granger advised that he presenting the preliminary final for a mini road subdivision of Country Manor Estates. All comments have to address for the various agencies. The JD has been completed in the field although Mr. DiGiacomo has not received approval for location of the wetlands, in writing, which had been approved last week.

Mr. Moore read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning is NAR. The NAR zone permits a maximum base density of one dwelling unit of five acres.

The Concept Plat was approved on 3/17/03 at a density of 1/9.023, conditioned on: a) The boundary line survey being completed prior to TAC review of the Preliminary Plat, and b) The Jurisdictional Determination (JD) being completed prior to preliminary plat review by the Planning Commission.

This Preliminary-Final Plat proposes 5 lots on 45.103 acres, and is consistent with the approved Concept Plat. The boundary line survey has been done. Document of the JD has not been received.

The parcel shown in the vicinity map as Parcel 397 is shown as Parcel 378 on sheet one. That must be corrected on the record plat.

A 25 buffer is required around any non-tidal wetlands present. A 25 buffer is required along all intermittent streams. If an intermittent stream lies within a FRA, then it requires a 50 buffer.

Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland and stream impacts prior to recordation. A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) must be done prior to Preliminary-Final Plat review by the Planning Commission.

No common open space is required. No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 17 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Bufferyard standard A is required along the northern property line of proposed Lots 1 & 5. A 100 building setback is required. The setback is 25 for accessory structures. That bufferyard is labeled a 35 Bufferyard A. If it is to also serve as an afforestation area, then that should be clearly stated, so as to avoid any confusion.

For subdivisions proposed on property contiguous to operating farms, notice shall be provided on the plat that an agricultural operation is being conducted on a contiguous property and said agricultural operation is protected from nuisance claims provided the conditions of Article I, § 4 are being complied with. That notice, specifically mentioning Article I, § 4 must appear on the record plat.

Rows of street trees are required, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of the proposed mini-road. Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements. The standard bufferyard/street tree non-disturbance note must appear on the record plat.

The standard Forest Retention/Afforestation Area non-disturbance note must appear on the record plat. The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) was approved on 2/28/03.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary-Final Plat. A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The road name Floral Way has been approved.

A Mini-road Maintenance Association must be established prior to recordation with all lot owners becoming members.

The lot created via Minor Subdivision # 1606, shown as other lands of Otto M. & Greta E. Huegel must be denied access to the proposed mini-road, as has been noted.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 18 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Woodhull stated that a Street and Storm Drain Plan and a Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by DPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The plans have been reviewed and comments returned to the engineer.

All lots must become members of the Mini Road Maintenance Association and access from the mini road.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

A PWA will be required for the private road and storm drains.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

6. Will Whiteman presented Northwoods, Section 4, Lots 96 162, Razor Strap Road, Final Plat, Will Whiteman Land Surveying, Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Whiteman is requesting approval of Section 4, Lots 96 162 of subdivision, Northwoods. There is a typographical error under the owners certificate, which is shown on sheet 1. This error will be corrected.

Mr. Moore read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated that the zoning is RM. The original Concept Plat was approved February 1988. A second Concept Plat was approved 11/20/95 at a density of 3.23 units per acre, (.31 acres/dwelling unit).

The RM zone permits a maximum base density of two dwelling unit at one acre or six dwelling unit per one acre, when community facilities are available. This Section 4 Preliminary Plat proposes 67 lots on 19.939 acres, giving this section a density of 3.36 units per acre.

The Section 1 Final Plat was approved April 1990. It was signed on 4/29/92.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 19 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The Final Plat for Section 2 was approved December 1997, and signed on 5/27/98.

The Section 3 (Lots 39-95) Final Plat was approved on 12/18/00, and signed on 10/31/01.

This Section 4 Preliminary Plat is generally consistent with the approved Concept and other Preliminary Plats.

The Town of North East water allocation remains at 96 lots. Documentation of additional allocation must be produced prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission.

Fifteen percent common open space must be provided in the RM zone. If Section 4 is approved as is now proposed, then there will be a remaining balance of 2.4431 acres of common open space that must be provided with future sections. Open space must be labeled as common open space.

To be consistent with previous sections and their conditions of approval, sidewalks are required on both sides of all internal roads.

Rows of street trees are required along both sides of all internal roads. Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements. In areas with community facilities, no street trees shall be planted within 20 feet of sewer laterals and cleanouts.

The FSD was approved 11/29/95 and has expired. An extension was granted on 10/3/03. The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) was approved on 5/18/99. The FCP and the Landscape Plan were approved on 10/3/03. A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

Deed restrictions for the long-term protection of Forest Retention/Afforestation Areas (FRAs) must be recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation. The metes and bounds description of the FRA must be shown on the record plat. Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

The owners of these lots must become members of the Homeowners Association with $50.00 per recorded lot being placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 20 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Per the agreement executed on September 24, 1996 for Razor Strap Road improvements, $266.00 per lot must be paid to the Board of County Commissioners prior to recordation of the plat.

The surveyors name and license number must be deleted from the owners signature block on sheet 1. The wide margin must be on the left-hand side of the plat.

Is the AT&T access easement part of the common open space? Mr. Whiteman responded that it was part of the greenway, walking trail he was not sure if it has ever been discussed or negotiated. There was 16½ ROW which was enclosed into a 21 easement or ROW that was left as part of the open space. If so, then it must be labeled common open space on the record plat.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated that he received and email from Mr. Jensen, who was an adjacent property owner, who is concerned about access to his property through Northwoods. However, this section is not connected to his property.

Both the sewer mains and the roads and storm drains require as-built submittals per the Road Code.

The SWM for this section has been provided for in Section 2 of this development. A Road Code Variance was granted on April 10, 2003 for cul-de-sac bulb diameters. If the Planning Commission requires sidewalks, the Final Plats should include a note indicating that sidewalks maintenance will be required of the adjacent property owner, as required by the Cecil County Road Code.

A PWA will be required for internal streets, storm drains, and sanitary sewer.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

Mr. Whiteman commented on the access to an adjoined property owner. He believes that this will come up in the next section if they are granted approval of this section and eventually the next section comes up. Section 3 is just about built out. When the time comes to address the adjoining owners issue he is not sure how it can be addressed. Although he has contacted the Planning Office he has not contacted Mr. Whitemans clients. The area that actually access Mr. Jensens property does access property was done quite a while ago.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 21 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

7. Timothy Whittie, Dave Crowley and James Keeffer presented West Creek Village, Fletchwood Road, Revised Concept Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fourth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Whittie advised that the project before the committee was presented to TAC in December. The property is located at the intersection of Rte 272 and Rte 279. The property consists of two parcels, Parcel 316 which will consist of 234 parking units that will have access to Willow Drive. Parcel 175 will consist of 190 townhouses, 192 apartment units which have already been approved and construction of 288 new apartments units for a total of 904 units. Both parcels are zoned RM which is residential multi-family. Permitted on site based on density are 1226 units. A previous improved TAC plan for Parcel 175 had included 342 condos and 582 townhouses for a total of 924 units which is before the committee. There is also a proposal to construct a road connecting Fletchwood Road and Rte 277 to the existing apartment complex going through the center through West Creek Road so that the development will have two access points. One of the accesses is Willow Drive and the second, new access on Rte 277. West Creek drive will be public until it crosses Azalea Court at which time it will become a private road. Azalea Court is just before the crossing of the creek. There is a proposal to build a bridge or some other structure that will expand the wetlands and limit the impact on both the wetlands and creek. A Traffic Impact Study is currently being prepared. The developer is aware that there in order for the plan to proceed there will be a requirement for an upgrading to the pumping station. There approximately 230 remaining hookups that they can utilize.

Mr. Moore read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated that the zoning is RM.

A Concept Plat for Section 2 and a portion of Section 1, under the name Hardy Realty, was reviewed by the TAC on 9/4/02 and by the Planning Commission on 9/16/02 and 10/21/02. It was approved on 10/21/02 at a density of 7.4/1, conditioned on:

1) A Traffic Impact Study being complete prior to the TAC review of the Preliminary Plat;

2) The Traffic Impact Studys scope of work including a needs assessment of, and possible feasibility study for, an alternative additional point of access;

3) A Jurisdictional Determination being done prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat;

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 22 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 4) The internal road names being approved by the Countys 911 Emergency Management Agency prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat;

5) The open space sensitive area acreages being provided prior to the TAC review of the Preliminary Plat; and

6) Waiver of the stream buffer expansion in the Development District contingent upon satisfactory quantitative demonstration of water protection equivalent to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.

The West Creek Village Apartments Concept Plat was approved on 7/15/91. The Preliminary Plat was approved on 2/18/92 and 12/21/91; and the Final Plat was approved on 11/21/94. The Record Plat was signed on 2/23/95 (and revised on 6/4/96 and 12/13/00).

This revised Concept Plat (a consolidation and revision of those two projects) proposes a total of 904 dwelling units on (234 already exiting) on 83.90 acres. A 714 of the proposed dwelling units are apartments, at a density of 13/1; and 190 are townhouse units, at a proposed density of 6.5/1. The RM zone permits a maximum density of 12 dwelling units at one acre for townhouses and 16/1 for apartments or condos, with community facilities.

This design is consistent with §7.2.12 (e) (4) of the Subdivision Regulations with respect to the proximity of the proposed entrance to Persimmon Lane.

A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) is required prior to TAC review of the Preliminary Plat.

A portion of the Hardy Realty proposal was a condominium project. These units are proposed as apartments and townhouses.

A boundary line survey must be done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes.

Dwellings or impervious surfaces shall not occur on slopes with a grade of 25% or more covering a contiguous area of 10,000 ft2 or more. On slopes between 15 and 25%, good engineering practices shall be used to ensure sediment and erosion control and slope stabilization before, during and after disturbance activities. Slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the preliminary plat.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 23 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 A 110 perennial stream buffer is required from all perennial streams present. This buffer shall be expanded to include contiguous areas of hydric soils, highly erodible soils, and soils on slopes greater than 15% -- to a maximum distance of 160. There appear to be hydric soils (Hatboro silt loam and Othello silt loam) on either side of the stream, but only a 110 stream buffer has been shown.

Consistent with §174.1.b (1) (a) & (b), since this property is located in the Development District, as defined by the Cecil County Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission may waive the expanded buffer if evidence is provided that this design would provide the same level of water quality or better. Note # 13 indicates the waiver is being sought.

A 25 buffer is required around all non-tidal wetlands present. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland impacts prior to recordation. A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) must be done prior to preliminary plat review by the Planning Commission.

The habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided. Twenty percent open space or 16.78 acres is required in the RM zone. About 39% -- or 32.61 acres are proposed. Fifteen percent of the required open space shall not consist of perennial or intermittent stream buffers, nontidal wetlands or buffers, steep slopes, or habitats of rare, threatened and endangered species. No more than 40% of the common open space required shall consist of those areas designated as nontidal or tidal wetlands. Those thresholds must be provided on the Preliminary Plat submitted for TAC review.

All Phase III structures should be labeled or numbered for easy reference.

Consideration should be given to providing active recreational amenities in the areas of common open space. Twenty-five percent landscaping of the development envelope is required in the RM zone.

Sidewalks are recommended on both sides of all internal roads, as well as along Fletchwood Road.

Fire hydrant locations should be selected in consultation with the Department of Public Works and the Singerly Volunteer Fire Company. Consideration should be given to the installation of a dry hydrant on the proposed bridge structure over the West Branch.

The minimum distance between townhouse structures shall be 60 if the townhouse structures are face to face. No townhouse structure shall be closer than 20 to any interior roadway or closer than 15 to any off-street parking area excluding garages built into an individual townhouse unit.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 24 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Apartment buildings shall be set back at least 20 from all parking areas and internal roads(§29.4.h).. No apartment building can be constructed closer to any property line of the development tract than a distance equal to the height of the building(§29.4.d). The maximum length of an apartment building is 300 feet (§29.4.j).

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontage of Fletchwood Road. The 25 peripheral bufferyard is also a Bufferyard standard C.

Rows of street trees are required, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of all internal roads. Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements. In areas with community facilities, no street trees shall be planted within 20 feet of sewer laterals and cleanouts.

An adjacent property is shown zoned R-1. No such zoning classification exists. That must be corrected.

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

Some of the parking spaces are depicted partly on individual lots and partly on common open space. Those spaces should be located on one or the other, but not both. In addition, some parking spaces are depicted on two lots; that situation should also be avoided.

§176.2.a prohibits any common open space being used for parking. There can be common overflow parking areas, but they cannot be included in the open space total acreage. Maintenance of the common overflow parking areas will be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) for the Hardy Realty parcel was approved on 10/2/02. The locations of wetlands shown on this Concept Plat do not match up with those depicted on the approved FSD. Those discrepancies must be resolved prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Concept Plat.

The Phase I area could be considered exempt under §3.2M. That has not been noted however.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 25 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The Phase II areas that deviate from the West Creek Village Apartments Record Plat are subject to the Forest Conservation Regulations, as is Phase III.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The internal road names will need to be approved by the Countys 911 Emergency Management Agency prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat. It is recommended that the proposed West Creek Drive name be changed to West Creek Village Drive, to avoid confusion.

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments. Additional open space access between structures should be considered in the townhouse portion. As designed, most owners would take a long and circuitous path to their back yards. To move lawn mowers or grilles to the rear yards, for example, this is an inconvenient design.

In the Section II Phase III portion, a Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

The Record Plats shall contain a statement signed by the Health Department approving authority; to the effect that use of the community water supply and community sewerage system is in conformance with the Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan. The Record Plats shall also contain a statement, signed by the owner, to the effect that such facilities will be available to all condominiums and townhouses offered for sale.

Verification of water and sewer allocation must be received for each phase and/or section prior to the Planning Commissions review its Final Plat.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 26 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Whittie stated that the wetland delineation represent what they had went out and physically located. They felt that they had found some discrepancies in the one that had been previously approved and those issues will be resolved with the JD.

Mr. Keeffer informed Mr. DiGiacomo that he had not heard him mention that a revised FSD had been approved by his office. He went on to state that a FSD had been done on 1/13/04.

Mr. Woodhull stated that the following submittals, at a minimum, must be approved by the Department of Public Works prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval: a Stormwater Management Plan, a Street and Storm Drain Plan, a Mass and Final Grading Plan, a Sanitary Sewer Plan and a Water System Plan The Sanitary Sewer Plan must also reflect the proposed water line locations and all proposed fire hydrant locations. The Final Plat must include a note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A final lot grading plan has been approved by the Cecil County Department of Public Works for residential construction on the lots shown hereon. A site construction as-built, where required, shall be submitted to the Cecil County Department of Public Works prior to use and /or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon.)

DPW requires hydrants at each intersection (including Fletchwood Road) and along the internal streets at separation distances of no more than 600 feet. Because of the clustering of townhouses, consideration of closer hydrant spacing may be in order (although consultation with the Singerly Fire Company is recommended); alternatively, other consideration should be given to minimize the spread of a fire, given the close spacing of buildings.

The ability of the existing water distribution system, together with the proposed extensions, to provide adequate fire flow and pressure must be demonstrated through a comprehensive network model. A baseline study of the Meadowview Plant was commissioned and is currently underway. The Applicant will be responsible to update it.

Looped water mains must be designed to ensure adequate fire flow and pressure throughout the development.

The downstream conveyance of stormwater must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance. This includes analysis of the drainage ditches and cross culvert on MD 277.

Regardless of phasing, the Department will not accept the internal roads until 80% of all the lots are complete, unless the Developer includes a separate, dedicated construction entrance beyond the first phase of construction. Any applicable Road Code Variances must be requested prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat approval.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 27 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Cornus Court, as well as, an apartment building, several lots, and SWM Areas are immediately adjacent to the flood plain line, which has been graphically shown from the FEMA maps. In reality, the flood plain follows some (probably as yet undefined) topographic contour. Because they could potentially be within the floodplain, an engineering analysis must be completed to delineate the 100-year flood plain line by contour. A particular concern is that West creek Drive could be under water during a significant flood and could pose emergency response concerns.

If the Planning Commission requires sidewalks, the Final Plats should include a note indicating that sidewalks maintenance will be required of the adjacent property owner, as required by the Cecil County Road Code A request for water allocation must be submitted to DPW.

No wastewater allocation exists for this development at this time. The Meadowview Wastewater Treatment Plant has no unallocated capacity at this time. As such, no new connections may be made until system capacity is expanded.

The DPW can allocate 234 additional of the remaining 240 ELU allocated to and prepaid by West Creek Village Apartments. This allocation expires in 2006. An assumed 6 ELU will be withheld until flow measurements have verified maximum flows. We anticipate beginning a design-build project for the Meadowview WWTF in January/February 2004 with completion scheduled 18 months later at which point sufficient capacity would be available. It will be our recommendation to the Planning Commission that Concept Plat approval be granted on the expectation of service in approximately 2 years, but Preliminary Plat approval should only be granted for 234 new units until that time.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities. A PWA will be required for internal streets, storm drains, and sanitary sewer and water.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

8. Sunnybrook Estates, Section 4, Lots 75 85, West William Road, Final Plat, Northern Bay Land Planning Engineering & Surveying Corp., Second Election District

WITHDRAWN

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 28 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

9. Faron Pyles presented Montgomery Cecil Limited Partnership, Marley Road, Concept Plat, Northern Bay Land Planning Engineering & Surveying Corp., Fifth Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Pyles advised that the developer would like to move forward with the project but has been delayed because of issues with the public sewer to the project extending along Rte 40 to the North East interceptor. Therefore, he has requested an extension of the Concept Plat Approval. The project is proposed to develop 148 units served by public sewer and individual wells. There will be additional comments forthcoming relative to the new road codes.

Mr. Moore read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning is DR. The DR zone permits a maximum base density of one dwelling unit per one acre. With community facilities, a density of 4/1 is permitted.

The Concept Plat was approved by the Planning Commission on 3/18/02, conditioned on:

1) A Traffic Impact Study, including a signal warrant analysis for the Marley Road/ US 40 intersection, being complete prior to TAC review of the Preliminary Plat;

2) Road names being approved by the Countys 911 Emergency Center prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat;

3) Intermittent and perennial stream labeling and buffers being made consistent with the USGS Quad maps, and all intermittent streams being shown;

4) The JD being completed prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat; and

5) Verification being received from MDE that the SuperFund site on the east side of Marley Road will not have adverse impacts on the proposed wells.

The approved Concept Plat proposes 148 lots on 148.89 acres, for a proposed density of 1/1.01.

At issue today is solely the question of granting an extension of the Preliminary Plat approval.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 29 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 §4.0.9 of the Cecil County Subdivision Regulations provides that Concept Plats shall be valid for two years from date of approval. Thus, the Concept Plat approval granted on 3/18/02 is set to expire on 3/18/04.

Should the Planning Commission grant an extension, it will be valid for one year. At that time, if necessary, the applicant may again request a subsequent one-year extension of Concept Plat approval.

§4.0.10 of the Subdivision Regulations stipulates, The Planning Commission may, at their regular monthly meeting, grant an extension of the density approval of a Concept Plat for one (1) year upon application of the developer. In connection with such request, the Commission shall consider the following: a) Change in the zoning classification of the property. b) Change in the Zoning Ordinance. c) Change in the Subdivision Regulations. d) Change in the Comprehensive Plan. e) Change in the Critical Area designation of the property. f) Change in the Critical Area Program. g) Change in the Forest Conservation Regulations.

Critical Area changes are moot, and there have been no such changes as described.

Mr. Woodhull stated that a SWM Plan, Road and Storm Drain Plan, Sanitary Sewer Plan and, Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as-built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon.).

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

Sight distance measurements must be provided to the DPW to establish compliance with the Cecil County Road Code. These have been submitted by the applicant and are under review. Vegetative clearing will likely be necessary at both entrances. A knoll exists approximately 200 north of the southern entrance; this will likely have to be removed by the developer. Similarly, there is a knoll some half mile south of the southern

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 30 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 entrance that will become increasingly of concern with the significant added traffic on Marley Road and the Applicants Engineer must address it with a recommended solution.

The addition of 148 homes to Marley Road (95% of which will likely access the Route 40 intersection) will add an estimated 1480 daily trip ends to Marley Road. As such, improvements to Marley Road may be necessary and will be evaluated as the project continues to develop

Entrance geometry should be coordinated with DPW prior to significant engineering efforts. Accel/decel lanes will be necessary. Easements on adjacent lots may be necessary to affect entrance requirements.

The loop design presented in TAC for the northeastern corner of the development was considerably better from a perpetual maintenance perspective for the Department. The Department strongly prefers the previous layout.

All lots with access to a cul-de-sac street must be denied access to the main street; these include Lots 11, 21, 25, 41, 33, 77, and 93. Deny access to Lot 148 except for the northern 30 of frontage. Deny lot 72 on curved portion of frontage. Deny Lot 17 for Meadow Hall Road.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the Owners expense.

A school bus turnaround must be provided during the first phase of development.

The stream crossing should be required during the first phase of development to ensure that the connectivity will be achieved.

If sidewalks are required by the Planning Commission, the Final Plats should include a note indicating that sidewalks maintenance will be required of the adjacent property owner, as required by the Cecil County Road Code.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 31 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

In TAC, the Department required that the loop road connecting the two proposed entrances continue as a Minor Collector Standard throughout. Upon further evaluation, it may be permissible to transition from a 60 ROW to a 50 ROW at the western limit of Lot 93 and the western limit of Lot 21, with a 50 transition in pavement width. The applicant must address this in a substantiated Road Code Variance request.

A road code variance must be requested to resolve the inconsistency with the Road Code in that minor collector roads are not intended to serve the primary function of providing access to abutting properties.

Sewer capacity is not available at this time. The applicant must demonstrate that sufficient build-out capacity exists for the existing line along Route 40 (including consideration of other proposed projects) and the North East Interceptor must be upgraded before sewer allocation can be made for this and other similar projects along the corridor. A public/private solution to this has been discussed with Mechanics Valley, LLC but has not yet been executed via an agreement with the Board of County Commissioners. As such, the timing is uncertain.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

A PWA will be required for internal streets, stormdrains, sanitary sewers, and any private utility improvements.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

10. Michael Pugh and Michael Burchum presented The Chesapeake Club Fairway Links, Area H-1, Lots 128 187, MD Rte 272, Final Plat, McCrone Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Pugh advised that they been before the Planning Commission last month (December 2003). The discussion last month included the town commitment to supply water. They are returning this month with a new letter. They are seeking approval for the variety of sidewalk that is connected to the roadway so that they have the combined walking/biking trail. Mr. Burchum discussed the details of the walking/biking trail (Exhibit B) with the committee. He noted that there would be a 6 wide path on the smaller minor roads and 7 wide on the major collector roads. It will have a striped white line to segregate it from the travel lane. Per DPW the remainder of the sidewalk that goes through the existing Chesapeake Development along Chesapeake Club Drive is on the opposite side of the road. They have indicated that they can put a painted cross walk marking at the intersection for people to cross back and forth to get on to the other side.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 32 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Pugh replied that they were trying to make it more pedestrian and bicycle friendly than the standard sidewalk. The thought was that this would be better than having pedestrians, bicycles and golf carts in the normal street traffic.

Mr. Pugh added that DPW had suggested at last months meeting that they formally rescind their request for five sewer connections in Section G, the five lot subdivision on Ridge Road, which they have done.

Mr. Moore read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. Pugh asked for clarification on the HD notes. He stated that he believed that on this section they did not need to have the pump station engineering upgrade plans resolved. This is section is in context of the existing pump station. Mr. Carter stated that Mr. Pugh was correct.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning is RM. The original Concept Plat was approved 5/19/87 for 1440 units on 411 acres, for a density of 3.5/1. The RM zone allows for a density of 6/1 with community facilities.

A revised Concept Plat was approved 12/20/93, a subsequent revised Concept Plat was approved 6/20/94 (with no conditions), and the most recent revised Concept Plat was approved on 3/16/98. These revised Concept Plats have all adhered to the originally-approved density of 3.5/1, and they have reflected changes in only design, layout and structure types.

An Area H Preliminary Plat for proposed lots 110 -216 was approved on 5/20/02. A revised Concept Plat was approved on 9/16/02.

A revised Area H -1 Preliminary Plat for proposed lots 128 -186 and a portion of Area H was approved on 9/16/02, conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and landscape plan being approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat;

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 33 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 4) Water allocation being confirmed by the Town of North East prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission;

5) Sewer allocation being confirmed by the Department of Public Works prior to final approval; and

6) A variance for any private roads being obtained from the Board of Appeals prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Final Plat, or Chesapeake Club Drive being accepted by the County prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

This Final Plat is generally consistent with the approved revised Concept and Preliminary Plats.

One difference is that the revised Preliminary Plat proposed 59 lots, roadway, and common open space on 35.14 acres for a proposed density of 1.73/1. This Final Plat now proposes 60 lots, roadway, and common open space on 36.360 acres, for a proposed density of 1.65/1. within the maximum allowable density, as well as that of the approved revised Concept Plat.

Part of the increase in acreage is attributable to the fact that the area consisting of proposed lots 152 -154 was part of the Area H Preliminary Plat approval on 5/20/02.

The Preliminary Plat showed a golf cart path along the 15th fairway on some of the proposed lots on the north side of the proposed Bay Club Parkway. Those areas are now shown generally as forest conservation areas.

The road names Bay Club Parkway and Crescent Links Drive has been approved. Chesapeake Club Drive was accepted by the County in July, 2003.

Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland impacts prior to recordation. This proposal satisfies the general open space provisions of the RM zone. 10.297 acres, or 28.32%, is being proposed.

Sidewalks or walkways are recommended, in keeping with the designs of completed sections. Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of MD 272 and Shady Beach road. The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) and Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) were approved on 9/11/02.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 34 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The area consisting of proposed lots 152 -154 was part of the Area H Preliminary Plat approval on 5/20/02. The Area H FSD and PFCP were approved on 5/15/02. The Area H PFCP was revised and approved on 9/11/02.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and landscape plan were approved on 12/9/03. In areas with community facilities, no street trees shall be planted within 20 feet of sewer laterals and cleanouts. A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

Water allocation is confirmed by the Town of North East. Sewer allocation is confirmed by the Department of Public Works.

Mr. Woodhull stated that The SWM Plan and Road & Storm Drain Plan and Sewer Plan are technically complete. However administrative items remain outstanding; PWA for the storm drains and sanitary sewer and I&M Agreement for SWM.

The denied access for Lots 128 and 180 must be extended to the first 75 of Bay Club Parkway.

Sewer Allocation was granted on 1/14/04. .

Sidewalks were proposed for one side of the street and the pedestrian/bike provision of the Road Code has been proposed to meet the requirement of the Planning Commission. The pedestrian/bike path involves the paving of at least six feet of the shoulder adjacent to the travel way, together with striping and lettering. While the Applicant has proposed this substitution, the plans submitted for review do not reflect their use.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 35 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

A PWA will be required for internal streets, storm drains, and sanitary sewer. An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

11. Mike Pugh, Mike Burchum, David Meiskin and legal council Mike Lee presented Village of North East, Lots 1-709, Shady Beach Road, Preliminary Plat, McCrone Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mike Pugh advised that they are presenting a continuation of a project that had received Concept Plat approval in September 2002 for a 709 units, single family clusters age restricted community. The process that has been followed is under the cluster provision of the Cecil County Subdivision Regulations. The property being zoned SR yields a certain density per acre and the developers are clustering that number to maximize the amount of open space. The number of units is consistent with the SR base density would allow. David Meiskin, Principle of Windsor Management, and the developer of the property. Mr. Meiskin has very extensive experience in age constricted communities. Mr. Meiskin passed out a brochure (Exhibit C) on the Village of North East. The community is age targeted. The recreation center, pool, activities and trails are all designed for a certain age. These people walk together as opposed to in a line. Over 50% of this site will remain in its natural state (open space). These buyers are not looking for large sites. There will be a gatehouse (no guard) at the entrance to give that sense of security. Mr. Pugh noted that they are working with the members of the Elk Neck Trail Association in order continue through the property. The trail will be failed prior to coming back for final approval. The sewer is slated to be town. The developers are currently meeting with the Town of North East and at the same time they have applied for Ground Appropriation Permit in the event that water supply is private on site. Traffic studies have been performed on Shady Beach Road and meet with both DPW and Planning Zoning on the road issues.

Mr. Mortimer asked it they would try to work with Shady Beach Road as the traffic patterns change. Mr. Pugh replied yes. By final plat we will return with bench marks set up so that before traffic deteriorates from an acceptable level, corrections will be made at the developers expense.

Discussion followed concerning the pedestrian/bicycle

Mr. Burchum stated that the elevated water storage would hold 300,000 gallons of water with a standard five-leg elevated storage tank similar to the ones that you see around the town of Elkton. It will be approximately 140 tall.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 36 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Moore read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning is SR and NAR. In the SR portion, this Preliminary Plat proposes 707 lots on 354.77 SR zoned acres, for a proposed density of 1.99/1. The SR zone permits a maximum base density of one dwelling unit per one acre. With community facilities, a density of 2/1 is permitted.

The Concept Plat was approved at a density of 2/1 on 9/16/02, conditioned on:

1) The potential roadway connection being shown as an actual connection on the Preliminary Plat submitted for TAC review;

2) A boundary line survey being completed in the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes;

3) Roadway names being approved prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat;

4) The Preliminary Plat including the details of the proposed recreation center, parking, and recreational facilities as required in §291 and Appendix A of the Zoning Ordinance;

5) The Preliminary Plat including proper identification of the adjacent Old York Estates;

6) A variance for the private roads being obtained from the Board of Appeals prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat;

7) The Elk Neck Trail being identified clearly on the plat as to what it is and its location;

8) A stub being shown to the 33 acres in the NAR portion;

9) Shady Beach Road being designed and upgraded, by and at the cost of the developer, from their southern boundary to MD Rte. 272; and

10) A Traffic Impact Study being completed prior to Technical Advisory Committee review of the Preliminary Plat.

This proposal invokes the provisions of §6.1 of the Cecil County Subdivision Regulations regarding residential cluster development. As currently proposed for the SR portion, the project cannot be realized without community facilities.

The use of community facilities would require amendments to the Master Water and Sewer Plans prior to Final Plat review. The proposed water service area map will need to be amended. The proposed sewer service area map includes this parcel. The Final Plat must include the full details of one water system or the

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 37 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 other.

If the water source is the Town of North East, then verification of water allocation must be received from the Town, and the water service area agreement between the County and the Town must be amended to include this parcel, prior to Final Plat review.

Well locations are required to be shown on Preliminary Plats. If the water source is an on-site private system, then they must be reviewed by DPW and the Health Department prior to Final Plat review. They must be shown on the Final Plat.

Verification of sewer allocation must be received from the Department of Public Works prior to Final Plat review.

Water supply and sewer service notes, consistent with Sections 4.2.13 (t) & (u) of the Subdivision Regulations must appear on the Final and Record Plats stating that such services shall be made available to all lots.

The proposed lots and recreation center must be served by water & sewer systems approved by the Health Department.

A boundary line survey was done, resulting in a reduction of acreage (396 to 354 SR acres, and 33 to 35,6 NAR acres), a concomitant reduction in the number of lots (792 to 707), and the discovery that a portion of the property is located on the west side of Shady Beach Road.

Mr. DiGiacomo referred to a question from Mr. Walbeck concerning the boundary line. Mr. Burchum stated that he had resolved that question.

In the NAR portion, this Preliminary Plat proposes an area reserved for future development on 35.6 acres. The proposed S. Monet Avenue is shown connecting to it. S. Monet Avenue must be of sufficient width to

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 38 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 accommodate whatever traffic volumes are generated by the future development on the NAR zoned portion of the property.

A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was prepared and showed that one intersection would operate at level of service (LOS) F at full build-out. Staff recommends that the developer, prior to Final Plat review, work with DPW and SHA to determine 1) at what point of the build-out would traffic volumes trigger the unacceptable LOS (E or F), and 2) what specific improvements need to be implemented to bring the intersection to LOS D or higher (at full-build-out), as is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

With those determinations having been made and agreed to by the developer, DPW, and SHA, a Final Plat would then be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission. Staff will then recommend, as a condition of Final Plat approval, that no additional building permits be issued (beyond the number that would trigger the unacceptable LOS) until the completion of the determined and agreed-to intersection improvements.

With respect to Shady Beach Road improvements, staff recommends that the developer and DPW, prior to Final Plat review, determine and agree on 1) what specific improvements need to be implemented, and 2) when (in terms of the number of building permits) those improvements need to be implemented.

Then, as a condition of Final Plat approval, staff will recommend that no additional building permits be issued (beyond the established number) until the completion of the determined and agreed-to Shady Beach Road improvements.

Preliminary Plat information shows that proposed lot sizes range from 5,720 to 13,801 ft2. Slopes greater than 25% have been shown.

A 25 buffer is required around all non-tidal wetlands and intermittent streams present. A number of stream/wetland impacts resulting from roadway construction are depicted on the plat. Documentation of the JD has been received.

Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland impacts prior to recordation.

Fifteen percent common open space is required. 56.5% common open space is proposed, based on the 354 SR acres. The common open space sensitive areas thresholds are acceptable.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 39 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The Elk Neck Trail greenway has been depicted on the plat. It should connect with the proposed Rhodes Mountain Estates.

Twenty percent landscaping of the development envelope is required in the SR zone. Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontage of Shady Beach Road, as shown on sheets 2 and 4.

Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements. The FSD was approved on 9/11/02 and revised on 5/20/03. There are no habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species on the property, but there is FIDS habitat.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) was approved on 1/13/04. The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat (§6.3.B(1)(a), Forest Conservation Regs.). A landscape agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

A Variance application for private roads was denied by the Board of Appeals. Since a stub road (S. Monet Drive) has been shown to the NAR portion of the property, why isnt there connectivity to the proposed Rhodes Mountain Estate also zoned NAR? Mr. Pugh stated that they do plan to connect the area reserved for future development into this community. This is the develop corridor of the Comprehensive Plan. When you get to Rhodes Mountain you move into the agriculture area. Provisions have already been provided for connectivity to Chesapeake Bay Club along Chesapeake Bay Club Parkway, which is consistent with the interconnect of the development corridor and would not be necessary fir Rhodes Mountain. It is a typographic it is difficult to make the connection with Rhodes Mountain.

All public road names have been approved.

This proposal, in keeping with the creative and innovative designs encouraged for cluster development, includes adequate sidewalks and walking/bike paths, as well as walking and biking space on all roads. Staff

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 40 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 recommends that the walking/bike path along Vermeer Boulevard be changed to the west (or left) side of the road because of the high number of right turns anticipated at the intersection with Dali Avenue.

The adjacent Old York Estates has been identified on this submission.

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space, the clubhouse, common parking, landscape islands, and recreational facilities must be established prior to recordation. $50 per recorded lot must be placed in escrow for improvements to the common open space and landscape islands prior to recordation.

The recreation center, parking and recreational facilities are accessory uses to the proposed subdivision. A condition of Concept Plat approval was that the Preliminary Plat include the details of the proposed recreation center, parking and recreational facilities as required in §291 and Appendix A of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, a major site plan submittal was not required.

The particulars of those improvements have been included in this Preliminary Plat, but not in the detail required. For example, no lighting and landscaping has been depicted. Such additional site plan details must be included on the Final Plat. The issuance of a building permit for the recreation center will be contingent upon recordation.

Active recreation improvements should be included in the Public Works Agreement.

The North East Volunteer Fire Company has recommended a 10 water main; hydrant locations are acceptable. The details of the water tower have been give.

It must be noted that §6.1.5 (a) (b) & (c) of the Subdivision Regulations require strict compliance, as follows: a) Resubdivision shall not be permitted in cluster development so as to reduce lot areas below those permitted in the originally recorded Final Plat. b) The development of land within the cluster is permitted only in accordance with the approved site development plan on file at the Office of Planning and Zoning.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 41 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 c) The agreements concerning the ownership and maintenance of open space land shall be recorded simultaneously with the Final Plat.

Mr. Woodhull stated that the following submittals, at a minimum, must be approved by the Department of Public Works prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval: a Storm Water Management Plan, a Street and Storm Drain Plan, and a Sanitary Sewer Plan. The Sanitary Sewer Plan must also reflect the proposed water line locations and all proposed fire hydrant locations; it should be noted for the record that the CCDPW strongly recommends that the Project be served public water from the Town of North East.

If an on-site private system is proposed we recommend as a condition of approval that the system be designed in accordance with CC Water & Sewer Standards, and that it provide for future connection to the North East system. These connection points should be at both entrances and at the emergency access to Bay Club Parkway. The engineer must demonstrate that adequate fire flow and pressure is available throughout the system.

DPW requires hydrants at each intersection (including Shady Beach Road) and along the internal streets at separation distances of no more than 600 feet.

The SWM ponds proximity to recreation areas may need to be fenced depending on the slopes designed for the ponds.

Discharge form the SWM ponds will be of concern relative to concentration and redirection of run-off.

If any of the existing ponds are intended to be used for SWM control they must be surveyed and their hazard classification must be established.

Sanitary Sewer allocation has been granted conditioned on several factors (i.e. size of the Recreation Facility, the ability of the developer to convey sewage to Mauldin Avenue sewer lineetc.) The DelaPlaine Pump Station does not have excess capacity and will require upgrade or replacement at the Developers expense in total or in combination with other users. Set the manhole located on South Monet Avenue at the turnaround and provide a capped stub for service to the future development in the NAR Zone.

The sanitary sewer line beginning at Lots 296 & 297 on Sheet 3 and continuing through streams and wetlands is likely an unacceptable route. A feasibility Study must be done to determine that the proposed routing is in the best interest of the County. All sewer lines routed through common open space must be provided with a 12 wide stone access road along its entire length.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 42 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The Department is concerned by the proximity of houses on Lots 76 & 77 to the sewer line and we may have special requirements for that area. The engineer must demonstrate that conveyance is not feasible without the pump station proposed to serve 72 lots.

The Carpenters Point, Green Bank Pump Station may serve as a design standard for the 72-unit pump station proposed for Phase IX. The pump station serving the entire site must be sized to accommodate the future development in the NAR portion of the site.

Sight distance measurements must be provided to the DPW to establish compliance with the Cecil County Road Code. DPW recently measured traffic loads on Shady Beach Road and found an estimated 1,424 Trip Ends. The 709 proposed units would add in the order of 7,000 Trip Ends on average to the road. Shady Beach Road will not likely support the addition of some 709 additional homes without upgrade to Major Collector cross section. the Department recommends that the Planning Commission require upgrade of Shady Beach Road from State Route 272 as a condition of approval. It is recommended that the applicant complete deed research as soon as possible along Shady Beach Road to determine what fee simple right of way and/or road widening and utility easements already exist. At Final Plat Review, the Department will recommend that Shady Beach Road improvements be completed prior to issuance of Building Permits in excess of between 200 & 300 houses, but more research is needed to complete this recommendation.

All internal roadways that support more than 300 homes must be Major Collectors; all internal roadways that support between 50 and 300 homes must be Minor Collectors; only internal roads serving less than 50 homes may be Minor Roads. The Department strongly recommends that the ROW for South Monet Avenue be increased to Collector Road Standard (60) to accommodate the full potential of the Area for Future Development if it should be rezoned SR. This increased ROW would allow South Monet Avenue be built to the Minor Collector Standard required by the number of dwellings possible. Major Collector Standard R-8 must be included on Sheet 5.

The Bike /walking paths proposed are provided for in Section 4.05 of the Road Code. However, this substitution is allowed at the discretion of the Planning Commission. If accepted by the Planning Commission, all paths must be striped and denoted with appropriate lettering.

The proposed Emergency Access leading to the Bay Club Parkway needs to be defined in terms of access on to the road, roadbed structure, gate, and entry (keyed, pad lock, etc.). This Access must be identified on Sheet 1 of 7.

A PWA will be required for internal streets, storm drains, sanitary sewers, and the water if it is a private system. An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities. All construction

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 43 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 facilities onsite and off shall be completed at the sole cost of the developer.

No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

John Bolinsky, 986 Irishtown Road of North East, appeared in opposition of the proposal. He was duly sworn according to law and voiced the following questions:

1) Does it state in the Village of North East bylaws that three years down the road this community change its age restriction to an open community which would require more schools and school buses?

2) What does the annexation process mean to farmers?

3) If annexed could the zoning be changed on this land therefore allowing more houses to be built on the property?

4) If the property was annexed under the jurisdiction of the Town of North East would the farmers loose their right to farm under the county law?

5) How much run off will come off of the property onto the nearby farms?

6) Will the tree clearing come right up to Mr. Bolinskys property line? What will the setback going to be? Possibly 40?

7) Who will have jurisdiction of the Elk Neck Trails? County or will the county turn it over to the Elk Neck Trail Association?

8) There is a business on Shady Beach Road that uses horses on the trail. Who can be contacted in order to find out if horses will continue to be used? The business owners livelihood depends on putting horses on that trail.

9) If wells are drilled, they are looking at pulling approximately 150,000 gallons of water a day from the ground. That creates quite a cavity in the earth; how will this effective nearby residents?

10) If the water is drawn from there and put into a pipeline and send it up will that create a salt migration process from both sides of the peninsula.

11) Have any core or water samples been completed for halogenated organic carbons? Are there any organics, hazardous waste in the ground that we need to be concerned about?

12) The residents have white light noise shinning from the AT&T tower and another 368 tower that was recently constructed on Irishtown Road. Will still additional white light be installed on the water tower?

A discussion among the Planning Commission members, representatives of Chesapeake Club and legal representation followed concerning questions and concerns voiced by Mr. Bolinsky.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 44 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

12. Colora Springs, Lots 2-10, Colora Road, Concept Plat, McCrone Inc., Sixth Election District

WITHDRAWN

13. Mike Pugh and Mike Burchum presented Rhodes Mountain Estates, Lots 1-60, Irishtown Road, Concept Plat, McCrone, Fifth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Pugh advised that this is the land of George Spence. The principal access location is off of Irishtown Road. This property is continued from the Village of North East. This property is zoned NAR and is where we cross into the agriculture zone on the Countys Comprehensive Plan. We are presenting 60 units that we are clustering and asking bonus density consideration for. There is a border of common open space which buffers between the current property owners and the project. A considerable amount of open area has been reserved.

Mr. Moore read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated Zoning is NAR & RR. The NAR and RR zones permit a maximum base density of one dwelling unit per five acres. Bonus density eligibility carries with it a permitted density of 1/3. This Concept Plat proposes 60 lots on 180.79 acres, for a proposed density of 1/3.01.

Reference should be made to Minor Subdivision # 2724.

How will the adjacent Wells parcel be accessed? Could they be accessed through proposed Lot 1? Mr. Burcham responded that currently those two properties access the existing driveway, which is labeled Jessie Lane by a drive road sign off of Irishtown Road. With the proposal and the contingence area of Lot 1 coming all the way down to Irishtown Road they could provide access easement into the public street for access into those two properties. Mr. Pugh added that he did not know if you could require them to use it because it is owned by separate owners. Mr. DiGiacomo stated that there needed to be an easement on Lot 1, the large lot, which is technically considered open space (not common open space). If the amount of roadway could be limited the amount of roadway through the open space would be beneficial. This would provide a safety improvement by having them access the Rhodes Mountain Drive.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 45 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

A boundary line survey must be done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes.

Slopes greater than 25% must again be shown on the Preliminary Plat.

A 25 buffer is required around all non-tidal wetlands present. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland and stream impacts prior to recordation. A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) must be done prior to preliminary plat review by the Planning Commission.

The habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided.

This proposal satisfies the general bonus density eligibility requirements of the NAR & RR zones. The large lot and the common open space together comprise 60.66% of the total acreage. Are the landscaped islands acreages in the cul-de-sacs included? Mr. Burcham answered yes they are.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR & RR zones. Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the Irishtown Road frontage.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 46 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) has been approved.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat. The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat. A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

All road names have been approved except Marilyn Court. It must approved by the County 911 Emergency Center prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat.

Connectivity to the adjacent Villages at North East should be considered.

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

Covenants prohibiting the subdivision of the large lot must be recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

The existing pathway shown on the proposed common open space at the western edge of the property should be linked with the Elk Neck Trail greenway or other greenways if, feasible.

Mr. DiGiacomo asked Mr. Burcham if he had mentioned the question, from Mr. Walbeck, on the boundary. Mr. Burcham replied no and went on to state that he had received an email from Mr. Walbeck, via Mr. DiGiacomo, in reference to the property line on the open space on the adjoining Old York Estates which has

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 47 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 been clarified.

Mr. Pugh added in reference to Mr. DiGiacomos comment, as to the interconnect between Rhodes Mountain and Village of North East, the Village of North East is a self contained age restricted private community that is not in the same development corridor. It is not in the agriculture area and a subdivision that is total unrelated to the character of the Rhodes Mountain property. They continue to request that they not be required to make an interconnect between Rhodes Mountain and Village of North East.

Mr. Woodhull stated that A SWM plan, Road and Storm Drain plan, Sanitary Sewer Plan and a Mass and Final Grading plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as-built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon.).

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

Section 3.07.15 of the Road Code directs that Irishtown Road must be upgraded to a Minor Collector Standard for a minimum distance of 100 either side of the point of intersection between Irishtown Road and the proposed entrance.

Sight distance measurements must be provided to the DPW to establish compliance with the Cecil County Road Code. The centerline of the proposed entrance and driveways must be marked in the field.

The Department conducted a traffic count/speed study of Irishtown Road in 2001. The results indicate an existing ADT of 1,458 with nearly 35% of the vehicles exceeding the 40 mph speed limit.

The Department looked at Irishtown Road to carefully evaluate the roads ability to accommodate an additional 600 trips per day.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 48 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The Developer must evaluate edge control on the north side of Irishtown Road approximately 300 west of the proposed entrance and propose a remedy.

The Department assumes that the two dwellings located on Jesse Lane will continue to use this access point to Irishtown Road. If that is the case, adequate drainage must be provided under Jesse Lane in line with the existing roadside ditch. This new drainpipe must be connected to the existing down gradient driveway pipe and provide for drainage from the Lands of Eldreth.

The Department strongly recommends that the Developer provide these dwellings with access to Rhodes Mountain Drive. With this single entrance the Department foresees no additional road upgrades to Irishtown Road to what has already been stated. However, if the Developer wants to keep the Jesse Lane entrance they must re-grade Irishtown Road from Jesse Lane to approximately the location of the proposed entrance. This is required to improve safe egress from the Lane by reducing the over-vertical (crest) that exists at the site of the proposed entrance.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies; the owner; the designer; or DPW; utilities poles must be relocated at the Owners expense.

Some portion of Rhodes Mountain Drive, from Irishtown Road in, must meet Minor Collector Road Standards. Any applicable Road Code Variances must be requested prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat approval.

Regardless of phasing, the Department will not accept the internal roads until 80% of all the lots are complete, unless the Developer includes a separate, dedicated construction entrance beyond the first phase of construction. The dedication note on the Final Plat must read, 30 wide strip to be dedicated in fee simple to the Board of County Commissioners of Cecil County. For the 30 wide ROW indicated on Irishtown Road.

Lot Grading Plans for Lots 14, 19, 21, 28, 29, & 36 will need to give special consideration to stormwater impacts on down-gradient lots.

There appears to be a well-established swale or drainage way running down the backs of Lots 21-23 and proceeding through the likely building envelope for Lot 20. Special care must be taken to address this issue during design and construction.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 49 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

A PWA will be required for the streets and storm drains.

Mr. Mortimer asked if the gravel road behind the western lots use for emergency response vehicle. Mr. Pugh responded that it was the horse trail that Mr. Bolinsky was referring to. It was previously used for sand and gravel. It was not an easement. Mr. Burchum added that the gravel road was included in the open space perimeter to allow pedestrian access around the property. The common open space on the northern board will also be able to add to the meandering of the Elk Neck Trail.

Mr. Mortimer noted that an investigation should be made to make sure that Mason Dixon Sand and Gravel does not have a deed for this trail. Mr. Pugh stated that he remembered that Mason Dixon was allowed access specifically for the transport of sand and gravel, not for general purposes.

Mr. Pugh verified that the Lynch and Wells property, if connected to Rhodes Mountain, would not necessitate the improvement for regarding the Jesse Lane to the approximate location of the proposed entrance.

No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

John Bolinsky, 986 Irishtown Road of North East, appeared in opposition of the proposal. He was duly sworn according to law and stated that he owns 38 acres of a horse farm and border right up to the property. He and several of his neighbors have several concerns:

1) The water tables. Two years there was a drought. They are concerned with the proposed wells in addition to the potential of 150,000 gallons a day being used for the Village of North East. This will be draining their wells.

2) Sewage. At one septic system per house per 1.2 acres, that is a lot of sewage in an area that has had a lot of problems with perc. He concerned about getting sewage from the new development, which property slopes down into his property and an adjoining property.

3) Setback. He does not know what the set back is going to be in relation to how close to his property line. People need to be aware that he spreads manure. Are the houses going to 40, 60? Are all of the trees going to be taken out along the property line?

4) Traffic. Interested in seeing if the road will be widened. If the road will be widened will they loose property? Will the speed limit be reduced?

5) The trail crossing crosses at Mr. Bolinskys mail box. His farm is part of the Elk Neck Trail. Take into consideration some signs Trail Crossings.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 50 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 6) Access lane question.

7) Who will have jurisdiction of the Elk Neck Trails? County or will the county turn it over to the Elk Neck Trail Association?

9) Are there plans for annexation for Rhodes Mountain in addition to the Village of North East?

10) If this is annexed will he loose his right to farm? Will he be unable to increase his herd?

Mr. Burcham spoke on the tree issue, via the plat.

A discussion among the Planning Commission members, representatives of Rhodes Mountain and legal representation followed concerning questions and concerns voiced by Mr. Bolinsky.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 51 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

ITEM B DECISIONS

1. Pines at Cherry Hill, Section 1; Lots 1-9, 31 38, 47 -54, 69 70 and 84 -90, Cherry Hill Road, Final Plat, Site Resources, Third Election District

Motion made by Farrell, seconded by Prickett

Granting of a One-Year Extension of Preliminary Plat Approval

2. Wyndale Farm, Childs Road, Concept Plat, Frederick Ward Associates, Third Election District

Motion made by Prickett to table, seconded by Farrell

Motion made by Prickett to withdraw table, seconded by Mortimer

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Prickett and unanimously carried to approve with conditions.

1) A boundary line survey being completed prior to completion of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes;

2) A JD being completed prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat;

3) Minor subdivision # 2609 being referenced;

4) A traffic impact study being completed prior to TAC review of the preliminary plat

5) The developer will meet with the school, prior to the Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat The results of the conversations will be recorded prior to the review of Preliminary Plat by the Planning Commission.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 52 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

3. Francis H. Otenasek et ux (Lands of), Cassidy Wharf Road, Concept Plat, Michael Scott, Inc., First Election District

Motion made by Prickett, seconded by Mortimer and unanimously carried to approve with conditions:

1) A boundary line survey being completed prior to completion of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes;

2) A JD being completed prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat;

4. Village of Cecil Woods, Preliminary Plat, Trilogy Investments, Request for a six month extension of the Preliminary Plat Approval, Fifth Election District

Motion made by Farrell, seconded by Mortimer and unanimously carried to approve with conditions.

APPROVAL of the request for a one-year extension of the Preliminary Plat.

5. Country Manor Estates, Principio Road, Preliminary Plat, American Engineering and Surveying, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Farrell and unanimously carried to approve with conditions.

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) Deed restrictions for the long-term protection of the Forest Retention/Afforestation Areas (FRAs) being recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation. The metes and bounds description of the FRA must be shown on the record plat;

4) The standard bufferyard/street tree non-disturbance note appearing on the record plat;

5) The standard Forest Retention/Afforestation Area non-disturbance note appearing on the record plat;

6) All Forest Retention/Afforestation Areas being clearly labeled on the record plat;

7) The mislabeling of parcel 379 being corrected on sheet 1 of the record plat;

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 53 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 8) A Mini-road Maintenance Association being established prior to recordation with all lot owners becoming members.

9) A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

10) The contiguous operating farm notice, specifically mentioning Article I, § 4, appearing on the record plat;

11) Documentation of the JD being received by the Office of Planning and Zoning prior to Recordation.

6. Northwoods, Section 4, Lots 96 162, Razor Strap Road, Final Plat, Will Whiteman Land Surveying, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Farrell, seconded by Prickett and unanimously carried to approve with conditions.

1) Health Department requirements being met,

2) Department of Public Works requirements being met,

3) $266.00 per lot being paid to the Board of County Commissioners per the agreement executed on September 24, 1996 for Razor Strap Road improvements prior to recordation of the plat,

4) The owners of these lots becoming members of the Northwoods Homeowners Association with $50.00 per recorded lot being placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation,

5) A Landscape Agreement, which must include surety for off-site afforestation, being executed prior to recordation,

6) Sidewalks being provided on both sides of the internal roads,

7) Street trees being provided on both sides of the internal roads,

8) The surveyors name and license number being deleted from the owners signature block on all sheets of the record plat; and

9) The wide margin being on the left-hand side of the record plat.

10) The AT&T easement being labeled as common open space.

7. West Creek Village, Fletchwood Road, Revised Concept Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fourth Election District

Motion made by Farrell, seconded by Mortimer and unanimously carried to approve with conditions.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 54 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 1) A Traffic Impact Study being complete prior to the TAC review of the Preliminary Plat;

2) A Jurisdictional Determination being done prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat;

3) The internal road names being approved by the Countys 911 Emergency Management Agency prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat;

4) The open space sensitive area acreages being provided prior to the TAC review of the Preliminary Plat;

5) Waiver of the stream buffer expansion in the Development District being approved upon determination of improvement of water quality specified in the ordinance;

6) Sidewalks being installed on both sides of all internal roads and along Fletchwood Road;

7) The depicted R-1 zoning being corrected on the Preliminary Plat;

8) A boundary line survey for density calculation purposes being complete prior to Preliminary Plat review; and

9) All proposed Phase III structures being labeled or numbered on the preliminary Plat, for easier reference.

10) If not done already the elevation from the west branch road study being included on the Preliminary Plat

8. Sunnybrook Estates, Section 4, Lots 75 85, West William Road, Final Plat, Northern Bay Land Planning Engineering & Surveying Corp., Second

Election District

WITHDRAWN

9. Montgomery Cecil Limited Partnership, Marley Road, Concept Plat, Northern Bay Land Planning Engineering & Surveying Corp., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Farrell, seconded by Mortimer and unanimously carried to approve with conditions.

Granting of a One-Year Extension of Preliminary Plat Approval

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 55 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 10. The Chesapeake Club Fairway Links, Area H-1, Lots 128 187, MD Rte 272, Final Plat, McCrone Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Farrell, seconded by Mortimer and unanimously carried to approve with conditions.

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) A Landscape Agreement being executed prior to recordation;

4) Deed restrictions for the long-term protection of the Forest Retention/Afforestation Areas (FRAs) being recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation. The metes and bounds description of the FRA must be shown on the record plat;

5) The owners of these lots becoming members of the Homeowners Association with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation OR A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space being established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation;

6) Sidewalks or walkways, in keeping with the items that were submitted today being included.

11. Village of North East, Lots 1-709, Shady Beach Road, Preliminary Plat, McCrone Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Prickett and unanimously carried to approve with conditions.

1) Heath Department requirements being met;

2) Department of Public works requirements being met;

3) The walking/bike path along Vermeer Boulevard being changed to the west (or left) side of the road because of the high number of right turns anticipated at the intersection with Dali Avenue;

4) The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan being approved prior to Final Plat review;

5) The Final Plat including the remaining details of the proposed recreation center, parking, and recreational facilities as required in §291 and Appendix A of the Zoning Ordinance;

6) The developer, DPW, and SHA, prior to Final Plat review, determining 1) at what point of the build-out would traffic volumes trigger the unacceptable LOS (E or F), and 2) what specific improvements need to be implemented to bring the intersection to LOS D or higher (at full-build-out), as is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan;

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 56 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 7) The developer and DPW, prior to Final Plat review, determining and agreeing on 1) what specific Shady Beach Road improvements need to be implemented, and

2) when (in terms of the number of building permits) those improvements need to be implemented;

8) If the water source is the Town of North East, then verification of water allocation being received from the Town, and the water service area agreement between the County and the Town must be amended to include this parcel, prior to Final Plat review.

9) If the water source is an on-site private system, then verification that the proposed water system is capable of serving these proposed lots and recreation center being received from MDE and documentation of all approvals for the system and the operator required by the Public Service Commission must be submitted prior to Final Plat review;

10) If the water source is an on-site private system, then its being reviewed by DPW and the Health Department prior to Final Plat review. The details of any on-site private water system must be shown on the Final Plat;

11) The required amendments to the Master Water and Sewer Plans being complete prior to Final Plat review;

12) Verification of sewer allocation being received from the Department of Public Works prior to Final Plat review;

13) S. Monet Avenue being of sufficient width to accommodate whatever traffic volumes are generated by the future development on the NAR-zoned portion of the property;

14) The Elk Neck Trail greenway connecting with the adjacent, proposed Rhodes Mountain Estates;

15) The name will be hence forward The Villages at North East

16) All issues being resolved and questions answered relative to the greenway and Elk Neck Trail prior to Final Plat review.

12. Colora Springs, Lots 2-10, Colora Road, Concept Plat, McCrone Inc., Sixth Election District

WITHDRAWN

13. Rhodes Mountain Estates, Lots 1-60, Irishtown Road, Concept Plat, McCrone, Fifth Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Prickett and unanimously carried to approve with conditions.

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 57 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 1) A boundary line survey being completed prior to completion of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes;

2) A JD being completed prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat;

3) Minor subdivision # 2724 being referenced;

4) The zoning being corrected on the Lands of Wells;

There were no further comments.

Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

NEXT MEETING: February 17, 2004 at 12:00 p.m. in the County Administration Building

January 22, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 58 February 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m.

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Subdivisions)

PRESENT: Brown, Baynes for (Campbell), Carter, DiGiacomo, Kilby, Moore, Mortimer, Murray, Sennstrom, Walbeck, Williams, Woodhull, and Jones

ABSENT: Campbell, Farrell and Prickett

MINUTES: Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Brown, and unanimously carried to approve the January 22, 2004, minutes as mailed, with a correction noting that the January 2004, 1:00 p.m., Planning Commission meeting was chaired by Vice-Chairman Brown, in the absence of Chairman Walbeck.

1. Pines at Cherry Hill, Section 1, 2 & 3, Molitor Road and Cherry Hill Road, Final Plat, Site Resources Inc., Third Election District

WITHDRAWN

2. Mike Pugh and Mike Estes presented Racine Estates at the Villages at Elk Neck, Section 2, Lots 7-12, 14-17 and 19-21, Racine School Road, Final Plat, Northern Bay Land Planning Engineering & Surveying Corp., Fifth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Pugh advised the Planning Commission that they were seeking final plat approval for the third section of Racine Estates. Racine consists of approximately 500 acres, housing a variety of single family dwellings. The construction of the Village of Elk Neck began in the early 90s. All issues have been addressed.

February 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 59 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated that the zoning was NAR. The NAR zone permits a maximum base density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. Bonus density eligibility carries with it a permitted density of 1/3.

The current Concept Plat for the Villages of Elk Neck, which proposed 12 lots on 84 acres in the NAR zoned portion of the project (approved density of 1/7) and 182 lots on 316 acres (with 80.5 acres of common open space) in the SR-zoned portion (approved density of 1/1.7), was approved on 11/15/99, conditioned on:

1) That a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) be reviewed prior to Preliminary Plat review by the Technical Advisory Committee

2) That at least one stub road be extended to Forest Knoll (If a second stub is extended to Forest Knoll beyond what was required in Forest Knolls conditional approval, then that should be coordinated

3) That a looped road for common access to Racine School Road, from lots 8-19 be added

4) That a jurisdictional determination be done by the Corps of Engineers prior to Preliminary Plat review by the Planning Commission

The Preliminary Plat, which proposed 15 lots on 87.22 acres, for a proposed density of 1/5.8, was approved on 1/21/03, conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met

2) DPW requirements being met

3) The FCP and Landscape Plan being approved prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Final Plat

4) The adjacent agricultural use note being added to the plat, and the ag buffer and setback being depicted on the Final Plat

5) The FRAs on the FCP and Final Plat matching up

This Final Plat proposes 13 lots and 2 areas reserved by owner corresponding to previously proposed Lots 13 and 18. The Data Column erroneously states that only 12 lots are proposed for this section. That must be corrected on the Record Plat. Otherwise, this Final Plat is generally consistent with the approved Concept and Preliminary Plats.

February 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 60 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 All proposed lots, other than lot 7, must be denied direct access onto Racine School Road. The area reserved by owner that was previously proposed as Lot 13, should it subsequently be submitted as a Final Plat, shall also be denied direct access onto Racine School Road.

Per the approved Concept Plat, the common open space provisions of the NAR zone will be satisfied in the SR portion of the project. All common open space in the SR zone will be subject to the sensitive areas thresholds, per §s 176.2.c and 176.2.d of the Cecil County Zoning Ordinance.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone. Rows of street trees are required along both sides of all internal roads.

Bufferyard Standard C is required along the Racine School Road road frontages. The Bufferyard Standard A issue is now moot. The adjacent Holt farm is under review for subdivision, the forest retention areas would exceed the natural vegetative equivalent of a Bufferyard A, and all of the proposed dwelling locations are set back 100 or more from the pertinent property lines.

Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may also be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements, but field verification will need to take place. The wetlands must not be disturbed.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) was approved on 7/24/94, and extended for five years on 10/4/99. The site contains FIDS habitat. The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) was approved 1/15/03. The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan have not been approved. A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The owners of these lots must become members of the Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space, with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

Separate mini-road maintenance associations must be created with the owners of all lots and areas reserved by owner accessing the respective mini-roads becoming members. The roads must be labeled as mini-roads on the record plat.

February 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 61 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Woodhull stated that the plans for this project had been technically approved with only administrative items and minor changes outstanding.

The Forest Retention boundary line shown on Sheet 4 must be modified to reflect the drainage swale on Lots 7 and 8.

The lot grading note must be modified to include the following: Any change to the Forest Retention, Aforestation, Reforestation areas will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW. The Lot Grading Plan must include a note saying, No clearing or grading is permitted beyond the limits of disturbance show hereon. Any expanded clearing and/or grading in the absence of an approved revised lot grading plan may be considered non-compliance with Chapter 251 of the Cecil County Code and either or both the developer and/or Builder may be subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

Mr. Walbeck expressed a concern with the condition of Racine School Road when the project was introduced five years ago. Mr. Woodhull stated that he was familiar with more recent discussions. He went on to explain that currently there is 100 on either side prior to the mini-road entrance. DPW and the developer are presently in conversation on what will be done for entirety of Racine School Road. Mr. Woodhull also noted that there was no reason to hold up the plans at this time for this issue.

3. Donnie Sutton presented Susquehanna River View, Lots 1 39, Liberty Grove Road, McCrone, Inc., Final Plat, Seventh Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Sutton stated that the final plat before the committee was a continuation of the Susquehanna subdivision that had already been approved and recorded. Susquehanna River is an extension of Woodrow Land and McCormick Drive. The different names are the result of a change in ownership of the property. The subdivision contains two cul-de-sac roads and one private mini road for access of the various lots along Zachary Joseph Court. This is a continuation of the approved concept plat from which bonus density approval was give by the Planning Commission. Some adjustments have been made based on the engineering design of the lay out.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

February 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 62 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. DiGiacomo stated that the zoning is NAR. The NAR zone permits a maximum base density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, or bonus density of 1/3.

The Concept Plat was approved on 12/17/01 with a bonus density of 1/3, conditioned on:

1) The sensitive species survey being completed prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat and

2) The relocation of Lot #32 occurring and being placed next to the then-current Lot #30.

The Preliminary Plat for proposed Lots 1-22 & 24-39 was approved on 5/20/02, conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met

2) Department of Public Works requirements being me;

3) A Homeowners Association being established for maintenance of common open space and turn-around and cul-de-sac islands with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation

4) A Maintenance Association for the lots accessing the mini-road being established and those lots becoming members of that association

5) Deed restrictions for long-term protection of the forest retention areas being recorded prior to recordation of the plat. The metes and bounds description of the FRA must be shown on the record plat

6) The Forest Conservation Plan being approved prior to Final Plat review

7) The Landscaping Plan being approved prior to Final Plat review

8) A Landscape Agreement being executed prior to recordation

9) Covenants prohibiting the subdivision of the large lot being recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation

10) All tree lines on the FSD, the FCP, and the Final Plat matching; and

11) The Susquehanna 2 record plat being signed prior to final plat approval of Susquehanna Riverview

The Preliminary Plat for proposed Lot 23 was approved on 5/19/03, conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met

2) Department of Public Works requirements being met

February 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 63 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 3) The Forest Conservation Plan being approved prior to Final Plat review

4) Any Landscaping Plan being approved prior to Final Plat review

5) Any Landscape Agreement being executed prior to recordation

This Final Plat is generally consistent with the approved Concept and Preliminary Plats.

The open space requirements have been satisfied.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) and PFCP have been approved. The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and possible Landscape Plan have been approved.

The Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

A Homeowners Association must be established for maintenance of common open space and turn-around and cul-de-sac islands, with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation. All lot owners must become members.

A mini-road maintenance association must be created prior to recordation with the owners of all lots accessing Zachary Joseph Court becoming members.

February 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 64 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 A GAP for 39 lots has been issued.

Because this proposed subdivision will be accessed through Susquehanna, the Susquehanna Section II record plat must be signed (because of the Public Works Agreement) prior to this subdivisions Final Plat approval.

As noted, there can be no further subdivision of proposed Lot 39.

Mr. Woodhull stated that all required submittals are currently under review with only minor issues and administrative items outstanding.

Lots 6 and 11 must be denied access to Woodrow Lane and so indicated on the plats.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

Mr. Walbeck commented that there was a need to make provisions for access to the heavily wooded common open space located at Woodrow Lane and the boundary line at Susquehanna development. Mr. Sutton replied that this area is not included in the forest retention and therefore they will have the availability to cut a path through that area. Mr. Walbeck noted that the path would need to extend through the end of the trees. Mr. Walbeck also questioned the width of the path in the event that emergency vehicles would need to gain access.

4. Mike Burcham and Barry Montgomery presented Montgomery Oaks, Section 1, Phase 2, Lots 10-22 and 45-48, Bailiff Road, Final Plat, McCrone Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Burcham stated that he was representing the Barry Montgomery Company. The plat before the Planning Commission reflects the remainder of Section 1, Phase 2 of the Montgomery Oak subdivision. This subdivision is located on the north side of Bailiff Road just south of the Bayview area. This plat is for the remaining 17 lots on Pine Cone Drive. The original Preliminary Plat was approved in October of 1992. Several final and record plats have been generated over the years. Water allocation has become available from the Town of North East. Final approval was awarded for Lot 45 in November of 2003 from the Planning Commission. Given that the water allocations has been received for all of the lots on the plan the applicant would like to record all lots at one time including Lot 45. This will allow the applicant to record all the lots in Section 1, Phase 2

February 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 65 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 simultaneously.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated that the zoning is DR. Since Preliminary Plat approval in 1992, a new Cecil County Zoning Ordinance has been adopted. This property, formerly known as Piney Ridge Estates, was zoned R2 in 1992, which permitted a density of 1 dwelling unit per one acre, or 4 to 1 in locations with community facilities, which is consistent the current DR zoning. This proposed lot has water allocation from the Town of North East.

The Concept Plat was approved 9/21/92. The Preliminary Plat was approved 10/19/92.

This Final Plat proposal is generally consistent with the approved Concept and Preliminary Plats for Montgomery Oaks, Section 1, Lots 1-61. The Final Plat approval for Lots 1-9, 31-44, and 55-61 was approved on 9/20/93. Those 30 lots were recorded in November 1994. The Final Plat for Lot 30 was approved 6/17/96. Lot 30 was recorded in August 1996.

Each time a Final Plat is recorded off an approved Preliminary Plat, it extends the Preliminary Plat approval for 2 years from the date of recordation. Therefore, the Preliminary Plat was set to expire in August 1998. However, the Planning Commission extended the Preliminary Plat approval on 7/20/98 for one year.

The Planning Commission again extended approval of the Preliminary Plat for one year on 6/21/99 (set to expire July 1999), conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met, and

2) Department of Public Works requirements being met. Specifically, as built drawings of existing conditions relative to stormwater management being submitted to the Department of Public Works, and the Department of Public Works approving those as built drawings and the necessary site improvements being accomplished prior to any further extensions of Preliminary Plat approval being granted or any Final Plat being approved.

The Final Plat for Section 1, Phase II, Lot 54 was approved on 5/15/00. It was signed on 10/4/00. That kept the Preliminary Plat valid until 10/4/02. The Final Plats for Section 1, Phase II, Lots 23-28, 49-50, and 51-53 were signed on 3/21/02. Therefore, the 6/21/99 Preliminary Plat extension with conditions is still valid until 3/21/04.

February 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 66 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The Final Plat for Lot 45 was approved on 11/17/03. It was not recorded. Rather, proposed Lot 45 has been included in this Final Plat. Preliminary Plat validity will expire unless it is recorded prior to 3/20/04.

This proposal satisfies open space provisions of the DR zone because it is part of an approved Preliminary Plat that provides for 43% open space.

A Landscape Plan including street trees was previously approved. In areas with community facilities, no street trees shall be planted within 20 feet of sewer laterals and cleanouts. A Landscape Agreement for street trees must be executed prior to recordation. Sidewalks are required.

The owner(s) of these lots must become a member of the Homeowners Association which was established for maintenance of common open space, with $50 for this lot placed in escrow prior to recordation, for improvements.

The Town of North East has verified the Water Allocation.

Mr. Woodhull stated that all technical requirements of the Department of Public Works have been met.

The PWA for the roads and storm drains included acceptance before Recordation of Final Plat in lieu of bonding for the surety required. As such the CCDPW will not sign the Final Plat until the required work has been accepted as complete by our Inspection Staff.

Sewer Allocation for these lots has been granted.

Mr. Walbeck reminded the applicant that the Preliminary Plat approval would expire next month, March 2004.

February 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 67 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Mortimer asked Mr. Woodhull for clarification on his comment about signing off on the Final Plat. Mr. Woodhull explained that there were two methods of providing surety for PWA. One is bonding and the other is not signing off on the Final Plat until all work is completed and accepted by the DPW. Signing off was the original choice used for this project, however at any point in time you could change to a bond.

Discussion followed concerning the roads.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

5. Faron Pyles and Randy Hutton presented Sunnybrook Estates, Section 4, Lots 75 85, Williams Road, Final Plat, Northern Bay Land Planning Engineering & Surveying Corp., Second Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Pyles advised the committee that Mr. Hutton was the property owner of the remaining land on the plat. The final plat before the committee was very much in conformance with the prior Preliminary Plat submitted. The applicants were requesting Final Plat approval with consideration of the following conditions. One condition involves 1.407 acres of open space located just west of the pond, at the rear of Lots 75 77. When the original plat was prepared some type of stormwater structure had been anticipated. As they moved into the design they were able to meet the requirements of the stormwater design manual by other means and the facility was not necessary. Mr. Hutton had agreed to provide the needed open space with the assumption that it could be used for a stormwater facility. That not being the case now, Mr. Hutton would like to see the open space not included as part of this plan. Mr. Hutton was not aware of this situation prior to this plan being submitted for Planning Commission. The applicants would like the 20 access strip that runs between Lots 75 and 76 included in the acreage of Lot 75 and the common open space that adjoins the pond eliminated. Even with the elimination of the 1.407 area of open space, the net acreage of open space shown on the approved Concept Plat was exceeded by 1.5 acres.

Mr. Hutton is concerned with current safety issues in relation to trespassers and the pond. Mr. Pyles noted that a 44 strip would need to be added to the rear of the houses on Lots 76 and 77 in order to maintain a 100 agriculture setback. In his opinion changes in the existing landscape plan could be review administratively by the Planning Office if the Planning Commission were to permit conditional approval based on the revision.

February 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 68 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The second issue was to request that Note #9, which states that future subdivisions were prohibited on the remaining Lands of Hutton, be removed. The Concept Plat for this property was approved on March 21, 1989, which was prior to the current zoning ordinance going into effect. This makes the approval of this concept plat valid since 1989. Mr. Hutton was at no time aware that his remaining lands would be restricted from further development. A Preliminary Plat was submitted prior to this meeting with the intent of showing the current configuration of the 11 lots. The configuration is a little different due to perc testing, etc. This area is zoned RR. Had it been developed under todays zoning ordinance there would be a stipulation that the large track of remaining land in that bonus density be restricted from further development. As concept approval was under a prior regulation the applicants would like to request that the note be removed.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated that the current zoning is RR. The Sunnybrook Estates Concept Plat, which remains valid, was approved 3/21/89 for 85 lots and 19.16 acres of common open space on 299.68 acres, at a density of 1 to 3.5.

The Sunnybrook Estates Section 1, Lots 1-29 Preliminary Plat was approved 7/18/89, and the Final Plat was approved 1/16/90. The 29-lot plat was signed 3/15/91.

The Sunnybrook Estates Section 2, Lots 30-62, plus 19.16 acres of common open space, Preliminary Plat was approved 8/19/91, and the Final Plat was approved 4/17/95. The plat for all lots except lots 35, 38, 54, & 62 was signed 10/20/95.

A Preliminary-Final Plat for lots 35, 38, 54, & 62 was approved 6/17/96, and the plat for those lots was signed 3/13/97.

The Section 3 Final Plat was approved 5/15/00. The plat was signed 7/21/00, and its12 lots on brought to 74 the total number of lots recorded out of the 85 approved thus leaving 11 lots remaining.

The revised Concept Plat for the final 11 proposed lots in Section 4 was approved on 2/19/02, conditioned on:

1) The road code waiver being obtained from the Department of Public Works

2) Bufferyard Standard A being required along the rear/side lot lines of lots 75-79 to buffer adjacent agricultural uses, provided that any Bufferyard A on Lot 75 is located outside the drainage easement

February 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 69 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The Section 4 Preliminary Plat was approved on 4/21/03, conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met

2) Department of Public Works requirements being met

3) The off-site FRAs acreage and metes and bounds being shown on the Final and Record Plats

4) Bufferyard Standard A requirement being modified along the rear/side lot lines for proposed Lots 76, 77, and a portion of 75

5) Bufferyard Standard A being required For 78, 79 and the balance of 75

6) A note being placed on the Final and Record Plats prohibiting any further subdivision of the remaining lands

7) Note # 8 being modified to reflect that well and septic is being proposed

This Final Plat is generally consistent with the approved revised Concept and the Preliminary Plat. If approved, it would exhaust the established density.

The original common open space requirements were satisfied with the recordation of Section 2. Therefore, the proposed removal of previously-proposed common open between and behind lots 75 & 76 would not preclude Final Plat approval.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the RR zone.

Bufferyard Standard A is required along the rear/side lot lines of lots 75-79 to buffer adjacent agricultural uses. The record plat must reflect this, resulting from the changes proposed today.

February 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 70 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) and PFCP were revised and again approved on 3/20/03.

The FCP and Landscape Plan were approved on 1/13/04. A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

As 85 lots would exhaust the established density, the remaining lands cannot be further subdivided, as noted on the plat.

The owners of these lots must become members of the Sunnybrook Estates Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space and the landscaped island with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

Mr. Woodhull stated that a SWM Plan, Street and Storm Drain Plan; and a Mass and Final Grading Plan had been reviewed by the department and were technically complete. Only minor comments and administrative items remain outstanding.

The conveyance easement between Lots 77 and 78 must be widened to 30 along its entire length.

Mr. Williams asked the applicants why they hadnt asked for the changes earlier. Mr. Hutton responded that they had originally request one house per acre, back in 1989, based on what was applicable at that time. At that time they had no way of knowing what the future would bring, therefore they hadnt requested the maximum density. They had focused on keeping the subdivision close to Brantwood Golf Course. Mr. Huttons present concerned is future changes in the density allowance and keeping options open 10 years down the road should there be changes.

Mr. Brown asked Mr. DiGiacomo, what was the amount of total allowable acreage? Mr. DiGiacomo replied 299.68 acres. Mr. DiGiacomo noted that per the minutes from the 3/2/89 TAC meeting, the applicants requested a total of 85 lots. In addition Mr. Chris Rodgers asked, if the remaining 183 acres would continue to be used for farming, and Mr. Whiteman replied in the affirmative. From the previous zoning ordinance the area in question was zoned AR. It had a density of one dwelling unit per acre. The ordinance read However it is recognized that all areas in the AR zone may not be suitable for development at the maximum

February 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 71 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 density. In the Planning Commission meeting of March 21, 1989 Chris Rogers stated, The density shown at one unit per 3.5 acres is consistent with the Planning Commission policy in this area. Mr. DiGiacomo went on to note that as Mr. Hutton had earlier stated they did raise the issue at the meeting of 1989 when Mr. Whiteman questioned if the density was a controlling factor when he asked if it was necessary to put the note on the plat. He was concerned about the situation years from now and the possibility of a higher permitted density. Mr. Rogers then informed developers that considering the Planning Commission policy, comprehensive plan and density would preclude further subdivision. If they wanted a higher density they would have to submit a revised Concept Plat, which was not done. Mr. Hutton stated that they would like to have the option of requesting a higher density now. Mr. Walbeck responded that they had the option of requesting a higher density back in 1989.

Mr. Walbeck stated that it appeared that the critical issue revolves around what Chris Rogers, former Principal Plans Reviewer, stated in the minutes. The density shown at 1 unit per 3.5 acres is consistent with Planning Commission policy in this area. Tony has read from the zoning regulations, although its one unit per acre it may not be suitable for development at the maximum density because it is in the AR suggests apparently that the developer was satisfied with the 1989 TAC comments. Mr. Hutton stated the issue had not come up until work had begun on Section 4 at which time they decided to proceed with what was already allowed on the Concept Plat with the intent of submitting a revised Concept Plat later. He also stated that he did not know anything about the note that would preclude them. Mr. Walbeck responded that one year ago, April 21st, the note on the Preliminary Plat stated a note being placed on the final record plats prohibiting any further subdivisions on the remaining lands. Mr. Hutton stated that the 1 house per 3.5 acres is consistent with the plan but 1 house per 5 acres would also be consistent with the plan and subdivide, but were also not aware it could not be done. Mr. Walbeck stated that one year ago they were told of the approval of the Preliminary Plat.

Mr. Mortimer asked the applicant if he wanted to go back to 1/1 or 1/3 density. Mr. Pyles stated that he was asking in the event that Mr. Hutton chose to revise the concept plat at a later date, because the note on the plan precludes them from any further subdivision. Mr. Walbeck stated that there is a procedural issue that has to be considered. If this final plat is approved today, all of the authorized lots will be used up.

Mr. Brown asked had the applicants wanted to bring a new concept plat before the Planning Commission prior to the final, would it be procedurally correct to table the final plat thereby giving the applicants the opportunity to present a revised plat, even though the preliminary had passed. Mr. Sennstrom noted that there were several issues involved. One being the original concept plat approved in March of 1989 remaining valid indefinitely. The two year sunset provision for the Concept Plat was not established by the county until July of 1989 when the subdivision regulations were amended. Therefore a Concept Plat approved by the Planning Commission and the density set with the same Concept Plat were approved at one unit per 3.5 acres encumbering all the acreage on the original farm; 299.68 that yielded 85 lots. There will be no more lots created than originally approved back in 1989. The approval plat will allow the same amount of lots as originally envisioned on the 85 lot Concept Plat. Mr. Sennstrom went on to say that if he understood correctly the applicants objection was to the no future subdivision note being placed on the plat of the remaining lands, thereby leaving the option open to come back at a later date before the Planning Commission seeking a bonus density concept plat allowing them to further subdivide the acreage that had been encumbered by the 85 lots before the Planning Commission today. There was a Concept Plat approved in 1989 that established the density on the entire acreage of this subdivision. No appeal was filed at that time to challenge an incorrect

February 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 72 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 setting of density or that the applicants want a higher density, therefore the Concept Plat remains valid with the changes that were done for cul-de-sac, showing the lot as originally part of the street system.

Mr. Brown asked if the applicant were to come before the Planning Commission with a revised Concept Plat prior to Final Plat approval would it be held at todays standards as opposed to the AR zone in 1989. Mr. Sennstrom stated that anything reviewed today would have to be reviewed under the present regulations, and if this plat was approved and recorded, no additional lots could be created to the 85 lots, under the existing Concept Plat. Mr. Hutton asked if the Concept Plat could be revised after approval. Mr. Pyles stated that if the plan were approved today the applicants would still have the option of coming back prior to recordation. After the lots are recorded the lots have been legally created. Mr. Hutton than asked if at that point he could ask for a readjustment of the Concept Plat. Mr. Pyles responded once you have recorded this plat, no. Mr. Sennstrom was asked if this was correct and he interpreted stating, the acreage has been encumbered, therefore the plans before the Planning Commission today could be created out the parcel, regardless of weather a revised parcel was submitted or not. The concept is for 85 lots on 299.68 acres. Mr. Hutton asked if it was being encumbered because of Note 9. Mr. Sennstrom said that Note 9 is the result of what the Planning Commission did in March of 1989 and has carried forth on various sections of the final plat. If Note 9 was not on the plat it would still reflect that the entire acreage had been encumbered. Therefore, weather or not the Planning Commission would grant approval with Note #9 on the plat, has no bearing on the concept plat that was approved in 1989 setting a density of 1/3.5 yielding 85 lots, which has been exhausted. The note is recorded in both the minutes and files. Therefore, the note being on the plat only makes the reference more explicit in the future. Mr. Pyles asked if once the plat was recorded, regardless of any comprehensive rezoning subsequence, would it have any bearing on the development potential of the remaining acreage. Mr. Sennstrom replied the entire property had been encumbered by the density set to create the 85 lots. Based on the existing concept plat no more lots could be created on this property. Mr. Pyles than asked, should there be a subsequent change in zoning, what would be an allowable time frame for submitting a revised Concept Plat for consideration by the Planning Commission? Mr. Sennstrom replied that the Concept Plat would be valid indefinitely because there was no sunset provision on that plat as there is today.

Mr. Walbeck asked if there were conditions with the revised concept plat approval that created the section before the PC today. Mr. DiGiacomo replied that none had been addressed. The issue of the revised Concept Plat was simply for density and layout. The density was established and there was no proposal to revise it. The proposal was to revise the layout to accommodate the final 11 lots, not to modify the original concept plats approved density, upon which the Planning Commission made consequent decisions and upon which people had made decisions to purchase homes in Sunnybrook Estates.

In an attempt to clarify the facts Mr. Mortimer asked if the applicants had concept approval in 1989. Before he executes what was approved can he modify the plat? Mr. Sennstrom stated that if the applicant wanted to come back with a revised concept plat based on a 1/3 density on the 299.68 acres, he could submit it to the Planning Commission for review. Planning & Zoning would recommend disapproval of the plat but it would be up to the Planning Commission to decide if they wanted to grant a revised density on the fact that this entire acreage had been encumbered on a previous Concept Plat. Planning & Zoning would recommend disapproval because the entire farm acreage was encumbered by the original concept plat and did not withhold a certain amount of acreage.

February 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 73 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Discussion followed concerning the concept plat.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Mr. Walbeck stated that he needed to schedule the public hearings for recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Sennstrom stated that the meeting dates would follow the 60 day review process, which would exhaust itself on Friday, February 27th. Once Mr. Sennstrom had advertised the meeting in the Cecil Whig, the Planning Commission could hold a public hearing any time thereafter. The Planning Commission members agreed to a tentative meeting date of March 22, 2004 at 7:00p.m., to be held at the Administration Building. Mr. Sennstrom will confirm the meeting place.

Mr. Sennstrom stated that the Planning Commission will have everything that they have voted on up to this point in report prior to the meeting. They will want to look it over before the meeting and be prepared to say yes or revise. After which it will be put into a final form and sent to the commissioner as the Planning Commissions report.

February 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 74 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

ITEM B DECISIONS

1. Pines at Cherry Hill, Section 1, 2 & 3, Molitor Road and Cherry Hill Road, Final Plat, Site Resources Inc., Third Election District

WITHDRAWN

2. Racine Estates at the Villages at Elk Neck, Section 2, Lots 7-12, 14-17 and 19-21, Racine School Road, Final Plat, Northern Bay Land Planning Engineering & Surveying Corp., Fifth Election District.

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Murray and unanimously carried to approve with conditions:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) The Landscape Agreement being executed prior to Recordation;

4) The owners of these lots becoming members of the Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space, with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation;

5) Separate mini-road maintenance associations being created with the owners of all lots and areas reserved by owner accessing the respective mini-roads becoming members;

6) Deed restrictions for the long-term protection of the Forest Retention/ Afforestation Areas (FRAs) being recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation, with the metes and bounds description of the FRA being shown on the record plat, and matching up with those on the approved FCP;

7) The Data Column correctly citing 13 lots in this section;

8) The roads being labeled as mini-roads on the Record Plat

3. Susquehanna River View, Lots 1 39, Liberty Grove Road, McCrone, Inc., Final Plat, Seventh Election District.

February 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 75 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Motion made by Brown seconded by Mortimer and unanimously carried to amendment to include that adequate clearing take place for access for maintenance of the common open space, be provided.

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Murray and unanimously carried to approve with conditions:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) Department of Public Works requirements being met;

3) The Landscape Agreement being executed prior to recordation;

4) A Homeowners Association being established for maintenance of common open space, with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation;

5) A mini-road maintenance association being created prior to recordation with the owners of all lots accessing Zachary Joseph Court becoming members;

7) Adequate clearing taking place for access to a maintenance of the common open space, along side proposed Lots 1 and 2.

4. Montgomery Oaks, Section 1, Phase 2, Lots 10-22 and 45-48, Bailiff Road, Final Plat, McCrone Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Brown, seconded by Williams and unanimously carried to approve with conditions:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) The owner(s) of this lot becoming a member of the Homeowners Association which was established for maintenance of common open space, with $50 for this lot placed in escrow prior to recordation, for improvements;

4) A Landscape Agreement for street trees be executed prior to recordation;

5) Deed restrictions for the long term protection of the Forest Retention/ Afforestation Areas (FRAs)being recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation and the metes and bounds being shown on the record plat

February 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 76 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 5. Sunnybrook Estates, Section 4, Lots 75 85, Williams Road, Final Plat, Northern Bay Land Planning Engineering & Surveying Corp., Second Election District

Motion made by Williams, seconded by Brown and unanimously carried to approve with conditions:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) Department of Public Works requirements being met;

3) The off-site FRAs acreage and metes and bounds being shown on the Record Plat;

4) A note being placed on the Record Plat prohibiting any further subdivision of the remaining lands;

5) Deed restrictions for the long-term protection of the Forest Retention/Afforestation Areas (FRAs) being recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation. The metes and bounds description of the FRA, on-site and off, must be shown on the record plat;

6) The owners of these lots becoming members of the Sunnybrook Estates Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space and the landscaped island with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation;

7) A revised Landscape Plan being approved and a Landscape Agreement being executed prior to recordation;

8) The record plat reflecting the changes proposed today that would increase lots 75-77 size due to a 100 setback. The common open space, being 1.407 acres, would be expunged on the record plat as it was explained to you verbally this afternoon.

There were no further comments.

Meeting adjourned at 1:52 p.m.

NEXT MEETING: March 15, 2004 at 12:00 p.m. in the County Administration Building

February 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 77 March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m.

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Subdivisions)

PRESENT: Brown, Campbell, Carter, DiGiacomo, Farrell, Manlove for (Kilby), Moore, Murray, Sennstrom, Walbeck, Williams, Woodhull, and Jones

ABSENT: Kilby, Mortimer and Prickett

MINUTES: Motion made by Brown, seconded by Williams, and unanimously carried to approve the February 17, 2004 minutes as mailed.

1. Charles Garcia presented Wal-Mart Store #5450-00, North East Maryland, Freeland and Kauffman, Inc., Razor Strap Road and Rte 272, Fifth Election District.

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Garcia stated that he was with the engineering firm that prepared the plans and were requesting a variance to the parking lot requirements.

Mr. Walbeck stated that normally the Planning Commission does not review site plans for commercial and industrial developments, but Wal-Mart was requesting a variation to the requirements and therefore it was before the Planning Commission.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated that the Site Plans were not reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 However, §275 of the Cecil County Zoning Ordinance provides that only the Planning Commission may modify parking requirements, and the applicant was seeking to have the parking requirement reduced from 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of GFA required for shopping centers to 4.85. For that reason alone, this item has been included on the agenda.

Staff found that the Planning Commission approved a similar modification request for the North East Plaza on 8/18/98. The approval was conditioned on no sales activity taking place on the parking spaces, themselves.

§277 of the Zoning Ordinance requires 4 spaces/1,000 ft² GFA plus one (1) space per employee on maximum shift for department stores.

In its analysis of Cecil County codes and ordinances, the Center for Watershed Protection cited (Table 1, page 1) a 4.0 6.5 spaces/1,000 ft² GFA range of spaces typically being required by other jurisdictions, with the actual average parking demand being 3.97 spaces/1,000 ft² GFA.

This request is consistent with three (3) separate recommended development principles for Cecil County by the Site Planning Round Table, facilitated by the Center for Watershed Protection.

One of the Site Planning Round Tables recommendations included the utilization of downsized, compact car parking spaces to reduce total parking areas.

Does Wal-Mart have any experience with the use of compact car parking spaces at any of its other sites? Mr. Garcia replied that they had done the same in the past on other sites.

The request letter mentions the need for space for future expansion as a reason for limiting the area devoted to parking. If and when such expansion takes place, unless more parking spaces is found, then the site would be at an even greater variance from the required number of parking spaces.

Mr. Woodhull stated The Cecil County Department of Public Works has no reason to disallow this request. Regardless of parking ratio, the CCDPW will require a signage plan for Razor Strap Road and the Razor Strap entrance road be submitted for review by the department. Applicable Law Enforcement Agencies must attest to the enforceability of the signage that will call for immediate towing of illegally parked vehicles.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Richard Snyder of 55 South Edgewood Drive, Elkton, Maryland was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Snyder stated that he loved Wal-Mart but one thing that he had found in the past was that they never had enough parking for the disabled. He was not sure who was responsible for this concern but he noted that he was disabled with Multiple Sclerosis and the extra walking that he must do if unable to get a disabled parking space leaves a lot to be desired.

Lisa Ann Wehner of 239 Razor Strap Road (and owner of the property on 233 Razor Strap Road) was duly sworn in according to law and testimony followed. Ms. Wehner stated that it was incredibly important that a traffic light be installed at the intersection of Razor Strap Road and Rte 40. She went on to say that I just want everybody to know that there is a bad blind spot everyday at 4:00. The sun is right here you cant see anything and especially if you are going from Elkton to the FoodLion to Happy Harry and which would be the same route that someone leaving the Razor Strap entrance from Wal-Mart would be. You can see down that hill the cars and trucks just come up out of there and I think that really has to be addressed. She does not have anything against Wal-Mart but there has been one fatality and she would not like to see anyone else get hurt.

George Whitmyer of 24 Locharron Drive, Elkton, MD was duly sworn in accordingly to law and testimony followed. Mr. Whitmyre stated that his interest is in the size of the parking spaces. While it is admirable that Wal-Mart is considering small compact parking, in reality if you look at the increase of SUVs and truck it is an unwise move. If you do have compact parking space they should be limited to one section of the parking lot. He went on to state please consider that most of us are driving larger vehicles today and that is the reality.

Mr. Garcia added that it was a recommendation by the Planning Office to look at the size of the parking spaces. They do not have compact spaces at this time but that is why they have asked for the variance.

2. Paul Muddiman, Tim Whittie and Bill Stritzinger presented Aston Pointe, Jackson Hall School Road and Rte 273, Concept Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fourth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed.

Mr. Walbeck informed everyone that a member of the Planning Commission, Ethel Murray was involved with the lands of this development. She had recuse herself from any participation in the project and therefore would not participate in the discussion or decision making.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Muddiman stated that Aston Pointe is located at the southeast corner of Route 273 and Appleton Road. After the previous plan went before TAC there were some changes made which included the addition of a golf course. There are a total of 420 acres of land of which 30 acres are zoned BG which is a Business Zone. The plan for the BG is to rezone it to SR in order to match the remaining 390 acres of SR, which are made up of 18 different parcels of land. Under the SR they are permitted a density of two units per acre or 840 units. They were proposing 370 single family lots, a separate lot for the golf course and a separate lot to be retained by Mr. Dudkewitz on the lot along Jackson Hall School Road.

Mr. Walbeck stated that the density numbers that were mentioned are not straight SR zoning densities. Are you proposing public facilities? Mr. Muddiman replied yes they were proposing public facilities and he would get to that in a minute.

The proposed density, assuming that they are granted the SR zone, would result in 370 single family lots and 18 hole championship golf course. The golf course will include a club house, pool, tennis courts and other associated amenities. The golf course will be on 169 acres of the 420 acres. The main entrance will be off Rte 273 with buffer, berms and landscaping along Rte 273. The main road, Country Club Drive, will lead north south from Rte 273 to Jackson Hall School Road. Lot 371 size will total 6½ acres, which will be retained by the Dudkewitz family. Lots have been designed around the existing gas mains, therefore no lots will encumber the gas main. There is an existing gas main that runs north south on the property from Telegraph Road through the site to Jackson Hall School Road and across to the Wohner property. The south portion of the property also has two connections one on Jackson Hall School Road and a second on the Cat Swamp Road with a road connection to the Warner property boundary line. Other amenities include soccer fields around the existing pond at the entrance of Jackson Hall School Road and Country Club. There are an additional 86 acres of open space on the plan in addition to the 109 acres of golf course, bringing the total of open space to 265 acres or 60% of the site. Sixty-three acres are required for this site. The mix of uses and the mix of lots include 15,000 ft² lots, 12,000 ft² lots and 8000 ft² lots. There a couple different alternatives for water which include water being bought in from the Pennsylvania line along Appleton Road to the site. A recent discussion and more likely alternative would be to bring the water from the east, and route from the south north through the property, from the Delaware side. Public sewer will be extended from the site by gravity across the Wohner property, removal of the Highlands Waste Water Treatment plant to gravity flow sewer down to the Meadow View Waste Water Treatment Plant.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated that the zoning was SR & BG. The SR zone permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per one (1) acre, or two (2) dwelling units per one (1) acre with community facilities. This Concept Plat proposes 372 lots on 420.10 acres, for a proposed density of 0.88 to 1.

30.06 of those acres are zoned BG. Per Note # 20, the BG acreage must be rezoned to SR. Unless that rezoning is successful, this design cannot be achieved. It is to the advantage of the applicant to submit the rezoning application as soon as possible. Final Plat approval will not be possible without the rezoning.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

A golf course is proposed as Lot 372. Public golf courses may be permitted in the SR zone as a Special Exception. The Special Exception must be obtained prior to Final Plat review. Private golf courses are permitted in the SR zone. By precedent, a public golf course is defined as one that can be utilized by anyone for a fee, and a private golf course is one that can be utilized only by members of the country/golf club.

The golf course proposed on this Concept Plat can be approved as part of the proposed subdivision only if it is a private golf course. Will this be a private golf course? Mr. Muddiman replied yes.

A boundary line survey must be done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes.

The title block indicates that this is a residential cluster development. Also, inasmuch as 74 lots are proposed consisting of only 8,125 ft², and since the minimum lot size in the SR zone is 12,000 ft², it appears that the intent is to invoke the provisions of §6.1 of the Subdivision Regulations.

The purpose of §6.1 is to permit greater flexibility for creative design, using the clustering of homes to save permanent open space, which would provide recreational opportunities close to home. Such clustering may be accomplished through allowing reductions in the respective minimum lot area and yard requirements.

The lower typical lot layout graphic is confusing because of its reference to the BG zone. Since Note # 20 states the intent to seek a rezoning of the BG portion of the site to SR, and since §69 and the Table of Permissible Uses of the Zoning Ordinance, permit a dwelling only for the business owner on a BG parcel, as stated at TAC review, reference to BG must be deleted.

§6.1.1 (e) of the Subdivision Regulations requires that Concept Plats invoking cluster development provisions must show estimated staging of construction. That has not been shown.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 82 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Dwellings or impervious surfaces shall not occur on slopes with a grade of 25% or more covering a contiguous area of 10,000 ft² or more. On slopes between 15 and 25%, good engineering practices shall be used to ensure sediment and erosion control and slope stabilization before, during and after disturbance activities.

Slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the Preliminary Plat.

A 25 buffer is required around all non-tidal wetlands and intermittent streams present. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland and stream impacts prior to recordation. A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) must be done prior to preliminary plat review by the Planning Commission.

The habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided. The Natural Heritage Service indicates the midland sedge, a rare plant species, is known to occur within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, a species survey is required prior to Preliminary Plat approval.

This proposal includes 85.93 (was 85.38) acres of common open space, in addition to the proposed 169-acre golf course. Sixty-Three (63) acres (15%) are required in the SR zone, based on 420 acres.

At a minimum, 15% of the required open space shall not consist of perennial or intermittent stream buffers, nontidal wetlands or buffers, steep slopes, or habitats of rare, threatened and endangered species. No more than 40% of the common open space required shall consist of those areas designated as nontidal or tidal wetlands. Those calculations must be included on the Preliminary Plat submitted for TAC review.

Twenty percent (20%) landscaping of the development envelope is required in the SR zone.

Sidewalks are recommended on at least one side of all internal roads in the SR zone. This proposal, in keeping with the creative and innovative designs encouraged for cluster development, must include adequate sidewalks and walking/bike paths, as well as any possible greenway linkages.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 83 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of Appleton, Cat Swamp, Jackson Hall School, and Telegraph Roads. A Bufferyard Standard C is also required to buffer the golf course from adjacent residential uses (§100.3 & §106.6) and to buffer the parking area (§100.4 & §106.5). A structure on proposed Lot 371 must be removed unless the Planning Commission grants a bufferyard and setback modification.

If the golf course is private, then it would be considered an accessory use. As such: a) A determination must be made as to ownership (All condominium owners must become members of the condominium association(s) for maintenance of the buildings, parking areas, private roads, landscaping, clubhouse, and common elements. The CONDO INSTRUMENTS for these condominiums must be accepted by the Maryland Secretary of State prior to recordation). b) The details of the golf course development must be approved as part of the regular subdivision process, provided that the Preliminary Plat includes details consistent with §291 and Appendix A of the Zoning Ordinance.

If the golf course is a public course, then it would not be considered an accessory use. Therefore, a Special Exception would be required, but you have indicated that it will be private.

Per §100.4 & 106.7 of the Zoning Ordinance, off-street parking and loading areas, golf tees, and maintenance facilities must be screened by a Bufferyard Standard B.

For subdivisions proposed on property contiguous to operating farms, notice shall be provided on the plat that an agricultural operation is being conducted on a contiguous property and said agricultural operation is protected from nuisance claims provided the conditions of Article I, § 4 are being complied with. If there are any of the contiguous properties in agricultural operation, then a Bufferyard A with a 100 setback would need to be shown on the Preliminary Plat.

Street trees are required on lots, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of all internal roads. In areas with community facilities, no street trees shall be planted within 20 feet of sewer laterals and cleanouts. Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements.

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 84 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) has been approved.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat. The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat. An FCP for the gas line easement is already on file (#297).

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The identity of the gas line owner has now been provided.

All required documents from the gas line company granting permission or agreeing to easement impacts must be received prior to Final Plat review. All documents requiring recordation must be recorded prior to the recordation of the Record Plat.

The internal road names must be approved by the County 911 Emergency Center prior to Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat. Road names were not provided on the Concept Plat submitted for TAC review.

The Concept Plat submitted for TAC review included a stub road to connect with Locharron Drive. That design was consistent with in the Comprehensive Plan, the Subdivision Regulations, best planning practices regarding street connectivity, and the final approved design of Locharron Drive in the Highlands. Only four (4) proposed access points for 370 new lots warrants adherence to the original plan of having Locharron Drive connected to this development.

At TAC review, the applicant indicated that 113 age-targeted units were proposed. They must be identified.

Confirmation must be received from the gas company that all proposed roads, intersections, and the parking lot at the golf course will not have any adverse impacts on the gas line within the easement.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 85 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The provision of food and refreshments may be allowed in connection with a public golf course, provided the availability of such services is not reasonably expected to draw an excessive amount of traffic through local residential streets.

Staff recommends that a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) be completed prior to the TACs review of the Preliminary Plat. As one of the nearest intersections is in Delaware, DelDOT has been invited and will be invited to any additional scoping meetings and to review and comment on the completed TIS.

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space, any landscaped islands, and common parking areas must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation. All lot owners must become members of the Homeowners Association.

Active recreational amenities shown in common open space must be included in the public works agreement. All amenities noted such as the tot lot need to shown on the plat.

The Record Plats shall contain a statement, signed by the owner, to the effect that water and sewer facilities will be available to all lots/houses offered for sale.

Verification of water and sewer allocation must be received prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Final Plat. The identity of the waste water treatment plant must be included on the Final and Record Plats. The name of the water company providing the water must also be included on the Final and Record Plats.

Note #14 indicates that this project is to be served by public water. One to one is permitted, but this plan is actually lower than that, 370 new lots on 420 acres. Why is it necessary to obtain public water, and from where will the water be obtained? Mr. Muddiman replied that they still had 370 lots off of Aquifer could be their problem so they would like to see public water extended to the area. Mr. DiGiacomo asked and youve already indicated that it may come from Delaware instead of Pennsylvania. Mr. Muddiman replied yes through the Artesian Water Company. All approvals must be received for any intra- or inter-basin water transfers prior to Final Plat approval. Any Public Service Commission approvals, if necessary, to extend a water line to this property must be received prior to Final Plat approval.

The Master Water and Sewer Plan must be amended prior to Final Plat review.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 86 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

What impact(s) will the sanitary sewer lines, water lines, and any required stormwater conveyance devices have on the gas line easement? Will there be any? Mr. Muddiman replied that there would be some necessary crossing as well as gas main crossings.

As they are attractive hazards, serious consideration should be given to protective fencing around the stormwater management facilities.

Dudkewitz is spelled incorrectly in Note # 1.

Mr. Woodhull stated that a SWM Plan; Street and Storm Drain Plan; Sanitary Sewer and Water Plans, and a Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by the Cecil County Department of Public Works prior to submittal for Final Plat approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.).

The Lot Grading Plan must include a note saying: No clearing or grading is permitted beyond the limits of disturbance show hereon. Any expanded clearing and/or grading in the absence of an approved revised lot grading plan may be considered non-compliance with Chapter 251 of the Cecil County Code and either or both the developer and/or builder may be subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein.

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance. This analysis must pay special attention to the adequacy of existing conveyance systems along and across Jackson Hall School Road Cat Swamp Road and Barksdale Road to handle all discharges from the SWM Facilities.

If storm water discharge is directed off of the site on to adjacent properties it is the responsibility of the Developer to obtain appropriate easements from the owners of the affected properties per Section 251-13 of the Cecil County Stormwater Management Ordinance.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 87 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 A Dam Breach Analysis must be submitted to DPW for all existing ponds and as builts will be required for the two existing ponds proposed as SWM Facilities.

Section 3.07.15 of the Road Code directs that Jackson Hall School Road and Cat Swamp Road must be upgraded to a Minor Collector Standard for a minimum distance of 100 either side of the point of intersection between these roads and the proposed entrances.

In light of the departments concerns regarding the adequacy of Appleton Road, Jackson Hall School Road and Barksdale Road to handle an approximate additional 4500 average daily trip ends generated by this development, at this time, the minimum requirements of the Road Code will not likely be sufficient and the applicant should anticipate additional off-site improvements to some or all of these roads (links). This would also entail improvements to intersections (nodes) of these roads as well as those on Cat Swamp Road. (4,500 Trip Ends based on 3700 generated by 370 lots 800 Trip Ends generated by the Golf Course).

These roads exhibit areas of base and surface failure, inadequate width and shoulders, and poor roadside drainage. With regards to intersections, the Jackson Hall School Road / Appleton Road intersection is suspected to be severely impacted by the proximity of existing dwellings and will prove very challenging for the Developers required improvements there. The solutions to the problems of these links and nodes will be addressed further after the Traffic Impact Study has been analyzed. Sight distance measurements must be provided to the DPW to establish compliance with the Cecil County Road Code. Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the Owners expense.

The Department strongly recommends the use of a construction entrance for the project, separate from the final entrances. The proposed entrance should be shown on the Preliminary Plat.

Access from any lot to Appleton Road, Jackson Hall School Road, Cat Swamp Road, and Barksdale Road is denied except for the proposed entrances and the existing driveway for Lot 371.

Lots 256 and 370 must be denied access to Lochland Drive except for the southernmost 20 of lots. In fact the department recommends that consideration be given removing Lot 256 all together because of the potential its residents will likely engage in unsafe traffic movements around the proposed landscape island.

Lots 344 and 345 must be denied access to Lochland Drive except for the easternmost 20 of lots. The Department recommends consideration of connection with Locharron Drive via Medinah Drive.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 88 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 All lots must access the least major road frontage where possible. Those that cannot, as on Country Club Drive & Lochland Drive, must have driveways of sufficient design to allow turnaround capability to improve access safety for each lot. Where driveway turnarounds are the recommended solution, the final lot-grading plan must show them as mandatory.

Adequate internal off-street parking must be provided at the soccer fields on Country Club Drive. Parking along Country Club Drive is prohibited and must be indicated with signs.

The cul-de-sacs do not conform to the Road Code Standard R-14.

Consideration must be given to Augusta Court geometry in regard to the angular nature of the proposed loop. This configuration presents additional paved surface, requiring maintenance and an added degree of difficulty for snow removal operations, while providing no benefit to the County. (i.e. better traffic flow and/or traffic safety.)

Any applicable Road Code Variances must be requested prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat approval.

Currently the parcels proposed for development are not within the Master Water and Sewer Plan Service Districts.

Therefore, the Cecil County Board of County Commissioners would have to amend the Master Water and Sewer Plan to include this development in the coverage areas.

Currently neither the Highlands nor the Meadow View plants have excess water or sewer capacity to service this development. Facility upgrades and/or expansion will be necessary to provide water and sewer capacity to service this Development and said work will be the responsibility of the Developer.

Water and sewer connection fees will be required plus a likely Benefit Assessment fee for the upgrade of the Meadow View WWTP.

If the Planning Commission approves the concept plat, the department will require seeing a concept master sanitary sewer and water plan for the entire development prior to Preliminary Plat submittal for any section of the development.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 89 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

If the request for rezoning of the BG portion of this site is denied, the Applicant must provide a sewer easement connecting the BG zoned property to the main sewer system in the development.

Adequate fire flow and pressure must be designed into the water service system for this development.

The water line for this development must be connected to the existing water line at Locharron Drive and be extended and capped at the required road stub to The Lands of Wohner.

All cleanouts and water meter vaults must be designed to be outside of all paved or concrete areas on each lot.

Careful consideration must be given to safety concerns with the close proximity of the gas transmission line to dwellings.

The gas line is routed across county roads. Therefore, the Applicant must inform the Owner of the line that they must obtain a maintenance easement to be allowed to work in the Countys ROW.

The department will require a review of the Fairway and Tee-Box layouts for holes adjacent to County Roads addressing potential in impact on vehicle traffic safety and any tot lots that are included in this development will be required to be shown on the designs and be part of the DPW Agreements.

PWAs agreements will be required for the proposed roads and storm drains, water lines, and sewer lines.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement is required for SWM facilities.

Mr. Williams asked what schools would be servicing this development and their capacity? Mr. DiGiacomo replied that Cecil Manor Elementary is currently at 105%. Cherry Hill Middle is at 78% and Elkton High

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 School is at 111%. Mr. Williams noted that there were two schools over 100% capacity.

Mr. Walbeck stated that Elkton was slated for new high school. Mr. DiGiacomo noted that Elkton High School would be receiving renovations.

Mr. Walbeck asked Public Works if the Meadow View WWTP was upgraded would the discharge go to Delaware? Mr. Carter stated that it would go to the west branch of the Christina River. Mr. Walbeck asked if that would present a problem with the State of Delaware with having an increase flow in the stream. Mr. Carter stated that the total maximum daily loads, TMDL, for the Christiana River were passed a couple of years ago and therefore CCDPW is aware of what the numbers are. The limiting factor is total nitrogen. DPW has the nitrogen numbers and would be able to design the Meadow View facility to as much as two million gallons a day without having to reach the limits of technology for nitrogen.

Mr. Walbeck asked if the comments from TAC concerning the roadways being substandard present any concerns. Mr. Maddiman replied they were aware of the need to increase the size of the cul-de-sac. There was a comment about not having a connection at Lochharron Drive. The developer elected not to show the connection after discussion with the community and their opposition of having the connection. The Augusta Court layout is a rectangular shape road network which the developer feels is important in the plan as far as having the green space between the two roads so that the lots front green open space.

Mr. Woodhull stated that they had no trouble with the loop it the angular shape of the loop. DPW would like to see the loop rounded. Mr. Maddiman stated that they could do that as long as they stayed with the concept. Mr. Woodhull noted that DPW wanted to make sure that there was no specific reason why it was driving the angular shape. DPW added that they like the green space in the front. Mr. Maddiman also added that the tot lot is related to the clubhouse. There is no tot lot associated with the community.

Mr. Walbeck questioned if the developer had decided not to extend Locharron Drive down to the Highlands. Mr. Muddiman answered yes. On the plat a connection is shown to the south, not to Locharron. Mr. Walbeck went on to state that his main concern was Jackson School Hall Road. DPW stated that it would require a considerable amount of upgrading. Are you prepared to review and work with DPW. Mr. Muddiman replied yes. He noted that the traffic study was well underway and they would contact both P&Z and DPW to discuss the details of the traffic study results.

Mr. Farrell asked if the developers wished to rezone the BG. Mr. Muddiman replied yes. Mr. Farrell asked if the work concerning the rezoning had already started. Mr. Muddiman replied no it had not. They wanted to get thought concept approval first before addressing the rezoning.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

Mr. Walbeck reminded everyone opposing the project of the five minute time limit per person to speak. He also asked that if anyone agreed with what someone had already said simply say that you agree with them rather than taking five minutes of everyones valuable time.

Mr. Walbeck asked everyone that planned to speak in opposition to come forward. They were duly sworn in according to law and testimonies followed

Mr. Walbeck noted that the Appleton Regional Community Alliance had a series of speakers that where to make a presentations.

Mr. Richard Klein, President of Community and Environmental Defense Services located at 80100 Green Spring Valley Road, Owings Mills, MD 21117. Mr. Kleins firm was hired by the Appleton Regional Community Alliance to help them to take a look at how a reasonable amount of growth could be accommodated in the Appleton Fair Hill area with out negatively impacting their rural way of life that they currently enjoyed. Of course the high quality of rural life style enjoyed is due in large part to the past decision made to by the Planning Commission and County Commissioners. Aston Pointe provides the most immediate opportunity to see how we can accommodate a reasonable amount of growth without sacrificing the specific things that the Comprehensive Plan and the Cecil County Zoning Ordinance identifies with in keeping with the current quality of life. When looking at the Zoning Ordinance requirements he found that the allowable maximum density is decided at the for Concept Plat level. The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance provide guidance on the maximum density that should be considered. Both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance stated that SR sites, such as this one, have a maximum density of one house per acre if developed with well and septic. It also shows that it should not be served by water and sewer at this point and time, hence showing the need for a Master Water and Sewer Plan amendment. Therefore the maximum density is one unit per acre with current conditions. The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance stated that SR should serve as a transition between urban density and rural density. The low end of the allowable density would be RC which allows a maximum of one unit per five acres. The range of density that you could consider would be between one unit per acre at the high end and slightly more than one unit per five acres at the low end. Mr. Kleins expertise is water quality. There is a portion of Cecil County law as do most other counties of the State set maximum limits on the amount of impervious area based on a study that he did back in 1979 when the Cecil County Zoning Ordinance was amended to incorporate a limit on maximum impervious area. At that time his study was the one that provided the scientific basis. The 17 policies in the Comprehensive Plan state that the goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to protect water quality, streams, wetlands and other resources. In Mr. Kleins 1979 study as well as research done since than shows that you first start seeing a significant adverse affect on water quality when 10% of the water shed is covered with impervious area. That is an average of every one house per every two acres. The Maryland Department of the Environment stated presently that the Cecil County part of Christian River Watershed is at a pretty high quality on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the best quality possible the Christina River is at seven (7). At present the Cecil County portion of the Christina River Shed is 8.7% impervious. If Aston Pointe is developed as the applicant proposes it will go up to 9.7%. This is the threshold of degradation. That is when you state loosing beneficial human uses such as swimming, fishing and all the other things that make a rural

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 area such a great place to live. You dont want to approach this threshold. You want to stay well below it. Aston Pointe will come dangerously close to this threshold. If Aston Pointe is developed as proposed you wont be able to have any other development in this 5000 acre area without crossing that threshold. One might argue that the new BMPs that are now required might allow you to have more development to go over the 10% threshold without adversely affecting water quality. The scientific research that is available now stated that while we can hope that the 2000 Maryland Storm Water Design Manual and other more effective measures would protect the quality of resources that is only speculation. Mr. Klein recommended no more than 100 houses on the site and a density of one house per four acres. He recommend this as a temporary limit until the research is done to show that the new measures are effective. A report entitled An Assessment of the Impact of Aston Pointe to the Christina River in Cecil County by Mr. Klein is attached to the original copy located in the P&Z Office which included all the information that he was unable to cover.

Kristen Magas, President of the Highland Civic Association, of 6 Ballantrae Court, Elkton expressed the concerns of the Highland residents. The Aston Pointe development as proposed will have a negative impact on their quality of life. Mrs. Magas stated that she was a Civil and Environmental Engineer and experienced in the area of designing water and waste water treatment plants. Her intent is to speak on the management of the water and waste water from Aston Pointe development. Topics for discussion included a brief look at the guidance documents the timing of providing sanitary sewers, the availability of water to Aston Pointe, the impact of septic systems and wells and some recommendations. The Comprehensive Plan has as a goal to limit high density developments to area served by existing or imminent collection and treatment centers. The water and sewer plans show no existing or imminent for water and sewer in the Appleton area and would require an amendment by the Commissioners for Aston Pointe to proceed as proposed. Next she asked if sanitary sewers were appropriate at this time. The suggestion is no. It is not the time for sanitary sewers. Bringing sewers to Aston Pointe would encourage rapid dense development throughout the entire Appleton area. The County has no plans to expand any of the needed public facilities such as water, sewer, road school, police, fire, etc. Many people have spent time preparing the guidance packages before you. Do not throw them aside at the whim of one developer. Bringing sanitary sewer to Aston Pointe will speed the degradation of the Christina River. It will allow a dramatic increase in impervious area. If the now Appleton area is developed at high density the amount of impervious area will go well above the 10% threshold that Mr. Klein discussed. It will also increase the pollution discharged by the Meadow View WWTP which had been previously discussed. Public sewer from this development will go to Meadow View. Aston Pointe with sanitary sewers has the potential to consume a large proportion of Meadow Views capacity. After reviewing the numbers it was Mrs. Magas opinion that, if the golf course goes away all of the open spaces are filled with houses at the maximum density allowed with sewer that will take over 15% of Meadow View capacity after it is expanded to 1.5 MGD. The current plan would take approximately 30% of Meadow Views capacity. Just for this one development.

It is entirely unclear if Pennsylvania water will be available for this development. Mrs. Magas had not investigated the possibility of obtaining water from Delaware since she had just heard it mentioned in the meeting. The Pennsylvania side water from Chester Water Authority is subject to the authority of the SRBC and water from the Artesian Wilkinson Well that had been mentioned is subject to the DRBC and will face determined citizen opposition. A plan will need to be proposed noting what waters will be available in the event of drought conditions. Assuming that sewer and water are not extended to Aston Pointe it would be developed with septic and wells. There are concerns with a dense development with septic and wells. In closing Mrs. Magas recommended that: (1) sewer not be extended to Aston Pointe. Require the developer and future developers to pay for all needed public facilities, water, sewer, roads, schools, police, and fire because the County has no plans to do this for this area; (2) require complete water and sewer plan before the

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 93 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 acceptance of a Concept Plat; and (3) limit the number of homes to 100.

Ron Hartman, 164 Little Egypt Road, were he has resided for 14 years. He was before the committee as both a private citizen and representing ARCA. His mother was born and raised on Appleton Road on the Mason farm. When his Uncle Bob stopped farming the Mason farm portions were sold to Milburn Orchard as well as other large tracks to individual owners. He understands that water is slated to be brought in from either New Castle or Chester Counties through the use of Artesian as a supplier. Assuming this is the case it will be necessary to obtain approval for transfer of this water from the Susquehanna River Basin Commission or the Delaware River Basin Commission. It is also understood that that the water would be supplied through Artesian Water and obtained from Chester Water Authority or from wells. An incident happened a year ago from a well in New Garden Township to supply a site in Delaware but the citizens of New Garden Township were successful in stopping this transfer and no permits were issued at that time by the Delaware River Basin Commission. It seems that there were concerns that drawing large quantities of water from the aquifer in New Garden Township would eventually have a significant effect on the quality of the surrounding streams and the project was defeated. It is assumed that the citizens of Chester County would have the same concerns about the water being shipped to Aston Pointe or be it New Castle County. A hypothetical assumption, that for some unknown reason the Aston Pointe project is approved with water and sewer one should consider what possibly could take place. Lets assume that the severe drought such as the one that took place a year or two ago occurs again and lets assume that the well in Chester County or New Castle County dry up and reservoirs go dangerously low in Chester County and that the decision is made that water can no longer be supplied to Aston Pointe. It is Mr. Hartmans opinion that the Aston Pointe development could be a can of worms. He would like to see the Aston Pointe land developed with wells and septic tanks like Glen Farms. Mr. Hartman said I guess the only ones that have a real desire to develop this land with cluster homes and put money in their pockets is the developer and the three landowners. In their mind that might be an admiral goal but to the citizens of Cecil County it seem repugnant. Its just ludicrous why this land is not being proposed for development in the same mode in general as Glen Farms.

Laura Gleason of 60 Glen Brook Drive, Elkton, MD spoke on the impacts of Aston Pointe on the local area school capacities. The topics for discussion included current capacity, utilization and future projections of effected schools, additional enrollment and additional classrooms acquired as a result of Aston Pointe.

Cecil Manor is currently at 105% capacity which had been recently renovated, therefore will not qualify for any additions or renovations any time soon. Cherry Hill Middle School is approaching 100% capacity. Elkton High School is currently at 111% capacity with three trailers on site. It is expected to reach 121% capacity by 2007. Elkton is not getting a new high school it is getting an addition which could possibly be completed in the next four to five years. Based on the 2000 US Census Report the family was 3.12 people. A conservative assumption is 1.12 children per family. With a break down of 320 home, minus the 50 age restricted homes, with 1.12 children the major impact will be in the elementary schools with a 26% impact in enrollment at a school that is already above 100% capacity. The middle and high schools will see a triple enrollment that they would see with a 100 home development. In addition six more classrooms will be needed at the elementary school that does not qualify for any more renovation funding. The middle school will need three more classrooms. The high school will need six more classrooms. The recommendation is to reduce the density at Aston Pointe to 100 homes to prevent the further overcrowding of the public school.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 94 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Darren Magas of 6 Ballantrae Court, Elkton spoke on the impact of the cost and operational cost for the public school systems, based on previous numbers it is obvious that additional classrooms will be required. Mr. Magus had calculated cost based on the current square foot cost to the county to build 15 new classrooms for a 320 homes versus five classrooms for 100 new homes. The total cost including state funds on 320 homes would be approximately 3.7 million. Cecil Countys portion would be 30% of the cost in addition to 100% of the cost to manage and plan the project, site acquisition etc. is roughly 1.2 million. Mr. Magus also calculated the salaries and benefits for additional teachers and staff for both densities of housing assuming one teacher per classroom and four additional staff for 320 homes. The report in its entirety is attached to the original copy located in the P&Z Office, which includes in addition to prior mentioned items, transportation, building maintenance, costs to taxpayers, other impacts and recommendations.

Ed Cairns of Jackson Hall School House Road has an extensive background with traffic matters as he has worked with DelDot and MDot and served seven years on the WILMAPO Council dealing with transportation issues. He is a knowledgeable non-professional who has been accepted as an expert witness by the Cecil County Board of Appeals. Mr. Cairns pointed out various locations on the map. The data that was presented came from two sources, Hose Counts by the Cecil County Department of Public Works and Traffic Counts by ARCA People at three intersections; Appleton Road and Rte 273, Appleton Road and Barksdale Road and Rte 273 and Jackson Hall School Road. The intersection at Jackson Hall School Road is of particular interest, which is in Delaware but used extensively by Cecil County residents. The site distance to the west is only 366. The 85 percentile tile speed on the east bound traffic is 63.2 miles per hour. That gives slightly less than four seconds for Jackson Hall School Road traffic to clear the intersection. Mr. Cairns stated that because he lives just down from the intersection on Jackson Hall School Road he has frequently found when turning towards Newark it looks clear, he turns out and before he can get up to speed there is a car right behind him. So far they have managed to break in time. While attempting to conduct a traffic survey there was a motorcycle accident leaving the road closed for 90 minutes. Several intersections are in need of signal lane improvements including Appleton Road and Fletchwood Road. Aston Pointe will generate some 4500 trip ends with 370 houses and a golf course. The capacity will be overloaded at Jackson Hall School Road at the State line and down below Barksdale Road on Appleton Road. Mr. Cairns had exceeded his five minutes and was unable to complete his presentation. The presentation in its entirety is attached to the original copy located in the P&Z Office.

Owen Throne, 20 Hillwood Road stated that many of the areas being threatened by Aston Pointe have been farmed since the 1600s. Land that was once farmed by President Andrew Jacksons father and the remains of his house are believed to be right in the middle of this proposed high density development. The name sake Jackson Hall School built near by in the 1870s is also in the construction path. Historical homes and farms line the country road and cluster around the intersections where the proposed road upgrades would be required and threaten their very survival. Some of these buildings along with Indian archeological sites are believed to be hidden within the Aston Pointe proposed lands are listed on the National Register of Historical Places and are our responsibility to protect from harm. Agriculture has always been the chief business of Cecil County and unless we all stop eating there will remain a growing demand for agriculture products. In only the last 50 years the number of farms in the county has declined from nearly 1500 to around 400 today. Taxes have risen in recent years such as it is no longer possible for many farmers to make a living on their land forcing them to sell to these developers who want to bring their urban sprawl here from out of state. Many historical farms and stables will be destroyed to make room for Aston Pointe houses slated to be built on lot areas smaller than 1/5 of an acre and a country club for the exclusive use of Newark golfers. This is not in keeping with the County goals to preserve and protect existing farms and maintain open space and it would require violating the water and sewer plan as mentioned earlier. The Fair Hill National Resources area and the Fair Hill rural

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 95 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 legacy area right next door attract hundreds of thousands of visitors annually for recreational uses and the surrounding horse farms and related business provide a whole lot of jobs and tax dollars in this district. Stables, business and horse farms will be sold off and shut down if rural high density development is approved. Thousand of horse people and media from around the world come here to the Fair Hill events to share in our unquestioning heritage. Other recreational tours can expect to suffer without a greenway connecting Fair Hill trails with those of White Clay. Hikers and bicyclers are forced on to County roads and with the expected 50% increase. We will see these tourist dollars go elsewhere along with the hunters, fisherman, birders and other friends of nature. These natural and cultural attractions are what set the Fair Hill and Appleton area apart from the rest of the crowded northeast. Golf courses have to use tremendous amounts of water especially during start up, often drying up nearby wells. Run off of soils and pesticides and fertilizers often threaten nearby streams and aquifers. This private golf course will not benefit its fenced out Cecil County neighbors, only the developers and wealthy Delaware membership. What if it fails as so many golf courses and clubs have recently. In conclusion a greenway connecting Delaware and Fair Hill trails should be an absolute requirement of the Commissions approval of any development on any scale. Second steps need to be taken immediately to develop and implement a supplemental Comprehensive Plan specific to the Fair Hill Appleton and Cowantown areas before the damage to our agriculture equestrian and tourism resources is irreversible. Third the current Concept Plan should be rejected as it is opposed by the vast majority of residents and in fact will only benefit the wealthy developers and those who properties are to be developed. Lets keep high density down near Rte 40 and 95 where infrastructure is already in place to support it. If you must allow these threats to our homes and the well being of future generations to proceed we propose that you approve no more than 100 homes on percable lots no smaller than an acre or so, no BG and all remaining land dedicated to permanent open space. Well and septic work fine for the rest of us and not until the new plan is in place should any approval be given to bring in out of state water and extend County sewer services to this area. Thank you very much. I believe that I represent many other citizens of the County in addition to the ARCA of which I am a member.

Tom Klenk of 112 Marlyn Drive located in the Appleton Acres Development at Rte 273 and Appleton Road. Mr. Klenk stated that he did not have a lot of facts and figures but as a resident who travels from Fair Hill area to Elkton everyday to work. The roads do not support the current traffic as already noted. He noted support of all other comments that had been made in respect to the schools, water which is a big concern. When Mr. Klenk first moved to Cecil County, about 13 years ago, he chose his present home because of the character. The Planning Commission holds that character in trust. Therefore, before violating that trust he asked that they listen to the community. Again the Comprehensive Plan was designed for development within certain areas, therefore pressure developers to consider the same before taking our space and turning it into high density housing.

Kevin Kohler of 7 Harvest Lane in Elkton thanked the coordinated effort going on by ARCA. Although he has no part in the organization he acknowledges that they have done a great job and he agrees with everything that had been said. It was his intention to speak both for his family, himself and on behalf of the residents of Glen Farms and the Appleton area in general on three points. Point one being large lots. The main reason that my family chose to move to this area was because they prefer rural surrounds, low traffic and relative quite. They like the proximity to Newark Delaware, yet had no desire to live within the over developed urban swale. The uncrowdedness of the area is what appealed to them first and foremost. Along with the large number of developed trees, minimum lot sizes within the Glen Farms and all the other developments contiguous to and surrounding the proposed Aston Pointe development. Conversely within the proposed Aston Pointe 74 lots are proposed at less than 1/5 of one acre (approximately 100 x 100) which is pretty small. Point number two was the comprehensive zoning and Water and Master Sewer Plan. I dont need to

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 96 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 go into that these guys have done a find job. We worked really hard spent a lot of money to get that plan in place. It Works! Why knock it? Point number three was the rural character. The owners have the right to developer their land. I for one having spent a many childhood year on a farm would prefer the land remain a productive farm land. None the less he would welcome the development of the housing and related area within the character of the surrounding and adjoining lands. In closing if he or any one of the other residents had wanted to live in tight packed suburbia they could have. There is no lack of brand new homes on ¼ and ½ acre lots just across the state line in both directions. They chose Appleton for his rural ness and simplicity. Please recognize that we are voting folk, taxpaying folk and we would like for you to honor our wishes and represent us.

Richard Boyce of 11 Harvest Lane, Elkton, Glen Farms; where he has lived for 32 years. He knows from two local meetings held concerning this issue that there are hundreds of fellow county residents against the proposal as currently envisioned. First the development proposes to bring in water from outside the county which is in counterdiction to the spirit of the Cecil County Comprehensive Plan which on page three under physical environment states the county should plan and encourage water supply under the control of the County Government for the needs of the development within the County. Certainly water from outside whether it is Pennsylvania or Delaware will not be under the direct control of the County. Mr. Boyce feels that it sufficient to reject the plan as currently envisioned. Second it should not be for the Cecil County taxpayers to support a developers business goals, especially when it is geared to out of state interest. Additional acreage was shown since the first TAC proposal which allowed the developer to propose sufficient home sites on 251 acres in addition to allowing 169 acres to be set aside for a golf course. The golf course can be used to transfer the Newark County Club to the proposed site in exchange for the 115 acre Newark property. It should not be the good people of this commission who burden their fellow County residents with the added fiscal cost and other woes that this development would cost to further the business objects of any developer least one tied to outside of state interest. It is Mr. Boyces opinion that this too is sufficient to reject the plan. A copy of Mr. Boyces opinions along with page 3 of the Cecil County Plan and an article from the Newark Post describing the development plan are attached to the original copy located in the P&Z Office.

Jim Mullen of 1676 Gled Road, Earlville stated that there were two very important reasons to reject this Concept Plan this afternoon. The first being that the OPZ would begin to lose complete control over policy and procedures in terms of land use and how it is governed, applied and implemented. Future applicants will dictate policy and procedures since this concept deviates from sound land use planning and policy which is the anchor of the present Comprehensive Plan and its future review. A perfect example is New Castle County unified development code. A good plan until a developer and Mayor of Middletown joined forces to annex thousands of acres into town jurisdiction holding New Castle County and the State of Delaware hostage. The same model will apply here in which you will be held hostage by national home builders and national developers who bring financial monies. They will bring water and sewer from any and all directions and skirt the comprehensive. The second reason to reject this plan is the economic devastation this concept represents presently in the future. Local home builder supply companies, local lending institutions, real estate and associated services are locked to wither on the vine.

Steven Anderson of 121 Kirkcaldy Drive in the Highlands stated that he did not have a fancy presentation or prepared speech but he would like to say that he agrees with everything that has been said by the homeowners of Cecil County. He moved to Cecil County for the same reason that was expressed by many of the people

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 97 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 here. He works in Newark and lived in the same area but moved to Cecil County because of the character of the area. He likes the character of the area that he is in now and would like to stay there. I dont really understand why we are even talking about this development at the scale that we are talking about it.

There was a Comprehensive Development Plan put together and it should be followed. There shouldnt be any consideration of looking around until all other avenues have been exhausted. Secondly he thanked the developer for listening to the community with respect to not connecting Aston Pointe to Locharron Drive in the Highlands. He has a strong vested interested as he lives in the bottom of the hill on Kirkcaldy Drive. He already has problems with traffic on Kirkcaldy Drive from the resident of the development who theoretically should have the best interest of the development in mind. If we add hundreds of cars to the mechanism of getting in and out of the development, which will be quite convenient to those people rather than using the dangerous intersections at Jackson Hall School Road and others, the entire part of the Highlands development will be ruined. If that change is made and traffic increases he will leave this area of Cecil County. It may not impact you but it will impact me. So I would employ you to consider the possibility of leaving that connection out of this plan in any form that it might get improved.

Chuck Gleason of 60 Glennbrook Drive, Elkton stated that he was the president of Glennbrook Woods Home Association. He spoke on behalf of both the GWHA and friends that were unable to attend. Mr. Gleason agreed with everything that had been said. He does not think that the Comprehensive Plan or the Master Water and Sewer Plan should not be amended. Appleton Road and Rte 273 are part of one of the Maryland Scenic Byways. There are quite a few in this state. Through his research he found that the State of Maryland school funds situation in 2003 was such that 500 million dollars had been proposed and recorded from the State and the State only had 100 million dollars available. Therefore any unfunded projects were moved to the next year adding 300 million to 2004. If the majority of residents of the proposed Aston Pointe work in Delaware very little of the tax revenue will be recouped from the State of Delaware.

Barbara Zwilgmeyer at 123 Kirkcaldy Drive, stated My comments are directed to the gentlemen of planning, zoning, roads. I agree with all of the things that had been said so far and applaud them. My question is regarding lot care and Aston Pointe connection. I know that the developer would like that not to happen as well as the residents of the Highland. Also when listening to all of the reading this morning it was stated that Aston Pointe should have sidewalks because there area so many houses. If we are connected and you think that is a great idea, we dont have sidewalks, well Cecil County then provides sidewalks since I would hope that the safety of the people in our community is as important as the safety of the people in the community of Aston Pointe. Kirkcaldy is wide hill that is horrible condition. Yes I would image that if they are connected that road would be improved which most likely increase the speed of that road. But once again we dont have sidewalks. Are we less deserving of those than another community? You know the Highland wasnt design to be a highly traveled development and I wan that point to be considered. We have walkers, bikers, lots of children that utilized those roads as their sidewalks. And I just hope that decisions that are made are those that are made that you can sleep at night when you think that one is more important or should have something that the other one does not.

David Newth of 1399 Fair Hill Lane stated that he wanted to highlight how many people were against the proposed development. Mr. Newth, Vice President of the Grand Meadows Homeowners Association, had been asked to present a petition from one little community showing that they were almost unanimously against the proposal. In addition he was asked by the FoxCatcher community to present their petition. The

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 98 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 two main reasons that residents are against the development are the same previously stated; houses should be on no less than one acre lots and residents disagree with the use of public sewer. Other reasons are schools, traffic congestion and natural resources. The only people that would not sign the petition in both communities were developers. Grand Meadows is just off of Little Egypt Road. Copies of the petitions are attached to the original copy located in the P&Z Office.

Lisa Lanzi of 21 Sheryl Drive, Elkton, thanked the committee for giving everyone the time to speak. As you can see there are many families here opposed to the development going in as planned. She also noted that there were hundreds of families that have moved to Cecil County for the rural development. That is what people moving into Aston Pointe will think that they were getting. A few years down the road what they will find they have are neighbors close enough that they can whisper to, children in over crowded schools or sitting in portable classrooms or being bused to schools further away. They are going to be cursing the roads that wont be able to handle the traffic. The road are in pretty poor condition if you have traveled up Appleton Road or Jackson Hall School Road recently there are potholes big enough to swallow up you car. People are moving into these areas to escape things like busing, over crowded development and traffic signals. The proposed development will only create an extension of New Castle County. The only thing that it is going to lead to is a bunch of unhappy residents who are unhappy with the officials that have allowed the situation to get this way. Dont you all understand that as planned this development is only going to create an extension of New Castle County? The residents are not opposed to development, but they want to do it with the class, the style and the integrity that is there and not the almighty dollar. We are asking you to listen to the voters that have put you in place and want to keep you there and keep it a nice rural development.

Victor Nusic of 1344 Fair Hill Lane, Elkton stated that I thoroughly agreed with everything that had been said. What I would like to point out is how many people have taken time out of their day. I took the afternoon off from work to come here to show opposition to the dense development in our area up off the Rte 273 corridor and how many other people have done the same. So I think from that we all should understand what a ground swell of community opposition there is to high density development up there. And also whatever you guys do is going to set the precedence because there is a lot more open land down Rte 273 as you go out towards Rising Sun and if we start allowing dense pack development down all of that land its just going to be mayhem when it comes to traffic and with the quality of life. Ive lived in Southern California, and Ive lived in New Jersey and Ive lived in New Castle County and I plan to retire in Elkton.

George Whitmyer of 24 Lochharron, Elkton stated I would like to thank my neighbors who have spoken so eloquently today and you hit the nail on the head thanks so much. You know I have many topics that I would like to pursue today but the time restraints. I think I would like to speak on behalf of those who dont have a voice. And I am speaking of the wildlife and the many forms that we have in Cecil County. I think that when we ask what is the quality of life? What makes a quality of life for us here, its the wildlife. Its the occasional fox we see, its the deer, its the song birds and very small animals we have around our County in abundance. And in my own small farm which is 14 acres adjacent to the proposed development I have 209 song birds. Thats my yard count. Different species of song birds and Ive even had a couple flyby of bald eagles. My concern is the disappearances of the habitat, the lost of the hedge rows, the forest and the small wood lots that support the wildlife that we so much enjoy. I am also concerned about the proliferation of the monoculture of lawns and the subsequent over use of herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers and the increase run off that will contribute to the degradation of the water ways in the County. My proposal is that if there is a development that we increase the buffer zones to the max. Maximize the buffer zones the hedge rows and I

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 99 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 would like to ask that anyone that has property adjacent to the development to may take a strategy of converting your large conventional to agriculture zoning. I would ask that my neighbors with land holdings would be able to increase their buffer zone to the development by asking for a rezoning so I appeal to my neighbors to go to an agriculture zoning if possible. In any case wherever possible I would ask the commission to impose additional buffer zones and to please consider the wildlife that we have. Keep greenways open for the wildlife as well as to those who hike at Fair Hill. Thank you so much.

Lawrence Kamvins 15 East Parkway, Elkton stated that he had lived in the Glen Farms area for over 43 years. He stated that it bothered him that the proposed development was completely non keeping with their rural nature and their rural background which is why it is a significant objection. He feels that it would be a grave mistake in creating a situation that allows an urban area to develop.

Pat Magnal of 65 Glen Brook Drive just off of Little Egypt Road stated that he had lived in Delaware, Pennsylvania and Maryland. In 1996 he chose to move close to Fair Hill because of the environment. He really appreciates the current size of houses and lots. He both enjoys and appreciates the wildlife, fox hunting, horseback riding, etc. He was also concerned that the value of his home could depreciate because directly across from his home there is a proposal to build 1100 square foot houses on 8000 ft² lots, less than a 1/5 of an acre. This will a comparison that must viewed if a when trying to resell your home. He would like to maintain his property value. The property value can be maintained by having a responsible development within the guidelines that have been approved.

Mary Rudy, 64 Marlin Drive stated that she lived in Appleton Acres and her concern was the intersection of Appleton Road and Rte 273 which needed to be improved. She has had many near misses in this intersection.

John Gill of 152 Kirkcaldy Drive stated thank all of the people of the Highlands who have objected to the tie into Locharron Drive and I will add a few reasons that have not been mentioned and my objection to that we have lived there for many yeas and I have lived there 24 years and they havent needed the tie in at the top of Locharron Drive. Rte 273, Cat Swamp Road, Jackson School Hall Road and even Appleton Road are much more well built than Kirkcaldy Drive or Locharron. Those road are not in the caliber of the other roads or Kirkcaldy is not of the quality of the other roads. It would ruin the character of the Highlands as a distinct and separate community. It would take away the desirable limited access why most of us bought in the Highlands. It would clog an already busy Valley Road which has not been mentioned here. Valley Road is very narrow, very windy and I imagine an awful lot of these cars to get to Delaware would come through the Highlands to get out on Valley Road to get down to Barksdale Road into Newark. That is already a major problem. It would bring people into the Highlands that really have no reason for being there. Leave the Highlands a separate and distinctive community. Put another access into Aston Pointe. Do something else but why ruin or jeopardize a community that is established there for 25 years by bringing all this additional traffic through the Highlands. And last but no least I agree with most of the peoples comment here about only allowing roughly 100 homes in there and one house per acre because thats in the spirit of the community and the rural environment that we have in that part of the County.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 100 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mike Kelly, 18 South Parkway, Glen Farms, Elkton stated that I am here speaking on behalf of both my family and I am also the elected Vice President of Glen Farms Civic Association, although that is not necessarily why I am here today. We are dealing with an out of state developer who is not intending to reside in the area. Mr. Kelly stated a newspaper article that was in the Newark Post that intimated that the gentleman was trying to work out a deal with the Newark Country Club so that the members of the Newark Country Club could actually take possession of his new country club at Aston Ponte and relinquish possession of there existing country club to him to increase further development. Now I am sure that this gentleman can buy and sell me 10, 50 time over. It just does not feel right that he is not even a member of the community. Mr. Kelly went on to say that he agreed with what much of the other members have said about urban swale, quality of life, quality of the water. That critical 10% of the water is important. Golf courses are known polluters. It is something that needed to be kept in mind. Not just for ourselves or our families but for our children and the people that intend to live here in the future. He went on to say in our recent primary there were two commissioners that were running in the primary or two hopeful commissioners. Bill Manlove took it because of his platform concerning preservation. I think that speaks significantly. Mr. Walbeck asked Mr. Kelly to confine his remarks to the project. Mr. Kelly stated well this does go to the heart of the project. I think that does speak significantly to the intent and the attitude of the voters of this county that favored a gentleman who was running on a platform of preservation of open space and farmland.

Mr. Walbeck thanked everyone who took the time to come and give there views. They are sincerely appreciated by the members of the Planning Commission. He made a comment on the Planning Commission, were all volunteers also. Some us even take time off from work to come do this. Dont get paid, not elected. In that respect I believe that the Planning Commission tries to do the best job it can possibly do within the regulations, which brings up my second point. As much as we in our personal opinion may side with one side or another a decision must be based on the County Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan is an idea document. The Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Regulations specify the ideas called for in the Comprehensive Plan. We must when we review subdivisions look at the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Regulations. If our decisions are contrary to those requirements and we make a decision that is not liked by someone and it is appealed to Circuit Court the judge will soon take us to task if we have not had an adequate reason based on the regulations to make our decisions. So it is not as easy as saying yes I agree with that group or no I disagree with that person. We must base our decision on the regulations. Again thank all of you for coming and taking the time to be here.

Mr. Walbeck stated next Monday night, 3/22/04, at 7pm there will be a meeting held in Courtroom 1 to review the final recommendations for changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Everyone is invited to attend and hear the recommendations and make any comments.

3. Michael Pugh and Eustace Mita presented Lanphars Landing (formerly Lands of Eustace W. Mita) Lots 1 - 11, Rte 272, Concept Plat, McCone, Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Pugh advised that he and Mr. Burcham were before the PC representing Mr. Mita who was the owner of the property. The property was

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 101 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 formerly known as Lands of Ralph Lanphar which is located just below the Town of North East on the west side of Rte 272 next to North East Harbor. Mr. Mita intends to create this development, eventually living on the property himself. It is in the Critical Area in the LDA zoning. The first part of the development will be a County road to a cul-de-sac and beyond that would be a mini road. It is the developers intent to use the existing land to the Lanphar house as the mini road. The lots have been configured so that three of the lots, 8, 9 and 11 are somewhat extended beyond the road to the other side as a result of a comment received from TAC. The Health Department requires that all lots located within a 50-year food plain, which these would be, to have at least 10,000 ft² of area above the 50-year flood plain. This necessitated the extension of the physical lot limits further up into the bulk of the property. These areas would be deed restricted and prevented from any construction actively in use by the lot but physically they would have to be attached to the lots. This subdivision is going to be a privately designed community, particularly along the water front. The water front homes will be constructed on piling so that the homes will be above the flood elevation as required by code. The ordinance will require that if the developer is successful in receiving the concept approval a variance through the Board of Appeals will be requested for construction in the 50-year flood plain because of the limited amount of filling. The second issue is that a height variance will be sought because in building on piles and raising the first floor elevation above 100-year food plain line it would be necessary to raise the top elevation of the house above the normally prescribed height limitation, which would not block anyones views. Mr. Burcham pointed out an error that was discovered in the area table during the TAC meeting. The Common Open Space area was incorrect on the previous plan that was reviewed by TAC but has since been corrected so that they have the required 15% on the plan. Mr. Eustace stated that he had admired this piece of property for 22 years and it was one of those dreams that if given the chance he would purchase it. He does have the intent to build his home on this property. The material, cedar shake roofs and cedar siding will blend nicely with the area.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated that zoning was SR & LDA. The SR zone permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per one (1) acre, or 2/1 with community facilities. This Concept Plat proposes 11 lots on 19.95 acres, for a proposed overall density of 1/1.814. However, tax records indicate the acreage to be 21.47 acres.

15.71 of the 19.95 acres are in the Critical Area LDA zone, which permits a maximum density of 3.99/1, or the density of the underlying zone, which is 2/1 with community facilities in the SR zone. Five (5) lots are proposed within the LDA zone, for a Critical Area density of 1/3.142.

Five (5) dwellings are proposed within the 100-year floodplain, outside the expanded Buffer. Per §241.2.d (1), those building sites can be approved only after a Variance has been granted.

Should the variance application to create the building sites in the 100-yr. floodplain be successful, then the requirements of §243 must be strictly adhered to. In addition, separate variances would be required for the road in the Critical Area buffer and possible the buildings heights.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 102 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

§241.2.f (2) states that, High priority should be given to clustering development out of the floodplain while preserving the low lying land and forested areas in natural vegetation.

A boundary line survey must be done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes.

Dwellings or impervious surfaces shall not occur on slopes with a grade of 25% or more covering a contiguous area of 10,000²ft or more. On slopes between 15 and 25%, good engineering practices shall be used to ensure sediment and erosion control and slope stabilization before, during and after disturbance activities.

Any slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the preliminary plat.

The USGS Quad Map shows a perennial stream in the location of the intermittent stream shown on the SE corner of proposed Lot 1. A 110 perennial stream buffer is required from all perennial streams present. This buffer shall be expanded to include contiguous areas of hydric soils, highly erodible soils, and soils on slopes greater than 15% -- to a maximum distance of 160.

Consistent with §174.1.b (1) (a) & (b), since this property is technically located in the Development District, as defined by the Cecil County Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission may waive the buffer requirement if evidence is provided that this design would provide the same level of water quality or better. Otherwise, the development of proposed Lot 1 may not be possible, especially with an expanded buffer.

An environmental assessment has been approved. A species survey conducted on 8/14/03 revealed that there were no rare, threatened, and endangered species on site.

Fifteen percent (15%) common open space (2.99 acres) is required. If the boundary line survey reveals that tax records are correct, then 3.22 acres of common open space are required. The Concept Plat cannot be

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 103 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 approved without the required common open space.

Those threshold data must be included on any Preliminary Plat submitted for TAC review.

Twenty percent (20%) landscaping of the development envelope is required in the SR zone. A Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the MD 272 road frontages of proposed Lots 1 and 6.

Rows of street trees are required, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of any proposed mini-road. Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements.

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

Per §196.1.b, no development is permitted in the tidal wetlands and tidal waters buffer, including septic systems, impervious surfaces, parking areas, roads, or structures. The mini-road proposed in the expanded buffer to serve new homes in the tidal floodplain is inconsistent with §196.1.b and §241.2.f (2). The topo and soils information has been included, per §4.0.13 (n).

Per §169, the length of the proposed community pier has been modified to reflect the fact that it cannot extend outward from the mean high water line more than 300from where the structure is connected to the shoreline.

No more than 15% of the surface area can be converted to impervious surface in the LDA.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 104 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

No more than 20% of the forest or developed woodland may be removed. The area inside the Critical Area is exempt, per §3.2.B, as has now been noted on the plat.

In the critical area, no structure shall exceed 35 in height. The separate height requirement for the tidal floodplain creates an inherent conflict with the 35 Critical Area height limitation.

For the portion outside the Critical Area, an FSD was approved on 3/9/04.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary. The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

Road names must be approved by the County 911 Emergency Center prior to Preliminary Plat approval. No road names were provided on the Concept Plat reviewed by the TAC, as is required by §4.0.13 (h) of the Cecil County Subdivision Regulations.

The ADC maps already show the existing driveway as Saginaw Circle. In addition, 2 road names on one alignment will likely not be acceptable to Emergency Services.

If approved, a Mini-road Maintenance Association must be established with all lot owners accessing the proposed mini-road becoming members.

Proposed Lots 1 and 6 must be denied direct access onto MD Route 272.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 105 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 As has been noted on the plat, this property is within the Development District and the SR zone. Therefore, staff will recommend sidewalks on one side of the road outside the Critical Area so as to limit impervious cover.

Documentation of sewer capacity/allocation must be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to Final Plat review.

Minor Subdivision # 298 has now been referenced on the plat.

Mr. Woodhull stated that a SWM Plan, Street & Storm Drain Plan, Mass and Final Grading Plan and Sanitary Sewer Plans must be approved by the Cecil County Department of Public Works prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

The Lot Grading Plan must include a note saying: No clearing or grading is permitted beyond the limits of disturbance show hereon. Any expanded clearing and/or grading in the absence of an approved revised lot grading plan may be considered non-compliance with Chapter 251 of the Cecil County Code and either or both the developer and/or Builder may be subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein.

The final grading for Lots 3-6 and the proposed Elke Way will require substantial consideration as to the possible impact on redirecting stormwater run-off and avoiding adverse impact on Lots 1 & 2.

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

Any applicable Road Code Variances must be requested prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat approval.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 106 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Section 2.13 of the Road Code must be adhered to for the construction of the private road. These requirements include a statement clearly outlining the responsibilities of the Mini-Road Maintenance Association in the maintenance of roads and storm drainage systems must be approved by the Planning Commission and placed on the final plat. The department proposes the following note: (The proposed internal roads will not be dedicated for public ownership or maintenance. The Mini-Road Maintenance Association shall retain title to the road and all maintenance responsibilities.).

If the existing driveway is proposed as the Private Mini Road As-built data must be submitted to verify its adequacy in meeting the requirements spelled out in Section 2.13 of the Road Code. A Road Code Variance request must incorporate this data.

A conceptual sewer plan must be submitted for review prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat Approval.

Water supply is by private well on each lot.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities. A PWA for the road and storm drains and a PWA for the sanitary sewer system will be required.

Mr. Williams asked if all of the dwelling would be elevated on pilings. Mr. Pugh replied Lots 7 11.

Mr. Brown asked what was going on with Lot 10. Is that were the existing dwelling is? Is that coming down? Mr. Burcham replied yes the existing dwelling located under the area on Lot 10 will be coming down and replaced with a new one. There are also some existing metal buildings on the back of the proposed house for Lots 7 that will also be removed from the property.

Mr. Williams asked if any consideration had been given to clustering some of the dwellings further away from the river. Mr. Pugh replied that there wasnt much opportunity in the back because if you follow the sensitive soils line it comes behind to the extent that isnt really possible to pull it back any further therefore, in order to avoid sensitive soil conditions in the rear area this was the optimal area and it does meet the mandatory sit back.

Mr. Walbeck stated that when visiting the property he noticed a large pond located south of Divine Drive, to the east of the metal buildings which is not shown on the plat. Mr. Burcham replied that it was not on the plat because it was confined inside of the limits of the nontidal wetlands delineation which is projected within the 25 wide buffer. Mr. Walbeck stated that out towards Rte 272 there was a fairly large drainage ditch coming

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 107 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 down from the northeast to the southwest onto the road than following along the road. That drainage ditch is not shown either. Mr. Burcham replied that the County topo reflects the ditch lines on the plat. You can see the lines by starting at Lot 6 and following north of Elke Way down through the cul-de-sac and down below the work area. The line follows through the limited development area were the line than extends into that buffer area. This was the comment that DPW addressed nothing that the drainage for Lots 3 6 was going to that ditch now and will need to be addressed in the design of Elke Way at some point.

Mr. William asked what height would be required in order to get the dwelling up above the 100-year flood plain. Mr. Pugh replied that they did not have the final drawing on that yet but they are projecting 13 to the first floor and approximate 48 to the peak of the roof.

Mr. Walbeck asked clarification from Mr. Pugh on the height of the flood plain. Mr. Pugh stated that there is a particular regulation that the Health Department has involving the 50-year flood plain which is driving the extension of these lots further up. The filling in the flood plains variance before the Board of the Appeals deals with the 100-year flood plain.

Mr. Burcham noted that there had been a comment made about the two road names. They are trying to define the limits of the maintenance of these roads. The cul-de-sac is intended to be conveyed to the County and become a public road where as the remainder of the extension would be a private mini road. Mr. Pugh added that it will be a blue tag road. The demarcation will change but if it is seen as a problem the developers can make the adjustment to a single lane. Mr. DiGiacomo stated that based on conversation that he had had with the Emergency Services Department it will be a problem. Mr. Pugh responded ok. Mr. DiGiacomo noted that one could be road and the other could be place, as long as it is the same. Both Mr. Pugh and Mr. Burcham asked if the same common name (Elke Drive and Elke Place or Divine Drive or Divine Place). Mr. DiGiacomo replied that the department needed consistency because if it remains as is there will be a problem.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

4. Colora Springs, Lots 2 10, Concept Plat, Colora Road, McCrone, Inc., Sixth Election District

WITHDRAWN

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 108 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 5. Colora Springs, Lots 2 10, Preliminary Plat, Colora Road, McCrone, Inc., Sixth Election District

WITHDRAWN

6. Donald Sutton presented Brick House Farm Estates, Lots 1 32, Elk Forest Road & Spears Hill Road, Preliminary Plat, McCrone, Inc., Second, Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Sutton advised that the Preliminary Plat represents the concept plat that was approved by the Planning Commission with a few exceptions. It has been revised to accommodate the perc testing that had been completed by the Health Department. Brick Pointe has been extended to accommodate the percs that had been found on the property. They are basically following the same percentage and ratio as Lot 32, being the large lot. The preliminary Forest Conservation Plan was approved by the Planning Office this morning had some revisions, of which he distributed copies to the Planning Commission. It extended the Afforestation Area to wrap around Dawkins Place to help buffer them from this development as suggested by the Planning Office. An Afforestation Area was already in place between Rte 213 and the proposed development. Mr. Sutton added that he had talked to the Planning Office in regards to a question raised about a JD requirement at the TAC meeting. Since the wetlands are contained in the open space and in the large lot, a JD is not required.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was NAR & RCA. Under the provisions of the NAR zone, the Concept Plat was approved for 32 lots, at a bonus density of 1/3.04, conditioned on:

1) A boundary line survey being conducted prior to the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes;

2) A JD being complete prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat; and

3) The Bufferyard C requirement along MD 213 being waived in favor of a modified Bufferyard A (with the normal NAR setbacks) along the rear lot lines for proposed lots 1-4 and 7-18.

While there are still 32 lots being proposed, the numbering has changed due to a lot reconfiguration. Otherwise, this Preliminary Plat is generally consistent with the approved Concept Plat.

Staff will recommend a waiver of the setback requirements for the existing structures on proposed Lot 32.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 109 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

A boundary line has been done.

As Spears Mill Road is functionally classified a local road, there is no Bufferyard C requirement along its frontage.

A condition of Concept Plat approval was the Bufferyard C requirement along MD 213 being waived in favor of a modified Bufferyard A (with the normal NAR setbacks) along the rear lot lines for proposed Lots 1-4 and 7-18. Because of the changes in lot configuration, location, and numbering, the Concept Plat requirement would cover proposed lots 1-15 and a portion of 32. Provided the proposed afforestation area depicted on the plat is substantial enough, it will satisfy that condition of approval.

On slopes between 15 and 25%, good engineering practices shall be used to ensure sediment and erosion control and slope stabilization before, during and after any disturbance activities.

Slopes greater than 25% in the proposed common open space have been shown.

A 25 buffer is required around all non-tidal wetlands and intermittent streams present. The intermittent stream buffer is expanded to 50 in Forest Retention Areas, as depicted. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland and stream impacts prior to recordation.

Consistent with Planning Commission policy adopted on 3/20/95 and revised on 1/16/96, on a JD need not be done so long as the wetlands have been field delineated are located only on the large lot and/or the FRA.

This proposal continues to satisfy the NAR zones open space bonus density eligibility requirement. The large lot (32) and the common open space total more than 62% of the acreage. That is a reduction from the 67% proposed in the Concept Plat. Access to common open space beside lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 110 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The Bufferyard Standard C requirement along Rte 213 was waived in favor of a modified Bufferyard A, as part of the Concept Plat approval. However, the proposed plantings for the substituted Bufferyard must be substantial enough to effectively preserve the areas rural character. So far, nothing has been submitted in that regard (Note: This may not be a true statement with the preliminary Forest Conservation Plan that was approved a couple of hours ago. OPZ will check. ).

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) was approved on 12/9/03.

The PFCP must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat (Update: Was approved this morning, 3/15/04).

The FCP and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat. A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The road name Brick Pointe Lane has been approved.

State Highway Administration is in the process of evaluating the Elk Forest Road/MD Rte 213 intersection.

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

Covenants prohibiting the subdivision of the large lot must be recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 111 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 A small portion of proposed Lot 32 is in the Critical Area, the balance of the Critical area acreage is proposed as common open space. An environmental assessment need not be done as no grading, paving, or construction is proposed in the Critical Area portion.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

Mr. Woodhull stated that a SWM Plan, Road and Storm Drain Plan and a Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by the Cecil County Department of Public Works prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Aforestation, Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

The Lot Grading Plan must include a note saying: No clearing or grading is permitted beyond the limits of disturbance show hereon. Any expanded clearing and/or grading in the absence of an approved revised lot grading plan may be considered non-compliance with Chapter 251 of the Cecil County Code and either or both the developer and/or Builder may be subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein.

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

If stormwater discharge is directed off of the site on to adjacent property owners it is the responsibility of the Developer to obtain appropriate easements from the affected property owners per Section 251-13 of the Cecil County SWM Ordinance. Of particular interest will be the impact on the Lands of Parrish created by the discharge from the northernmost SWM facility where it intersects the existing tributary to Long Branch Creek.

The potential for inclusion of Dry Hydrants should be discussed with the serving fire company. This is all predicated on whether the SWM facilities are designed as wet ponds of sufficient volume to support dry hydrants.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies the owner, designer or DPW, utilities must be relocated at the owners expense.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 112 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Section 3.07.15 of the Road Code directs that Elk Forest Road must be upgraded to a Minor Collector Standard for a distance of 100 either side of the point of intersection between Elk Forest Road and Brick Pointe Lane. Traffic counts have been completed for Elk Forest Road (487 ADT) and McKeown Road (904ADT). (Note: Mr. Woodhull noted that DPW is in the process of getting new counts. They have more counters out and can better picture with a snap shop of what the counts are).

Lot 31 must be denied access to Elk Forest Road along its entire frontage. The denied access must be indicated on the Final Plat.

Any applicable Road Code Variance must be requested prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat approval. To date, no variance request has been received by this department.

All driveways must be paved at least to the right of way.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

A PWA will be required for internal streets and storm drains.

Mr. Manlove asked for clarification concerning open space in which a discussion followed.

Mr. Brown questioned the different roads using counters. Mr. Woodhull responded that they currently had counters at Elk Forest, McKeown and Spears Hill in order to get a better idea of the traffic flow. DPW was also reviewing Elk Forest up to Locust Point. There are approximately 900 cars going up McKeown but most are coming from further down on Elk Forest. They have chosen not to come out at Rte 213 and Elk Forest.

No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

John Shelton of 57 Elk Forest Road was duly sworn in accordingly to law and testimony followed. Mr. Shelton presented a petition that he submitted to the Planning Commission opposing the opposed entrance located on Elk Forest Road because of the traffic in that area in addition to the proposed 18 soccer fields, 3 football fields and 2 baseball fields. He would like to see a red light at this intersection. He is also concern

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 113 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 about talk of the Perdue Company putting a grain place down near the canal and the possibility of them accessing Elk Forest Road with their trucks. The recreational fields could generate 600 to 700 cars on any given day. Rte 213 is an old road. A red light should be installed before anything is done. Mr. Shelton stated that the County would be unable to widen the roads unless they purchased property from him. Mr. Walbeck noted the SHA would take into accountability the data that the County provides along with the recreational fields in deciding if a red light should be installed. The Perdue issue is to far away. Mr. Shelton went on to comment on his concerns of the roads and traffic. He also stated that there were a lot of people who did not want to come today and apparently he and another applicant were the only ones interested in what was going on.

Susan Werneke of 115 Elk Forest Road was duly sworn in accordingly to law and testimony followed. Ms. Werneke stated that as Mr. Sheldon had said in his testimony she had nothing against the development but the road possibility is completely out of hand. She can hear the helicopter, especially in the summertime, picking people up at the end of her road caused by accidents. The road is entirely too busy off of Rte 213 onto Elk Forest Road. The summer traffic is much worse because when turn onto the road people pass her on either side of the road blowing their horns. She worries about her children and school buses. She is against the turn around. She believes the red light will help to control some of the traffic.

Mr. Walbeck noted as previously stated the Planning Commission has no control of the road issue.

Jim Mullen of 1676 Glee Road, Earlville, MD was duly sworn in accordingly to law and testimony followed. He asked if it would be a local or national home builder building the homes. Mr. Sutton replied that it had not been decided at this time.

7. Faron Pyle presented Stonebridge, Lots 1 33, Bethel Church Road, Concept Plat, Northern Bay, Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Pyle advised that he was the consultant for this project. This was the first time that this plan had come before the Planning Commission. It is located off Bethel Church Road. It was zoned DR which is Development Residential as defined by Cecil County. The Zoning Ordinance describes development in this district as development that should be concentrated and served by public water and sewer when possible. This project will be served by on lot wells because there is no public water available. However they will be served by public sewer. This particular project is unique in the fact that it is going to prove to be an isolated project. This site is nearly entirely forested and the developers intend to create a wooded building site within this community. There will be buffering along the adjoined adjacent properties that front to Bethel Church Road property with a substantial separation from the existing dwelling to any new development within this community. There will be requirements for buffering along the properties to the South also based on the Zoning Ordnance. Comments from TAC included providing a connection into the property of Albert Shultz to the south in which a street

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 114 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 stub has been provided for his property. There was requirement to provide 15% of the gross area to be placed in open space. They are placing well above that, approximately 43%. They are trying to cluster their development, provide open space that is both has a flow to it and usable to the community. The open space on the west side of the property along Stoney Run is some of the prettiest area that you will see in the County and in Mr. Pyles opinion in the State of Maryland. There are existing walking trails that run from the south west corner of the property along Stoney Run all the way up to the area where you will see the location of the Stone Bridge Foundation, which is the source of the name for the project. The open space on the eastside of the project which adjoins the Land of Burton consists of about two acres with slopes that are relatively flat and would be excellent for recreation use, where the open space on the west would be more for passive use. Section 146 of the Zoning Ordinance refers to elements to be addressed when providing open space. Mr. Pyles noted that they had completed the following requirements: (1) unify the project; (2) reduce conflicts between incompatible activities and uses; (3) provide active recreational area; (4) passive recreational areas; (5) provide for projection of sensitive natural harmful resources and (7) provide for the protection of historical significant resources.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was DR. The DR zone permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per one (1) acre. With community facilities, a density of 4/1 permitted. This Concept Plat proposes 33 lots, streets, and 14.16 acres of common open space on 33.23 acres, for a proposed density of 1/.993.

There have been modifications since this proposal was first reviewed by the TAC in May 2002, including landscaped island in the proposed cul-de-sacs and a stub road connecting to the adjacent lands of Schultz.

A boundary line survey must be done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes.

Slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the preliminary plat.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 115 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Planning Commission.

A sensitive species survey conducted on 11/15/03 revealed that there were no habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species on the site.

This proposal satisfies the general open space provisions of the DR zone. Fifteen percent (15%) common open space is required; 43 % is proposed.

The Stony Run stream buffer has been shown on the plat.

The easements/rights-of-way across the areas of common open space are inconsistent with §176 of the Zoning Ordinance. The one from Baron Road can be eliminated because of the stub road to the Lands of Schultz. What is the purpose of the 100 wide right-of-way through the proposed common open space to the south of proposed Lot 14? Mr. Pyle replied he had no answer except to speculate that perhaps at one time access was needed to the stream for cows. There were no improvements within the 100 strip other than a little trail leading down to the water. This parcel was part of a larger parcel that included of 27 acres to the south that Mr. Schultz now owns. When this particular property was subdivided and sold many years ago, the farm parent house was on the Schultz property and they retained the right to use the lane out to Baron Road including the 100 wide right away.

Has any consideration been given to extending the common open space along the rear of proposed Lots 28, 29 & 33 to join the westerly common open space strip along the entranceway? Mr. Pyle replied yes. They didnt feel that the building envelopes were feasible. It addition they felt that Lot 28 had access, the only two lots that were not provided direct access of the three were Lots 29 and 33 which were in close proximity of the open space access and therefore not necessary.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 116 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

20% landscaping of the development envelope is required in the DR zone.

Sidewalks are recommended on both sides of all internal roads in the DR zone.

The internal road names must be approved by the County Emergency Management Agency prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat. No road names were provided on the plat reviewed by TAC.

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) was approved on 5/28/02. A sensitive species survey has already been completed, revealing no rare, threatened or endangered species on site. Bog turtles are known to occur with the projects drainage area. The Natural Heritage Service recommends that appropriate sediment and erosion control measures be taken to minimize impacts to nearby wetlands.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 117 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

The Cecil County DPW must verify sewer capacity prior to the review of the Final Plat by the Planning Commission.

Has any consideration been given to relocating the power line over proposed Lots 3 - 8? Mr. Pyle replied yes that power line only serves Mr. Schultzs property and they anticipate that when the electrical design was done for this project, the property would be serviced through the street stub betweens Lots 10 11 and the line would be disconnected back up to the property line of Burton. Mr. Walbeck asked if there were two entrances. Mr. Pyle replied yes but he believed that they could tie the pole service into it.

Mr. Woodhull stated that a SWM Plan, Road and Storm Drain Plan, Sanitary Sewer Plan, and a Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by the Cecil County Department of Public Works prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Aforestation, Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

The Lot Grading Plan must include a note saying: No clearing or grading is permitted beyond the limits of disturbance show hereon. Any expanded clearing and/or grading in the absence of an approved revised lot grading plan may be considered non-compliance with Chapter 251 of the Cecil County Code and either or both the developer and/or Builder may be subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein.

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

The 20 wide Inspection & Maintenance easement, adjacent to Lots 22-25 & 27, may need to be wider depending on the conveyance system proposed.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 118 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Section 3.07.15 of the Road Code directs that Bethel Church Road must be upgraded to a Minor Collector Standard for a distance of 100 either side of the point of intersection between Bethel Church Road and Falling water Drive.

However, Bethel Church Road currently meets a Minor Road standard and is an overlaid tar and chip road in section. The Minor Road classification is designed to handle an ADT of less than 500. Recent traffic counts indicate an ADT 700+/- with no new development impacting Bethel Church Road. At an ADT of 700+/- the roadway width and section are marginal, at best, for supporting the current traffic loading. With the addition of 33 houses of this Development the ADT is expected to rise to 1030+/- and would reach 2700+/- when Bethel Springs and Bedrock developments are completed. The Department considers Bethel Church Road inadequate for that traffic load.

Therefore, the developer, alone or in conjunction with other applicants, will be responsible for off-site improvements to Bethel Church Road. This Department is well aware of the design difficulties associated with accomplishing this upgrade without undue burden upon existing residential home sites. As such, the Department will consider some modifications to the Minor Collector Road standards where necessary to meet site constraints and encourage creative solutions. The Department expects that most of the required improvements would be achievable within the existing Proscriptive Right of Maintenance enjoyed by the County on Bethel Church Road. These improvements would consist of but not necessarily be limited to widening, repair and/or establish shoulders, and improve roadside drainage. The extent of this upgrade, at a minimum, would be from the intersection of Falling Water Drive and Bethel Church Road to the Bethel Church Road/Marysville Road intersection. The upgrade is limited to Bethel Church Road based on the condition that the Developer of the Chesapeake Ridge development upgrades Marysville and Lums Roads, as directed by DPW, at approximately the same time. The off-site work will be required prior to the last house being built in the development.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the Owners expense.

Any applicable Road Code Variance must be requested prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat approval.

Sight distance measurements must be provided to the DPW to establish compliance with the Cecil County Road Code.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 119 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 All driveways must be paved at least to the right of way. The right of way dedication along Bethel Church Road frontage must be shown on the plat and be noted as 30 wide strip to be dedicated in fee simple in support of County Commission of Cecil County. A PWA will be required for internal streets, storm drains and sanitary sewers. An Inspection of Maintenance Agreement will be required for SWM.

Mr. Brown stated that he would like to hear more about the existing lane and open space. Mr. Pyle stated that in the Zoning Ordinance §176 talks about items that must be addressed concerning open space. It mentions that they must be exclusive road rights away and parking area. Mr. Pyle stated that he did not know exactly how to intrepid that. Does that mean a proposed County Road or subdivision street or does the fact that two dwellings have the right to use this existing lane for ingress egress to Baron Road also fall under that statement. He needs clarification. If this is an issue he would like to have that addressed. If this is an issue Mr. Pyle would like to have concept approval granted conditioned on the resolution of that if it is an issue. Is it in compliance with what the Zoning Ordinance says? Mr. Walbeck stated compliance of nonconformance use.

Mr. Sennstrom stated that there were several ways that it could be addressed. One being if the project went all the way through final approval and was recorded the right-of-way would no longer be used once the stub street was opened up. Condition, that the right-of-way be abandoned upon the extension of the stub to the Lands of Schultz. Mr. Walbeck asked if he had a dedicated right-a-way can we take that away from him. Mr. Sennstrom replied the other thing is that before conditioning they would have to research the legality of that and have Ms. Campbell, legal council decides if the Planning Commission could set that condition. It is not an issue that will need to be resolved at the Concept Plat approval. Its something that can be addressed as the project evolves.

Mr. Pyle stated that there were a couple of alternatives. The strip could be added to Mr. Schultz. Mr. Plye noted that when spoke to Mr. Schultz he advised him that he was in no way interested in developing his property and may not be happy with the street stub. He may not want to give up the right to use that lane. To add that strip on, include the lane and take it out of the open space that would fine but that would add about 8.5 acres of property to his existing holdings. If you look at that as a taxable entity than he might not be find with that. Another alternative is to extend the lot lines back through the lane. Still another alternative would be to add it to Mr. Burton and again he would be adding 8.5 of non usable property. It can be resolved in some fashion and Mr. Pyle would hope that he could do it after the concept stage. Mr. Walbeck noted that they as Mr. Sennstrom had stated they did not have to resolve it today.

Mr. Farrell asked if that would also solve the other 100 right-away. Mr. Pyle replied no. Mr. Farrell stated that it was an encumbrance of the open space if the people had to maintain it. Mr. Farrell noted that he did not have an answer but did know that it would be placed in Forest Retention. By doing so it would it restrict the rights of his use? Ms. Campbell stated that you can not restrict his use on either road shy of reaching some type of agreement with him. Mr. Pyle noted that with or without the lane they are far exceeding their requirement for open space required on the project. It is not as if the Homeowners Association were not allowing him access to the 100 strip to utilize. Mr. Walbeck noted that they would still own it. Mr. Farrell stated yes they would still have the right to use it. Mr. Pyle noted that as long as nothing was done to interfere with his rights within the 100 strip he couldnt see where it would be a problem.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 120 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Walbeck asked if it was stated that Bethel Church Road would need to be upgraded before the last house was built. Does that mean that the developer could delay building the last house and never upgrade Bethel Church Road? Mr. Woodhull stated good question, stated that way I guess he could. Mr. Carter stated that it would have to have a performance bond in order to insure it. Mr. Walbeck stated that if you never built the house and left the working as it was you could never call in the bond. Mr. Woodhull questioned a time line. He also stated that what they had looked at was similar to what they had looked at with Bedrock were the where going to doing it in segments. If you tell them to do this before theyve sold Lot 1 it becomes very difficult. Mr. Walbeck suggested 50%. Mr. Carter noted that another alternative would be prior to the last house being built and putting a time frame, whichever came first. Mr. Pyle noted that he realized that there were improvements to be made and everyone wanted to do their fair share. Anyone taking on a project of this magnitude would need the opportunity to get to some period of development within this project before those funds were necessary. This would be to their benefit and could be what makes or breaks the investment. He is not sure what the percentage of the construction cost for this project for streets, SWM, utilities and so on would cost. Hypothetically $100,000 in road improvements at which point you need to sell above the construction cost. There are a lot of questions that need to be worked out. Mr. Pyle asked not to be linked to the development of other projects where the developer could set on the project for ten years. Mr. Walbeck stated that the alternative is for Mr. Pyles client to bear the whole cost if the Planning Commission said Bethel Church Road had to be upgraded. Mr. Pyle replied that is a discussion topic. Ideally the County would have a design for that improvement and the County would fund that improvement on a per lot basis and the developer would pay into that fund and everyone would be happy. Mr. Walbeck replied as well as an impact fee.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Walbeck stated that he had listed two items under Other Business; discussion of Dr. Sarah Taylor-Rogers report on down zoning and the recommendations of proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan that will be presented to public on 3/22/04. Three members did not attend the meeting in which the report by Dr. Sarah Taylor-Rogers was presented. The report is approximately 50 pages. He felt that Dr. Sarah Taylor-Rodgers did an outstanding job of both presenting and answering every question. Mr. Walbeck also expressed that he though it was an excellent report. He commented on some of the items mentioned in the report. (1) By 2012 the rate of harmful sqrawl development on forest and agriculture land on the Chesapeake Bay will increase by 30%. Maryland Chesapeake 2000 Bay Agreements goal was to reduce the rate of harmful squalled development on forest and agriculture development on the Chesapeake Bay watershed by 30%. About 50% of the report is background before Dr. Sarah Taylor-Rogers got into the real study. It is really a tutorial on down zoning. Maryland faces a difficult challenge in meeting this sprawl reduction. It is exasperated by the strong concern for property rights and need of land owners to maintain equity in their land for farming and financial planning purposes. Mr. Walbeck stated that he believed that back in the December frame the PC

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 121 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 discussed down zoning in connection to recommendations for changing the Comprehensive Plan. One of the greatest concerns had to do with the equity. His personal opinion was that had the report been presented then the Planning Commission would have taken a different position. Mr. Walbeck referenced other details within the report noting that a lot of other techniques in addition to down zoning, when applied with low density agriculture zoning, had done well in many Maryland counties. The study was initiated because of the controversy surrounding down zoning. The property would be devalued and the equity built up in the property diminished or lost. Dr. Sarah Taylor-Rogers noted that the national literature searches, interviews former Secretaries of Agriculture as well as statistical analysis done by her were complimentary to her report. The general opinion was that down zoning will diminish agriculture land values had and had not been supported by the experienced counties that had down zoned agriculture lands. When studies were compared with controlled counties, the result of down zoning were either higher land value for the down zoned counties or little or no appreciable effect on their land value. Mr. Walbeck reinforced the conclusions of Dr. Sarah Taylor-Rogers report. Down zoning does not significantly devalue, and in fact many times helps the value of agriculture lands when they are down zoned. Mr. Walbeck spoke on various other issues that were in or regarding Dr. Sarah Taylor-Rogers report. Discussion followed among the Planning Commission members.

Motion made to recommend to the Board of Cecil County Commissioners that the NAR be redistricted and redrawn base on the map drawn up by Mr. Walbeck and that the density in the new NAR zone be 1/20 without bonus density with no option for bonus density. The SAR as delineated on this map with the density of 1/30 with no provision for bonus density by Williams, seconded by Farrell and carried to approve.

Farrell, Walbeck and Williams in favor.

Brown and Murray opposed.

Motion made that when the recommendation comes back from the State Cleaning House with a 1/20 and 1/30 review that it promptly be submitted to the Board of Cecil County Commissioners by Farrell and seconded by Williams.

Farrell, Walbeck and Williams in favor.

Brown and Murray opposed.

Recommendations for proposed changes that Mr. Sennstrom has provided will be reviewed at the 3/22/04 meeting.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 122 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 123 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

ITEM B DECISIONS

1. Wal-Mart Store #5450-00, North East Maryland, Freeland and Kauffman, Inc., Razor Strap Road and Rte 272, Fifth Election District

Motion made by Murray, seconded by Williams and unanimously carried to approve with conditions on 4.85 spaces/1,000 ft2 GFA parking requirement:

1) No sales activity taking place on the parking spaces, themselves;

2) The approval of any future site plan for the expansion of the GFA at this site being contingent upon the proposed number of parking spaces being approved by the Planning Commission; and

3) The Planning Commission granting the applicant the option of voluntarily providing a maximum of 10% of the parking spaces devoted to use by compact cars.

2. Aston Pointe, Jackson Hall School Road and Rte 273, Concept Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fourth Election District

Motion made by Williams, seconded by Farrell and carried to disapprove, due to unresolved issues concerning density in respect to the above capacity schools, unsolved traffic issues/road upgrades, unsolved sewage issues, unsolved surface for impact, unsolved water source concerns, unsolved Fire Department and EMS concerns and unsolved issues concerning small lot sizes that are incompatible with the surrounding area.

Farrell and Williams in favor.

Brown abstained.

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 124 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

3. Lanphars Landing (formerly Lands of Eustace W. Mita) Lots 1 - 11, Rte 272, Concept Plat, McCone, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Brown, seconded by Farrell and unanimously carried to disapprove, due to the dwellings being proposed in the tidal floodplain and accessed through the expanded Critical Area buffer.

4. Colora Springs, Lots 2 10, Concept Plat, Colora Road, McCrone, Inc., Sixth Election District

WITHDRAWN

5. Colora Springs, Lots 2 10, Preliminary Plat, Colora Road, McCrone, Inc., Sixth Election District

WITHDRAWN

6. Brick House Farm Estates, Lots 1 32, Elk Forest Road & Spears Hill Road, Preliminary Plat, McCrone, Inc., Second, Election District

Motion made by Brown, seconded by Murray and carried to approve with conditions: (1) Health Department requirements being met; (2) DPW requirements being met; (3) The setback requirements being waived for existing structures on the large lot; (4) The FCP and Landscape Plan being approved prior to Final Plat review, including the vegetation proposed in lieu of the Bufferyard C along MDE 213.

Brown, Farrell and Murray in favor

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 125 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Williams opposed.

7. Stonebridge, Lots 1 33, Bethel Church Road, Concept Plat, Northern Bay, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Murray seconded by Brown and unanimously carried to approve with conditions:

1) The sensitive areas threshold figures being calculated and shown on the Preliminary Plat submitted for TAC review;

2) A boundary line survey being completed;

3) A JD being complete prior to Preliminary Plat approval;

4) The PFCP being approved prior to Preliminary Plat approval;

There were no further comments.

Meeting adjourned at 4:37 p.m.

NEXT MEETING: April 19, 2004 at 12:00 p.m. in the County Administration Building

March 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 126 April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m.

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Subdivisions)

PRESENT: Brown, Campbell, DiGiacomo, Kilby, Moore, Mortimer, Murray, Prickett, Sennstrom, Walbeck, Williams, Woodhull, and Jones

ABSENT: Carter and Farrell

MINUTES: Motion made by Brown, seconded by Murray, and carried to approve the March 15, 2004 12:00 p.m., minutes, as mailed, with a correction to page 43, an additional motion was made at the start of the motions at the top of the page, prior to motion made to recommend was a motion made by Williams and seconded by Farrell, to reopen the subject of down zoning and the Comprehensive Plan recommendation to the County Board of Commissioners. Williams, Farrell and Walbeck were in favor to approve, Brown and Murray opposed. Page 44 (1st page of Decisions) Item #2 Aston Pointe, Farrell, Williams and Walbeck in favor of disapproval and Murray recused. Prickett and Mortimer abstained from approval of minutes.

1. Mr. Whiteman presented Paradise Streams, Red Toad Road and Ebenezer Church Road, Concept Plat, Will Whiteman Land Surveying, Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Whiteman stated that he was seeking Concept Plat approval of Paradise Streams. The project consists of a little over 19 acres and is located on the northerly northeastern side of Red Toad Road, north of I-95 in the 5th Election District. The property is zoned NAR with a MEB (Mineral Extraction) overlay zone. The Planning Commission submittal included a letter explaining the reason for seeking the approval of Residential Development in the overlay zone.

When York Building Products first negotiated with Cecil County to move Red Toad Road, Mr. Whitemans surveying company worked with York Building Products in performing core testing, wells and borings. These tests convinced the customer that the area to the east of the current Red Toad Road would not support mining extraction, but everything to the north and southwest of Red Toad Road would. Therefore, all current mining is taking place on the north and southwest side. It is not economically feasible to extract the minerals that would possibility be in the east side.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 127 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Whiteman noted that he was proposing four lots, as a minor subdivision with all of its minor subdivision potential. Lots 1, 2, 6 and 7 are comprised of four acres leaving a little over 15 remaining acres. The remaining three lots would have a density of 1/5. Lots 5 and 6 will be separated from their septic systems by the proposed Regal Regency Court. Mr. Whiteman went on to state that this was satisfactory with the Health Department as long as these two lots were within 10,000 ft² and the septic lines leading into these septic systems were secured and safe. Mr. Whiteman has discussed the possibility of a cross easement and the requirements of locating the septic line under the road with DPW. Septic systems can not be placed on Lots 5 and 6 because of the non-tidal wetlands that are present.

Mr. Whiteman went on to say that both the client and engineer would like to reduce the bulb of the cul-de-sac from 75 to 60. The reasons being (1) there will be a 40 ROW with curb and gutter which will concentrate the water therefore requiring a larger SWM area (2) there is a little bit of a steep slope in the area to the northeast of the cul-de-sac bulb. The slope cannot be dealt with, but it might be a little better if the developer was able to pull the cul-de-sac bulb back to the south and reduce it inside. That would allow more room for the SWM facility and separate the steeper slopes. Mr. Whiteman spoke to both Mr. Carter and Woodhull of DPW, who felt that the two reasons were valid. The cul-de-sac bulb reduction was not shown on the plat because it was discussed after the plat had been submitted.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated that the zoning was NAR with a MEB overlay. The NAR zone permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres. Bonus density is not sought in this case. This Concept Plat proposes seven (7) lots on 19.309 acres. Four (4) of the lots are proposed as minor subdivision lots, and three (3) are proposed as major subdivision lots. The density, therefore, would be calculated as follows:

Total site area is 19.309 ac.

4 potential minor sub lots - 4.00 ac.

Remaining site area 15.309 ac.

1 unit/5 acres: 15.309 /5 = 3 lots, for a proposed density of 1/5.103 (15.309 /3)

Add minor subs = 4 lots

TOTAL PROPOSED LOTS = 7

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 128 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 In the MEB overlay zone, mineral extraction activities are permitted per §s 17 and 67.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. A note to that effect should be added to the plat, and all adjacent properties in the MEB overlay zone should be shown on the plat.

A letter has been submitted documenting that the minerals on this site are unrecoverable.

As the NAR setbacks are 40 in the front, 10 on the side and 40 in the rear. The 30 front setbacks noted and shown would require a variance from the Board of Appeals.

A boundary line survey must be done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes.

The add-on hook must be added to the add-on from York Building Products.

Reference must be made to Minor Subdivision 2767. The current deed is WLB 1331/420.

Slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the preliminary plat.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 129 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided. The Natural Heritage Service indicates that the swamp pink, climbing fern, Darlingtons Spurge, Canada Burnet, Rough-leaved Aster, and Halberd-leaved Aster are known to occur in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, a rare, threatened, and endangered species survey must be completed prior to Preliminary Plat approval.

No common open space is required for fewer than 10 lots.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of Red Toad Road.

Rows of street trees with 10 planting easements are required, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of the proposed Regal Regency Court. Why is curb and gutter being proposed? Mr. Whiteman responded that curb and gutter was being proposed because of the plan to reduce the road size to 40 which will bring about less disturbance and more area.

Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements.

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) was approved on 1/13/04.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 130 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The mini-road name Regal Regency Court has been approved.

Mr. Woodhull stated that a SWM Plan and a Mass and Final Grading plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans, which will appear in the minutes but will not be read at this time. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

The Lot Grading Plan must include the standard note addressing the limits of construction, which will appear in the minutes but will not be read at this time. (No clearing or grading is permitted beyond the limits of disturbance show hereon. Any expanded clearing and/or grading in the absence of an approved revised lot grading plan may be considered non-compliance with Chapter 251 of the Cecil County Code and either or both the developer and/or Builder may be subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein.)

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 131 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Section 3.07.15 of the Road Code directs that Red Toad Road must be upgraded to a Minor Collector Standard for a distance of 100 either side of the point of intersection between Red Toad Road and Regal Regency Court. However, the Department for sees only minor requirements in this area because of the existing condition of Red Toad Road; primarily, suitable conveyance must be confirmed or established and maintained.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the Owners expense.

Sight distance measurements must be provided to the DPW to establish compliance with the Road Code.

All driveways must be paved to the ROW and this must be so indicated on the Lot Grading Plan.

The Department will allow the proposed 40 ROW because of the absences of sidewalks in this Development.

The use of curb and gutter will have significant impacts on the SWM requirements for this Development. The Department has met with Mr. Whiteman to discuss the possibility of reducing the amount of impervious road surface in an effort to minimize these impacts and allow space for on-site SWM treatment.

Any applicable Road Code Variance must be requested prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat approval.

Lots 1 and 7 must be denied access to Red Toad Road along their entire frontage and on Regal Regency Court for the first 75 from the intersection with Red Toad Road.

All driveways must be paved at least to the right of way.

Lots 5 & 6 are proposed with septic disposal fields on the opposite side of Regal Regency Court. If this is allowed by the Health Department, a private maintenance easement will be required to run sanitary sewer under Regal Regency Court for these two lots. The line under the road must be an 8 diameter ductile iron or welded steel sleeve with at least 42 of cover and removable watertight seals at either end. The sleeve must

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 132 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 extend at least two feet outside the right of way and be marked with concrete monuments. These monuments may be offset from the line. All monuments must have a brass plate or other marking indicating a septic line and the amount of offset, if any.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

A PWA will be required for internal streets and storm drains.

Mr. Mortimer asked what the reasoning was for not keeping with the 1/5 (NAR) density instead of 1/3.8?

Mr. Whiteman replied depending on which side of the issue you where on minor subdivisions were permitted at a density of 1/1. With the full minor subdivision potential, they had taken four lots out equaling four acres leaving a 1/1 density without minor subdivision potential. What is left is what you apply the major subdivision regulations to, leaving a little over 17 acres divided by three, with a remainder of a little over 1/5.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated as long as the minor subdivision potential is in tact it allows a better integrated design. For example, instead of having four lots with direct access onto Red Toad Road, all minor and major lots would in this case access the proposed Regal Regency Court.

Mr. Mortimer asked what was between Lots 2 and 4. Mr. Whiteman replied the two disposal areas for Lots 5 and 6.

Mr. Mortimer asked if Lot 3 just had a driveway between the septic field and Lot 4. Mr. Whiteman replied yes it has a panhandle.

Mr. Mortimer asked if there was any way to obtain the street frontage to section 3 and 4 a little differently. Mr. Whiteman replied unfortunately the septic for Lot 4 would set right down there, therefore he can not take any more from Lot 4. He would like to have given more, but geology rules.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 133 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

2. Bill Stevens presented Constellation, LLC, Irishtown Road and Old Elk Neck Road, Concept Plat, Stephens Environmental Consulting, Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Stevens advised that he was seeking approval of the five lot major subdivision located to the south and Irishtown Road, Old Elk Neck Road and Elk Neck intersection. Zoning is NAR with a property size of 25.5 acres. It is the residue of a larger parcel that was 30 acres. Per TAC comments the lot numbers were revised to reflect the minor subdivision which is about to be receive final approval and recorded. The lots in the major subdivision are numbers 4-8. Forest Conservation has been addressed and approved. Wetlands were delineated by Mr. Stevens office. The only wetland is located at the northwestern corner of the site. It and its buffer area have been placed into the Forest Conservation area. There will be no disturbance of wetlands. Steep slopes have been avoided. There is a vast amount of Forest Retention area providing a buffer. They are working in the flattest slopes and all of the proposed development area is clustered around a mini road which will sever both Lots 4-8 of the major subdivision and Lot 1 of the minor subdivision. There will no other access point onto Irishtown Road other than the proposed mini road which is currently Taurus Lane, but could be changed prior to preliminary approval. Other than the site being forested and some steep slopes which will be left in the Forest Retention area there are no outstanding environmental issues or impacts. All of the lots will be served by onsite well and septic systems. The developer has indicated that the houses will be priced in the neighborhood of $300,000 plus. The mini road will be placed into a Maintenance Association which will include Lot 1.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated that the zoning was NAR which permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres. Bonus density eligibility carries with it a permitted density of 1/3. This Concept Plat proposes five (5) lots, common open space, and a mini-road on 25.6652 acres, for a proposed density of 1/5.133.

The Minor Subdivision number for proposed Lots 1-3 must appear on the plat when and if that minor subdivision is approved.

A boundary line survey must be done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 134 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 activities.

Slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the preliminary plat.

No open space is required. The proposed open space must be referred to as common open space. Will the common open space be accessed only from Irishtown Road? Mr. Stevens replied yes that is correct.

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone.

No sidewalks are recommended.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of Irishtown Road.

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 135 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) was approved on 10/20/03, and the FCP was approved on 11/20/03.

A Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat. A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The mini-road name Taurus Lane has been approved.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

A mini-road maintenance association must be established with all lot owners accessing the proposed mini-road becoming members which will also include Lot 1 which is in the minor subdivision.

Mr. Stevens asked for clarification on the Jurisdictional Determination (JD). Since they are not impacting any streams or wetlands, is it necessary to obtain a JD. He questioned the time frame of obtaining a JD along with the burden on their resources to send someone out.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated that the Planning Commission established a policy on 3/20/95, revised on 1/16/96 stating that if the wetlands were field identified, field delineated, or they were in areas of common open space or forest retention area then a Jurisdictional Determination (JD) need not be done.

Mr. Woodhull stated that a SWM Plan and a Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans, which will appear in the minutes but will not be read at this time. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 136 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the Owners expense.

Sight distance measurements must be provided to the DPW to establish compliance with the Cecil County Road Code.

Section 3.07.15 of the Road Code directs that Irishtown Road must be upgraded to a Minor Collector Standard for a distance of 100 either side of the point of intersection between Irishtown Road and Taurus Lane.

Any private mini-road proposed must meet the requirements spelled out in Section 2.13 of the Road Code. These requirements include placing a statement, on the approved Final Plat that clearly outlines the responsibilities of the Mini-Road Maintenance Association in the maintenance of roads and storm drainage systems. The recommended wording will appear in the minutes, but will not be read at this time: (The proposed internal roads will not be dedicated for public ownership or maintenance. The Mini-Road Maintenance Association shall retain title to the road and all maintenance responsibilities.).

Lot 1, to the west of Taurus Lane, subject to a pending Minor Subdivision, should be required to access Taurus Lane and join the Private Mini-Road Association. The Department requests that this be made a

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 137 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 provision of final plat approval.

Any applicable Road Code Variance must be requested prior to submittal of the Preliminary Plat.

A PWA will be required for the Private Mini Road and storm drains.

An I&M Agreement will be required for any SWM facilities.

Correct the spelling of Cecil in Note 8 on the plat.

Mr. Mortimer questioned if Lots 1-3 of the minor subdivision be subdivided? Mr. Stevens replied yes.

Mr. Mortimer asked how many houses would be placed on the three lots. Mr. Stevens replied one on each, and they would all be similar in class range with the neighbors.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

3. David Parrack, Paul Muddiman and Joe Caloggero presented Aston Pointe, Jackson Hall School Road and Rte 273, Concept Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fourth Election District

Mr. Walbeck addressed the Planning Commission. He stated that Ms. Murray had recused herself from any discussion concerning Aston Pointe and a later project also.

Mr. Walbeck stated, It has been brought to my attention that the Subdivision Regulations contain an item concerning review of Concept Plats. Boiling it down, it says a disapproved or voided density of a Concept Plat has no status and any further consideration or review submission shall be treated as a new application. This is important to members of the commission. That means that the project that is before us today has not had what is typically referred as a new submission in that it has not had TAC review. The project was disapproved last month for a variety of reasons including density. It has come back now with some changes

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 138 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 to it basically increasing lot sizes. But it has not been to TAC as the Subdivision Regulations read. Now, in the past we have sometimes overlooked that if it were minor changes. I have talked to counsel. You saw me whispering to her a minute ago. She does not feel strongly about this issue, unless you want to use some other words.

Ms. Campbell stated, Im just saying that the ordinance refers to the scheduling being in the province of the Office of Planning & Zoning, and my understanding of the practice is that if there is not a radical modification it does not go back to TAC.

Mr. Walbeck stated, So my question to the members of the Planning Commission is, and any of you can read this paragraph if you want 4012, that Josh has read. Shall we hear this project this afternoon?

Mr. Mortimer stated that he did not attend the April meeting and therefore did not know what the previous details where. Were the changes substantial in your mind?

Mr. Walbeck replied, The changes were the lot sizes increased approximately 50%. There has been a relocation of the road onto a business property. Part of the road falls on that. I dont believe that it did last month but I am not positive of that. The issue is one of procedure, do we follow the procedure in the Subdivision Regs or do we kind of whatever we want to do anytime we want to do it.

Josh Brown stated, Just to echo what Clara said, it is my opinion that the office though it wasnt substantial enough to justify a new TAC meeting, so I think we should proceed.

Ms. Prickett stated, 50% is quite a large difference.

Mr. Walbeck stated, Theyre still not very big but theyre 50% bigger.

Ms. Prickett stated, Well I wasnt here, either, but if it was at the airport we stick by procedures.

Mr. Williams asked Mr. Sennstrom, Eric do you have a feel on this. I mean it sounds like whats before us is reduced density which was the crux of all the issues we had last month. Do you have a feel on as if it needs to go to TAC again?

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 139 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Sennstrom replied, in large, it does not need to go back to TAC. Its a proposal that has been to TAC once in a slightly different form than what you see here. It was resubmitted after you denied it at your last meeting. OPZ does not feel that the changes are substantial enough to require a re-submittal to TAC. The Planning Commission could act on this. A Concept Plat is a re-submittal, and therefore, it was placed on the agenda for your meeting this afternoon for your consideration.

Mr. Walbeck stated that even though some of the members were not present at last months meeting they are still involved in it. They had been told what took place last month. Mr. Walbeck asked for a vote on whether Aston Pointe should be heard this afternoon.

Brown and Mortimer voted in favor of hearing Aston Pointe

Prickett was opposed, and

Williams abstained.

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Parrack introduced the other members that where present. Mr. Parrack then asked Mr. Muddiman to review the changes that had been made to plat reviewed by the Planning Commission in March 2004.

Mr. Muddiman stated the property was located at the southeast point of Rte 273 and Appleton Road. The property is made up of 390 acres zoned Suburban Residential (SR) and 30 acres of Business General (BG). The BG land is not part of the proposal before you today.

Mr. Muddiman than note the changes in the plat before the PC, (1) BG portion of the property has been removed; (2) 8000 ft² lots have been eliminated; (3) lot sizes have been increased to a range of 15,000 ft² to 35,000 ft²; (4) number of lots have been reduced from 370 to 300; (5) cul-de-sac sizes have been increased in many cases as requested by DPW; and (6) the road connection into Locharron was created as requested by DPW.

Items that have not changed, (1) an 18 hole championship golf course which will be privately owned; (2) the parcel will be retained by Dudkewitz; (3) the open space amenities have remained the same, but parking has been added near the open space amenities at Jackson Hall School Road; (4) the clubhouse will remain the intersection of Rte 273 and the entrance road and (5) the road lay out was physically the same.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 140 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The density permitted for the 390 acres at two (2) units per one (1) would be 780. They are proposing 300 units which is a density of .77 units per acre. The requirement for open space is 58.5 acres. This is what is being provided, excluding the golf course.

Mr. Muddiman referenced the Cecil County Land Use Plan. The site is in the Suburban District. The property is consistent with the Cecil County Comprehensive Plan. Zoning is Suburban Residential. Some points in the Comprehensive Plan encourages that the densities up to four units per acre for single family homes encourages growth within the Appleton Road area and encourages clustering residential development in providing for permanent open space. All of which the developers have met in the Aston Pointe, plan. The community is planned outside the sensitive habitat areas. The property is adjacent to the water and sewers service areas. The density at Aston Pointe rounding up .8 units to the acre, is less than nearby communities. The Highlands is built up at 1.2 units to the acre; Hillcrest at 1.1 unit to the acre; and Tara at 1.2 units to the acre.

Addressing the school issues, Harford County for years, has studied the people yield factor and what a new development generates. Mr. Muddiman could not find a study for Cecil County; therefore, he used a Harford County study. The findings where that each single family would generate .31 students K-5; .16 students 6-8; and .2 students 9-12, totaling 201 students generated by Aston Pointe. Keeping in mind, this would be a five year build out starting year 2007 2011, each year would generate 41 students per year. Mr. Muddiman went on to speak on the various other charts concerning the public schools.

Mr. Muddiman stated they planned to extend the county water mains from Barksdale Road through open space to the site to be serviced. A water tank will be built by the developer which will serve the development as well as back feed the existing system. A water connection will be provided to the Highlands. The tank will supplement the current water system and improve the pressure at the Highlands. It will also allow the county to open up the currently closed fire hydrants. Sanitary sewer will be made up of extended County lines through the open space to the site from Meadowview Waste Water Treatment Plant. Sewer mains will be constructed near the Highlands Waste Water Treatment Plant. This will allow the county to remove the Highland WWTP and eliminate annual maintenance cost of $33,000 a year and eliminate any future environmental impacts caused by the aging Highlands WWTP. Connection and user fees from Aston Pointe will help pay for the current Meadowview upgrades. All these improvements, water and sewer, including the county review and inspection fees, will be paid by the developer.

Mr. Parrack introduced Mr. Caloggero from the Traffic Group in respect to the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) that had been done.

Mr. Caloggero spoke on the TIS and how it was generated, the results and answer and questions that anyone may have. He met with County, State and Delaware officials on 10/21/03 to determine the proper scope of work for this Traffic Impact Analysis. Based on the meeting it was decided to study eight intersections and the surround area. After which traffic counts where conducted during the hours designated by the group in February of 2004 when schools were opened which would determine existing traffic conditions. These

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 141 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 conditions are used to project growth. Other developments or regional growth also contribute. The growth rates, as well as background developments. were provided by the county, which determines background traffic conditions. After which the trips to be generated by Aston Pointe are determined. The previously 370 units and an 18-hole golf course where used in this analysis, therefore over estimating the trips. The criteria established by Cecil County, MD State Highway Administration and DelDOT were used in the study. The study showed that all intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service.

Mr. Mortimer asked what acceptable meant. What kind of car count could you accept? Mr. Caloggero replied in accordance with State and County standards you analysis intersections and they are given grades. Level of service A is optimum conditions and it drops down to level of service F, which is a just school grade. They found that the majority of intersections operate at acceptable level of service A conditions. One or two intersections operate at C or better during the year of 2011. All three agencies will review all the analysis for accuracy. If these agencies determine that mitigation measures are necessary as part of the study, then the items will be addressed.

Ms. Prickett asked what intersections were reviewed. Mr. Caloggero replied 273 at Appleton Road, 277 at 316 and Appleton Road, Cat Swamp Road at Jackson Hall School Road, Cat Swamp Road at Barksdale Road, Jackson Hall School Road at Appleton Road, Appleton Road at Barksdale Road and Brewster Bridge Road, as well as the site access points where studied in Maryland. In Delaware, DE Rte 273 at Jackson Hall School Road and Wedgewood Road, as well as Rte 273 at Cash Hill Mill Road and Delrem Drive.

The question was asked by several members at the same time, which one was C or better? Mr. Caloggero replied DE Rte 273 at Casho Hill Mill Road and Delrem Drive.

Mr. Williams asked if that was current conditions. Mr. Caloggero replied future.

Mr. Walbeck questioned if it was including Aston Pointe. Mr. Caloggero replied yes.

Mr. Walbeck asked what the level of service specifically at Jackson Hall School Road and Rte 273 in Delaware. Mr. Caloggero replied Level of Service A by the SHA.

Mr. Mortimer asked if the study included future developments other than Aston Pointe.

Mr. Caloggero replied it included West Creek Village and Pines of Cherry Hill Development.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 142 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Mortimer asked if it included Newark Country Club. Mr. Caloggero replied, no. He went on to say that they could always include other developments when the study is revised prior to final submission.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated that the zoning was SR & BG.

A substantially similar Concept Plat for 372 lots on this site, with the 30.06 BG zoned acres being rezoned to SR to accommodate approximately 70 additional lots, was disapproved last month.

Per §4.0.12 of the Cecil County Subdivision Regulations, this submission is being treated as a new submission, rather than as a revised Concept Plat. Ordinarily, Concept Plats must first be reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) prior to being reviewed by the Planning Commission. In this case, the TAC reviewed a somewhat similar Concept Plat proposing 510 lots on 9/6/03 and a substantially similar Concept Plat proposing 372 lots on 2/4/04. Both contained a level of detail that exceeded that required for Concept Plats by the Subdivision Regulations, and this plats title block notes that it has been revised per the TAC comments of 2/4/04 and the Planning Commission comments of 3/15/04. Under these circumstances, consistent with established precedent, the Planning Commission may review this Concept Plat today, as the substantive value to the Planning Commission of an additional TAC review would be negligible. The Preliminary Plat must be reviewed by the TAC.

The SR zone permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per one (1) acre or two (2) dwelling unit per one (1) acre with community facilities. This Concept Plat proposes 302 lots on approximately 390.04 acres, for a proposed density of 1/1.29. A portion of the proposed Shadow Creek Court is depicted in the BG-zoned portion of this site, but, otherwise, nothing is proposed in the BG zone.

A golf course is proposed as Lot 302. Public golf courses may be permitted in the SR zone as a Special Exception. The Special Exception must be obtained prior to Final Plat review. Private golf courses are permitted in the SR zone. By precedent, a public golf course is defined as one that can be utilized by anyone for a fee, and a private golf course is one that can be utilized only by members of the country/golf club.

The golf course proposed on this Concept Plat can be approved as part of the proposed subdivision only if it is a private golf course and that is what has been indicated.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 143 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 A boundary line survey must be done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes.

Note # 19 refers to a non-existent proposed Lot 371. That must be corrected. Note # 14s reference to a Baliff Road appears to be incorrect.

Slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the Preliminary Plat.

The habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided. The Natural Heritage Service indicates the midland sedge, a rare plant species, is known to occur within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, a sensitive species survey is required prior to Preliminary Plat approval.

58.5 acres (15%) of common open space are required in the SR zone, based on 390.04 acres. This plat indicates that 58.5 (was 85.93) acres are proposed, in addition to the proposed 169-acre golf course.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 144 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 20% landscaping of the development envelope is required in the SR zone.

Sidewalks are recommended on at least one side of all internal roads in the SR zone. This proposal, should include adequate sidewalks, walking/bike paths, any possible greenway linkages, as well as direct access to the BG portion.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of Appleton, Cat Swamp, Jackson Hall School, and Telegraph Roads. A Bufferyard Standard C is also required to buffer the golf course from adjacent residential uses (§100.3) and to buffer the parking area (§100.4). A structure on proposed Lot 301 must be removed unless the Planning Commission grants a bufferyard and setback modification.

If the golf course is private, then it would be considered an accessory use. As such a determination must be made as to ownership and the details of the golf course development must be approved as part of the regular subdivision process, with the Preliminary Plat including details consistent with §291 and Appendix A of the Zoning Ordinance.

Per §100.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, off-street parking and loading areas, golf tees, and maintenance facilities must be screened by a Bufferyard Standard B.

For subdivisions proposed on property contiguous to operating farms, notice shall be provided on the plat that an agricultural operation is being conducted on a contiguous property and said agricultural operation is protected from nuisance claims provided the conditions of Article I, § 4 are being complied with. If there are any of the contiguous properties in agricultural operation, then a Bufferyard A with a 100 setback would need to be shown on the Preliminary Plat.

Street trees and 10 planting easements are required on lots, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of all internal roads. In areas with community facilities, no street trees shall be planted within 20 feet of sewer laterals and cleanouts.

Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements.

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 145 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) has been approved.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat. An FCP for the gas line easement is already on file (#297).

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The identity of the gas line owner has been provided.

The internal road names must be approved by the County 911 Emergency Center prior to Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat.

The proposed stub road to connect with Locharron Drive is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Subdivision Regulations, best planning practices regarding street connectivity, and the actual final approved design of Locharron Drive in the Highlands. Only 4 proposed access points for 302 lots warrants adherence to the original plan of having Locharron Drive connect to this development.

Confirmation must be received from the gas company prior to Final Plat review that all proposed roads, intersections, and the parking lot at the golf course, as well as sanitary sewer lines, water lines, and any required stormwater conveyance devices will not have any adverse impacts on the gas line within the easement.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 146 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Staff recommends that a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) be completed, which is in draft form. As Mr. Caloggero indicated, OPZ has been a party to the TIS along with the SHA and DelDOT. As one of the nearest intersections is in Delaware, DelDOT will be invited to any additional scoping meetings and to review and comment on the completed TIS.

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

Active recreational amenities shown in common open space must be included in the public works agreement. Where is the tot lot referred to in Note # 18? Mr. Muddiman replied that the tot lot was part of the golf course club house.

Verification of water and sewer allocation must be received prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Final Plat. The name of the water company providing the water must be included on the Final and Record Plats.

Note # 14 indicates that this project is to be served by public water. All approvals must be received for any intra- or inter-basin water transfers prior to Final Plat approval. Any PSC approvals, if necessary, to extend a water line to this property must be received prior to Final Plat approval.

The Master Water and Sewer Plan must be amended prior to Final Plat review.

What impact(s) will the Fire hydrant locations should be selected in consultation with the Department of Public Works and the Singerly Volunteer Fire Company. Consideration should be given to the installation of dry hydrants at the stormwater management ponds.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 147 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 As they are attractive hazards, serious consideration should be given to protective fencing around the stormwater management facilities.

Mr. Woodhull stated that A SWM Plan; Street and Storm Drain Plan; Sanitary Sewer and Water Plans, and a Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans, which will appear in the minutes but will not be read at this time. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

A Dam Breach Analysis must be submitted to DPW for all existing ponds and As-builts will be required for any existing ponds proposed as SWM Facilities.

In light of the Departments concerns regarding the adequacy of Appleton Road, Jackson Hall School Road and Barksdale Road to handle an approximate additional 3,800 average daily trip ends generated by this development, at this time, the minimum requirements of the Road Code will not likely be sufficient and the applicant should anticipate additional off-site improvements to some or all of these roads (links). This would

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 148 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 also entail improvements to intersections (nodes) of these roads as well as those on Cat Swamp Road. (3,800 Trip Ends based on 3,000 Trip Ends generated by 300 lots and 800 Trip Ends generated by the Golf Course)

Sight distance measurements must be provided to the DPW to establish compliance with the Cecil County Road Code.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the Owners expense.

The Department strongly recommends the use of construction entrances for the project, separate from the final entrances. The proposed entrances should be shown on the Preliminary Plat together with a phasing plan submittal to be for use in developing an outline for when internal road sections will be accepted and the magnitude of maintenance bonds that will be required as well as the time frame over which they will be held.

Access from any lot to Appleton Road, Jackson Hall School Road, Cat Swamp Road, and Barksdale Road is denied except for the proposed entrances and the existing driveway for Lot 371.

Lots 185 and 300 must be denied access to Lochland Drive except for the southernmost 20 of lots. Lots 274 and 275 must be denied access to Lochland Drive except for the easternmost 20 of lots.

Does Parcel 37 access Jackson Hall School Road via a common drive to Parcel 38? CCDPW would like to make sure that whatever conveyance that is enjoyed now that they will still have access once the development is completed. Mr. Muddiman replied that Parcel 37 has direct access to Jackson Hall School Road. This will be discussed further in the design review.

The Department recommends connection with Locharron Drive via Medinah Drive. This connection is not only good planning practice, it is important for improved emergency vehicle responses, as well as for snow removal operations not only in Aston Pointe, but also in the Highlands.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 149 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

All driveways must be paved to the ROW and this must be so indicated on the Lot Grading Plan.

All lots must access the least major road frontage where possible. Those that cannot, as on Country Club Drive & Lochland Drive, must have driveways of sufficient design to allow turnaround capability to improve access safety for each lot. Where driveway turnarounds are the recommended solution, the final lot-grading plan must show them as mandatory.

The Development contains some cul-de-sacs with radii that do not conform to the Road Code Standard R-14. Therefore, a variance request, in accordance with Section 1.06 of the Road Code, to use less than the standard 75 radius must be submitted.

Any applicable Road Code Variances must be requested prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat approval.

Currently the parcels proposed for development are not within the Master Water and Sewer Plan Service Districts.

Therefore, the Cecil County Board of County Commissioners would have to amend the Master Water and Sewer Plan to include this development in the coverage areas.

Currently neither the Highlands nor the Meadowview plants have excess water or sewer capacity at his location to service this development. The sewer capacity limitations at the Meadow View WWTP will be eliminated at the end of the current design-build project for the Meadow View WWTP, begun March 2004 with anticipated completion in 18 months. The Meadow View water supply has a reliable water source, through United Water Delawares long-term commitment to the County. However, the Developer must extend the water and sewer mains to Aston Pointe in accordance with Department requirements.

Water and sewer connection fees will be required plus a likely Benefit Assessment fee for the upgrade of the Meadow View WWTP.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 150 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

If the Planning Commission approves the concept plat, the Department will require a concept master sanitary sewer and water plan for the entire development prior to Preliminary Plat submittal for any section of the development.

The Applicant must provide a sewer easement connecting the BG zoned property to the main sewer system in the development.

The water line for this development must be connected to the existing water line at Locharron Drive and be extended and capped at the required road stub to The Lands of Wohner.

All cleanouts and water meter vaults must be designed to be outside of all paved or concrete areas on each lot.

Careful consideration must be given to safety concerns with the close proximity of the gas transmission line to dwellings as well as design of water and sewer main crossings.

The gas line is routed across County ROW. Therefore, the Applicant must inform the Owner of the line that they must obtain a maintenance easement to be allowed to work in the Countys ROW.

PWAs will be required for the proposed roads and storm drains, water lines, and sewer lines.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement is required for SWM facilities

Mr. Williams questioned the ongoing study at Meadowview. What is it related to? Is it a capacity study?

Mr. Woodhull replied that he would have to research prior to answering his question.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 151 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Williams asked Mr. Woodhull if he knew what Meadowviews capacity would be after the upgrades where complete.

Mr. Woodhull replied he did not know but could have the answer to him later in the day.

Mr. Brown asked if the developer and the County were planning on taking the Highland WWTP off line, leaving the capacity to handle the current load of the Highlands and the anticipated load of Aston Pointe.

Mr. Woodhull replied yes, once Meadowview is upgraded, which would be 18 months from March 2004. It is anticipated that this will reduce the Highlands operation.

Ms. Kilby asked if this would mean taking it like. Mr. Woodhull replied no, not necessarily.

Mr. Brown added it was currently over capacity.

Ms. Kilby stated that during discussions of the upgrade of the Meadowview Sewer Plant it was suggested to them to reduce the capacity and not take it off line.

Mr. Muddiman stated their discussions with Matt Carter resulted in designing the sewer lines that would run to Aston Pointe, allowing the capability to be taken off line if necessary.

Ms. Kilby stated that discussion of the upgrade of the Meadowview Sewer Plant presented to them, suggested reducing the capacity and not taking it off line.

Mr. Muddiman replied that separate from that, the developer would design, size and locate their lines, thereby allowing use of the lines without a lot of extra cost if Highlands was taken off line, if need be, sometime down the line.

Mr. Woodhull stated that it would be cheaper to prepare now rather than replacing the entire length of pipe at a later date.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 152 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Ms. Kilby stated that from her perspective it was her understanding that when the upgrades to Meadowview were presented to the County Commissioners by CCDPW, it was basically upgrades to the Meadowview system, which where targeted for economical development and industrial growth in that corridor. At this point, we can not do that because of the size of the Meadowview Plant. There is an economic corridor next to the Meadowview WWTP with the potential for a lot more industrial development. There are plans to upgrade the system in order to achieve more utilization.

The other piece of information that the Planning Commission needs to know, which was presented to TAC in a modified form, was concerns to the school system. We are still in the process of doing additional renovations to the Cecil County elementary schools. What that means is that from this point forward we can do no more additions or renovations to those elementary schools. From here on out new elementary schools will have to be built in order to gain additional capacity. It was stated that the Elkton High School would have increased capacity. The Elkton High School and the Cecil Community College Building have just about maxed out the Countys bonding capacity. At this point there are no more access monies to build a new elementary school or anything else that might be needed. She felt that the Planning Commission needed to look very carefully at these new developments that are coming on line because there was a potential of putting the County into a real bind as far as trying to provide capacity for students. Many times at these hearings students are not represented as they should be.

No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

Mr. Walbeck asked everyone who planned to speak in opposition to come forward. They were duly sworn in according to law and testimonies followed.

Mr. Sennstrom read two public comments (Barbara Zwilgmeyer and Kevin Kohler), a copy attached for reference.

Mr. Mason Nelson, Counsel for the Appleton Regional Community Alliance, 401 Washington Ave, Suite 803, Townsend, MD 21204, stated that on behalf of his clients he would like to raise two legal issues for the Planning Commissions consideration, each having significant merit. First the TAC issue. The ordinance says that a disapproved plan has no status. This plan has no status. It must go back to TAC. There were seven issues raised in the disapproval last month one of which was the traffic issue. They respectfully suggested that the level service at Rte 273 and Jackson Hall Road is not a perfect A. Had this plan gone back to TAC the engineers and the County could have considered that, could have given advice to this commission. His clients will spend less than five minutes each address each of the seven issues. The second point is what he thinks of the water and sewer issue. The law requires that a Concept Plat comply with the Comprehensive Plan. This one does not. It is predicated on the presence of water and sewer. There is no water and sewer for this proposed development. He respectfully suggested that if this commission were to approve this Concept Plat it is going to unfairly bias the debate down the road on whether or not they should

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 153 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 be an expansion of water and sewer. The only way to get a fair debate is to disapprove this plan, present the modification of sewer and water issue to the County Commissioners and let them decide. If they decide to expand it, lets come back and consider it. For those two legal issues I urge this commission to disapprove this plan. His clients will spend less than five minutes each addressing the seven issues that this commission raised last week.

Mr. Ron Hartman, 164 Little Egypt Road, representing ARCA stated that he was present to reiterate the seven points. He stated that he had a BS degree in chemical engineering, was a licensed professional engineer and had spent 35 years in the water and waste water business in which he was still actively working. Mr. Hartman went over the seven reasons for denial from the March 15, 2004 meeting. Reasons for denial were (1) the unresolved issues concerning density in respect to the school capacity; (2) unresolved traffic issues and road upgrades; (3) unresolved sewage issues; (4) unresolved surface for impact issues; (5) unresolved water source concerns; (6) unresolved fire department and EMS concerns; and (7) unresolved issues concerning small lot sizes that were incompatible with the surrounding area. Mr. Hartman spoke on one of the issues, The water supply for this development seems to be at best Helter Skelter. By this I mean the developer first was going to bring water through Pennsylvania, then from Delaware using Artesian, and now they are hooking up to the County connection and Highlands. It is obvious that there is little thought behind the planning related to the water supply. It is like the developer keeps making proposals in the hope he finds one acceptable to the County. The County should not let the developer dictate the water sewage plan and make arbitrary changes to the Master Water and Sewage Plan to accommodate the developer. Those are my comments and now we are going to have individuals address these issues

Mr. Bob Tober, 219 Rhett Lane stated, one of the reasons that the Planning Commission rejected the March 15th Concept Plat was because they thought it was incompatible with the existing development patterns of the surrounding community, and I agree. The suburban district is a transition area in that it allows for development across a spectrum ranging from very low density to higher density development, higher density particularly where there is existing municipal water and sewer. Note 1 emphasize existing. I dont think that is true to make a density decision. To make a density decision before there are in place services to support that density, particularly where these services would hardly be viable, for a number of reasons already addressed in the last meeting. And there is existing development in the suburban district, which falls under the definition of higher density where these densities make sense. But the Aston Pointe Plan seeks to create this density geographically between lower density developments such as the development patterned along 273 coming out of Newark and in communities off of Little Egypt Road and farms other areas, between these communities and against the boundary where the suburban district meets the rural conservation district. Between those communities and against the boundary and against the borders of the border Fair Hill Preservers, the Fair Hill Preserve is a pretty unique place. In many ways it is unique to the whole east coast. That has been written about and not just by local people. A few years ago I was vacationing in Colorado and I described the preserves to the owners of a large horse ranch and I was surprised that even by their standards they were quite impressed. It is nearly 6000 acres. Fair Hill Preserve is the jewel of this part of the County. I think it helps define this part of the County. I dont think the intention of transition zoning is placing the highest density allowed within that zone or even density still suggested by the April 12th submittal in an area such as this. Putting this level of density in this area potentially consider pressing for higher density development than what infrastructure and surrounding character dictate for all future development in the suburban district. I think that there are many possibilities for the type of very low density development that Mr. Klein suggested at the last meeting, that I think this area dictates. Planning would be possible for the local developer. A part of what my business does is commercial development and I would be hypocritical to say that I am against development. I think most people realize its a necessary part of our economy and

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 154 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 society. That is why it is so important that the planning authorities create the rules based on the communities interest and in that process they establish a level playing field for the whole development community. Ive dealt with the disarray of planning in New Castle County community for years. Its frustrating. Its bad for both communities and developers as well, except for certain developers in certain situations. I think a well thought out list of objections by this Planning Commission for the rejection of the March 15th concept plan, which are hardly satisfied with the revised concept plan need to be stood by and need to be reinforced permanently. And speaking of the April 12th concept plan, I still saw significant changes on that plan. Particularly with the change of the location and layout of open space that really suggest to me that it should have gone back to TAC.

Mr. Owen Throne, 20 Hillwood Road, stated that the newer version is even more incompatible with the surrounding area and its rural character. And small changes these are not. Aston Pointe Development Group now leaves the 30 acres of BG for future development. We dont know what that is. Is it a strip mall? Is it a grocery store? Is it a gas station? Is it a Wal-Mart? I dont know whatever it will be, it will be visible for miles around with its position on top of the hill. And its right next to the newly proposed gigantic water tower, which is in fact in the BG, which they claim in no longer part of the plan. There is plenty of available retail space in both Elkton and Newark including half the half empty strip mall down along Fletchwood Road. As Bob and Ron have already touched on briefly; contrary to their claim before this commission last month that 60% of Aston Pointe would be open space. They have reduced the actual area of open space from 86 acres down to only 58 acres in this version. Less than 15% of the total land leaving 85% of the track for houses pavement Business General now and their excusive private country club. Without which, by the way, they are proposing to put 300 units on 120 acres. When you take out the golf course and you take out the strip mall thats what it is. Closely packed houses on very small lots, many of which are about a ¼ acre each if I read my numbers correct and my math is good. And all far smaller than the present and long accepted standard for buildable lot sizes on the surrounding country side. Nothing like the density of this place existed in their district now and would set an awful precedent, extending the New Castle County pattern of out- of-control growth, spoiling our landscape and having a permanent negative impact on both the forest and crop based agriculture economies of Cecil County. Which by the way, swell County Government tax coffers whereby residential development drains tax dollars. Agriculture has been the mainstay of our district since the 17th century, but most of our farmland is already gone. And according to the Cecil County Farm Bureau, Eastern Shore Land Conservancy and American Farmland Trust there figures say that the rate of loss continues to rise in Cecil County. Now instead of horse farms and rolling fields, they proposed to greet tourist not with a greenway linking nearby parks but even less opens space than in their last proposal. Furthermore, it is like that when other large out of state developers see that this group was allowed to come in/out community and steam roll the process against the wishes of the vast majority of local voters and tax payers they will be lining up to exploit our remaining farms and woodlands. These huge corporate developers are predatory by nature and vertically intergraded in structure. Few local craftsman and businesses are employed, as builders and realtors are imported with their own equipment, materials and financing. Little benefit to local companies with results, and in fact would take away from existing local business and their employees and tax payers. The greed of a few wealthy spectators and out of state developers cant be allowed to outweigh the good of current residents and the future health of the community at large. There is also a proposal coming before this board for West Creek Village Apartments. They plan to tie into the proposed, and as yet not yet approved, and I just heard about it today, Aston Pointe utilities lines down to Meadow Wood. Finally I quote from the new plat; existing structures on the site are to be raised except for those on lot 371. As confirmed by our zoning friend here, Lot 371 doesnt even exist. I remind you of the grave danger to historic homes and buildings both by the bulldozers of Aston Pointe and by the resulting widening of the County roads and replacement of the intersections and bridges in the area just mentioned by our Public Works representative. If these productive farms cant be sold to younger farmers I can see building houses in the long established tradition of acre or larger lots, well and septic on percable land and keeping with the rural character of our

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 155 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 area.

Mr. John Williams stated, I am a resident for Glenn Farm for the last 37 years, Vice President of the Civic Association there and my professional experience is a chemical engineer, retired, research with Dupont and some consulting on Waste Water Treatment. The remarks that I am presenting to you today are an extension of those you received earlier at the last meeting from Mr. Klein. Mr. Klein presented remarks to you concerning issues about density. The first thing that I will review for you today is a technical analysis of an appropriate housing density. Basically that is imperviousness. How much of your area is impervious to percolation of rainfall into the soil. We add to that some comments on the impacts of this project to Delaware and a potential contamination of the drinking water source. In reviewing for you the imperviousness we find that the present time the imperviousness of the Christina River basin hear in Cecil County is rated at 8.7%. When this Aston Pointe project is completed for the current Concept Plat that would number would rise to 9.8%. The details are shown here on the basis of the calculation. The calculation presumes what was not discussed today is that the BG portion will be built out ultimately as an overall part of this development in the area to a shopping center strip mall. We would propose that you also consider an alternate to this which would be consistent with general land use planning. That would be a low impact alternative. That would be 100 houses on the total area and you see the numbers of that. That raises the imperviousness to only 8.9%. Imperviousness is critically important because many studies show that when the impervious level reaches approximately 10% there is a serious degradation for quality of life for residents of all forms. Whether they be the iota in the water system or the human residents of the area. You can see that we have pushed that threshold with the Aston Pointe development and that doesnt even include the other developments we are talking about currently for the basin. To push the 9.8 across to 10 would take about 80 to 100 new homes additionally. The impacts to Delaware need to be thought about because they are our residents, neighbors down stream, just as we are concerned about these matters. They fall into three categories, stormwater, waste water treatment and water demand. From a stormwater standpoint it is obvious that any increase of the imperviousness of the water shed would increase flooding along the flood-prone Christina down in the Newark, Delaware area. From a waste water treatment standpoint the streams down below Cecil County already are impaired for nutrient reasons. The additional load on the WWTP with TMDLs on it would not improve this situation but would actually lead to some further degradation. And certainly the water demand is of great concern to us all. Additional, you could strain the Delaware systems. Of significance is the next information which is also in the information that I presented to you and that concerns contaminative levels for Delaware water systems. These are the contaminants found in United Water Delawares intake at Smallys pond. That is the water serves 100,000 residents in the southern area of New Castle and would serve the residents of this project as well as those in the Meadowview Highlands area. That water already contains contaminates in the intake above drinking water level but most significantly is the led level for my standpoint in thinking about it, which is currently above the 50% level. There are two factors that could possibly increase the lead level in that water: (1) Domestic waste water treatment systems which this project would bring to us and (2) break clients.

Finally the recommendations that we would make to you is that the maximum housing density permitted on a 420 acre site be no more than one house per acre. The 100 approximate houses should be clustered on lots about one acre in size. These lots should be clustered in area comprised in ¼ of the site. Certainly public water and sewer service should not be extended to the site and if future studies do show and confirm that low impact development under the BMPs will actually reduce environmental degradation than you could give some consideration to increasing the maximum density on this project. Mr. Williams report, Assessment of the Impact of Aston Pointe on the Christina River in Cecil County and in Delaware is available in the Planning & Zoning Office.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 156 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Kristen Magas of 6 Ballantrae Court, Elkton, presented Impacts of Wastewater from Aston Pointe, a copy attached for reference.

Darren Magus of 6 Ballantrae Court, Elkton, presented Estimated Costs to CCPS Based on Revised Concept Plat for Aston Pointe, a copy attached for reference.

Ms. Laura Gleeson of 60 Glen Brook Drive, presented Overcrowding in Local Schools Timing of Renovations Effects of Overcrowding and Substandard Conditions on Education, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. Ed Cairns of 104 Jackson Hall School Road presented, ARCA Traffic Presentation on Aston Pointe, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. Ron Hamlin, 9 Lochcarron Drive, stated I am not opposed to development in this part of Cecil County, but I do have several concerns as far as precedence that the current plan or Aston Pointe raises and I just want to go through those one by one. Youve already heard some of those today. The first bad precedence I think we talk about is that it lets developers decide where to put water and sewer. This increases the density in locations that are contrary to the Comprehensive Plan and in many cases against County interests. The current plan makes density decisions before policy changes and impact studies that affect density are inactive. Here specifically its the Master Water and Sewer Plan. To me this is thinking like a cart before the horse. We are going to establish the density, and then we are going put pressure on the County Commissioners to amend the Water and Sewer Plan. Why would we do it that way I dont understand, it doesnt make sense. This was also one of the reasons for the no vote within this commission back on March 15th. I have already just alluded to the precedence that is sent by the plan before us if fact is going to force Commissioners to change the Master Water Plan after approval of the development for land that is not currently approved for water and sewer. Again this is the cart before the horse. Also what I think this does and this is what Ive gotten down here, this is incremental decision making, rather than having a broad base plan that is evident to all the citizens. The proposed water source is not totally controlled by County Officials since some of this water will come from United Delaware, United Water of Delaware, and again this is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan and again which was part of the reason for the no vote on March 15th. And I must say too we talked a little bit about or heard a little it about connecting to the Highland Water. If that is all in consideration as a source from Lochcarron Drive the Commission really needs to be aware of the availability of the Highlands water. It is highly unreliable. We are seeing families saddled out. Weve seen about half a dozen to almost a dozen of those so far. All of them will fail. The County is in the process of looking into the cost of replacing all of those which also means repaving all of the streets in the Highlands. This present concept plan sets a pattern of dense residential development for several of the adjacent SR areas. Again once this is put in place well see the same pressure for the surrounding SR areas. The changes proposed in this plan change permanently long existing residential development pattern in this part of Cecil County. Again I was practically behind the NO vote on March 15 by this commission. Approval of the Aston Pointe plan as it is currently designed, it casts the dye to transform the north east part of Cecil County into the clone of New Castle County. And we have heard time and time again that is something that we do not want. They also destroyed the very quality of the

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 157 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 environment that bought many of the citizens and continue to bring citizens into this part of Cecil County. I am not opposed to development in this part of the County, but I am to this design. It is not in the best interest of our current citizens or our future citizens.

Richard Boyce, 11 Harvest Lane, Elkton added to the presentation made by Mr. Cairns. We dispute the traffic route conclusion of Jackson Hall School Road and the 273 intersection operates or will operate after Aston Pointe at a Level Service A. We would like to review that data and the County officials should also, to make sure that those calculations are correct. Two other things, the density of the development was quoted earlier as .8 homes per acre. If you exclude the golf course which is private entity that may revert to houses sometime in the future since it is not really part of the development. The actually density of the 220 acres is 1.36 which is well above anything in the area. The only thing that I would support is the talk about education level. The figure for Harford County was .3. Cecil County has about 83,000 people and 16,000 plus, 16,500 students. If you assume only two people per household, thats 41,500 households which gives you somewhere in the range of .4 or .6 students per every household in the County. Our development, which we moved into 33 years ago, was covered with children when we moved in, and we had four. New developments are typically young people with families and a number of students per household in most areas is above one and sometimes approaching two.

Mark Scott, 104 Valentra Drive, stated that he was a happy resident of the Highlands. I am not part of the Planning presentation today but I do respect and appreciate all the effort that the people here. I support the point they made. I will make a couple of brief ones because I am on a very extended lunch break myself. I also dont have a problem with development as long as it is a responsible manner obviously. The developer makes a couple of points and states a couple of facts which would make it seem as if we have abundance in some areas. His statement that there are adjacent water and sewer utilities, me as an engineer, that doesnt make, doesnt really tell me much. It could be a 1 water line and your adjacent to it. It doesnt give you much capacity. You mentioned having a water tower, well that may help but a water tower does not increase your capacity. It is a buffer that averages out your use so in times when you have plenty of capacity you can build up and times when youre short on rain water and ground water you have some reserve. Obviously being a resident of the Highlands the connection to Locharron Court gives me some. I understand prior to me moving in seven years ago there was a connection at the top of the Highland which was closed due to issues with thru traffic, wear and tear of the roads and such. I have a question. Why would we want to revert to a similar situation again? And I am fortunate living on Ballantrae Drive. Money was found to repave our street a few years ago. The residents on Kirkcaldy are not anywhere as fortunate. The road is in a bad state of its repair. It is certainly an issue that needs to be addressed. Some other points, I am very happy to have one child and hopefully in the future two more that would be attending Cecil Manor Elementary School. My son is six years and is in first grade and having attended Pre-K into Kindergarten. I am very happy with the quality of the education that he receives. Currently though two to three afternoons a week the other first grade teacher has her class enter his because they are swamped with work. They dont have enough teachers so classes are combined so that she can take care of some other duties. I can understand having to make due. I certainly dont want to support increasing that burden through. Consider that as a real fact. It is not a speculative number. We have heard already from Commissioner Kilby along the school lines that this would place a real bind on the County, this additional development. So obviously I have a lot of passion around that.

Andrea Hailey, 16 Hillwood Road, stated I am going to be speaking on aspects of the impact Aston Pointe will have on our Department of Emergency Services which is formerly EMS. I am going to focus on District

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 158 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 4, which is the Fair Hill District. I believe it is represented by Commissioner Kilby. The 2000 Census population count was 11,927 residents and 4,297 occupied dwellings. The 2000 Census counted 85,951 people in all of Cecil County. So after the math, 14% of the total population of Cecil County resides in Fair Hill or District 4. If Aston Pointe gets built based on a four member households District 4, Fair Hills populations will go up by 1200 people. This is a 1.5% increase to District 4 so the new percentage of people in District 4 will go from 14 to 15.5% of the total Cecil County population. When I studied the Department of Emergency Services formerly EMS in Cecil County I discovered that the Department of Emergency Services extended well beyond just ambulance and fire services. So I have included these five services in my report, (1) Department of Emergency Services; (2) Sheriffs Department; (3) Health Department; (4) Fire Department; and (5) Domestic Violence Department. So looking at the 2004 budget figures we have a total of $18,000,000 earmarked for emergency services. Considering that Fair Hill population represents 14% of the Countys total population I used this figure for allocating the budget amounts as well. The District 4, Fair Hill residents will use $200,600,000 of the total amount of the budget. If Aston Pointe gets approved, District 4 will need $200,900,000 to cover the services in these five categories. How are we prepared to handle the additional $300,000 that we will need. You might argue that there will be income from property taxes generated by Aston Pointe that can cover this short fall. So, I showed you five areas of government where there are potential tax short falls. Heres a study done by American Farmland Trust just 18 months ago. Ms. Hailey showed actual Cecil County figures for revenue versus expenditures for three different types of land use. The study showed that for every dollar of revenue gained in property taxes for residential developments it cost the County $1.17 in services. These are actual figures from FY01 which was the year the study was done. Residential development in Cecil County generated 72 million in revenues but had 84 million in expenditures. Cecil County took $12,000,000 hit from expenses generated by residential development. I have this study available just see me after the meeting and I will email it to you. This report includes EMS, DPW, administration and schools which account for 53% of expenditures amount other services and related expenses. The bottom line is that only five categories of the Emergency Services.

Lets take a look at what Aston Pointe is going to cost us. If Aston Pointe built 300 homes that sold and appraised at $300,000 each, with a property tax at .98 per $100, the County will generate $882.00 from Aston Pointe. Looking at the financial lost, Aston Pointe will put Cecil County at a severe deficit. The five emergency services alone will generate a deficit for a county that the tax payers will have to come up with. Why even consider a project of this magnitude without having services in place to deal with these inevitable short falls.

Rene Vancaneghem, 136 Black Oak Drive, stated in listening to word of mouth about the proposed development, it was his opinion that the density of this project at one home per quarter acre would make automobile travel through this area very frustrating. A density of a half acre per lot would be much more desirable. Proposed one acre per lot is in the questionable area of maintenance capability. Most of the land is flat and without trees. This means a lot of grass would have to be mowed continually throughout the growing season. The owner would have to ride on a riding mower for more than a reasonable amount of time to keep his lawn neat. In other words a half acre is a lot more manageable than one acre which will leave the owner more time to concentrate on other important matters. Im speaking from experience. Ive lived in all kinds of situations. I grew up in Philadelphia where there were row homes for miles. I was in one of those homes. When I finally graduated from college I moved into Brookside, Delaware and Newark in a small house there and about 1980 we moved in Cecil County where we are now. I am against the project, but not against development. I think I am qualified to speak in that respect.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 159 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Victor Nusic, 1344 Fair Hill Lane, stated that he had petitions from Fox Catcher and Grand Meadows Developments. Firstly I would like to respectfully disagree with you guys about the decision to not put this back through TAC review. For me, I mean Im working a lot of hours and Im gone traveling on business. When things go back through the TAC review it gives me time to try to catch up with what is going on. It puts it back into an area where I can keep an eye on it and find out what the plans are and apprise myself of what is going on, and if we skip a step like that, a lot of the community is going to assume that it has to go through TAC review. So we are not going to worry about it until it makes it back into TAC review. So for that reason I would say if you are going to skip TAC review on certain projects depending on some fine line about where you believe and where you believe it does not necessarily need. You know where the differences are not significant enough then I think that needs to be well defined in our procedures so that we have an idea of when we should expect it to go back through TAC and when not. Fundamentally I do not see an awful lot of difference in the density of the population from the last Aston Pointe development that was proposed. Weve gotten 30 acres removed from it and 70 houses removed. Its pretty much a wash as far as number of units in the area that they are going to put the development in. He went on to say that a lot of the communities do not want to see house on lots these sizes. They would like to keep the nature of Fair Hill the way it is. That is why they all moved there. They want to live out in a rural area.

Cathy Davis, 67 Meadowview Court, stated that the petition that was just handed out by Mr. Nusic was actually the one from the last meeting. They just wanted to point out that most of the people are against this type of development in the density that is being proposed. She also stated that she agreed with everything that everyone else had presented.

Mr. Walbeck stated that he appreciated everyone taking the time out to come make their views known.

Mr. Parrack submitted a handout consisting of the reduced version of the charts provided earlier. He then went on to point out to the Planning Commission that the position of the commission was to determine density with respect to development.

4. Tim Whittie and Kevin Geraghty presented Ridgley Forest, Rte 7 and Deans Bank Road, Concept Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Whittie advised that the plan before the commission consisted of three parcels 235, 971 and 1279 totaling 196.86 acres. All three parcels are zoned DR. The permitted density for this project is 787.4 development units or four development units per acre. The proposed development is 364 development units or 1.85 development units per acre. The common open space required is 29.52 acres or 15% of the gross site area. They are proposing 29.5 acres. Sanitary sewer for the project will be provided by the County and will be brought in from the site along the south western frontage of Rte 7. Water will be provided by the Town of North East and that will be brought

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 160 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 to the site from the Courts of Mallory to the west of the site.

Mr. Walbeck asked if the Town had agreed to that. Mr. Whittie replied yes they had agreed.

Mr. Whittie stated that there would be four access points to the proposed subdivision. Two on Rte 7, one at the south west corner at Athern Drive and Ridgley Forest Drive with would be more to the south east portion of the site. There will be an additional connection at the Courts of Mallory and the Augusta and Green Bar Court Loop intersection and a future connection is proposed to the Rasnake property to the east. access points to the Rte 7 have been reviewed by the SHA in the field and have tentatively been approved pending final engineering drawings and a traffic study. SWM will be designed and constructed in accordance of MDE and CCDPW requirements. A JD has been approved for this site. Biota Engineering is presently refining that JD.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated that the zoning was DR which permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per one (1) acre, or 4/1 with community facilities. This project, with some minor variations, was reviewed by the TAC for the Town of North East in January 2004. The Concept Plat reviewed by the TAC earlier this month proposed 336 lots on 196.86 acres, for a proposed density of 1.706/1.

This Concept Plat proposes 364 lots on 196.86 acres, for a proposed density of 1.849/1.

A boundary line survey must be done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes.

Slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the preliminary plat.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 161 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 maximum distance of 160.

This proposal satisfies the common open space requirement (15%). All proposed common open space must be identified as common open space.

20% landscaping of the development envelope is required in the DR zone.

Sidewalks are recommended on both sides of all internal streets.

A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) will be required prior to TAC review of the Prelim. Plat.

Fire hydrant/standpipe locations must be selected in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Public Works and the North East Volunteer Fire Company.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the MD 7 road frontage.

Rows of street trees with 10 planting easements are required, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of all internal roads. Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements. In areas with community facilities, no street trees shall be planted within 20 feet of sewer laterals and cleanouts.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 162 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

The habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided.

An FSD was approved on 7/7/03. However, it didnt include parcels 675 and 1295 which were approved on 4/19/04.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The proposed road names have been approved.

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 163 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The specific community facilities providers have been identified on the plat.

The Master Water & Sewer Plans must be amended to include this project site in its entirety. The north side is not currently included.

Staff will recommend connectivity to the Courts of Mallory, as shown.

Areas active open space with tot lots should be included. Any tot lot facility must be included in the Public Works Agreement.

The word buffers in Note # 14 has been misspelled and must be corrected.

Mr. Woodhull stated it should be noted for the record that the Town of North East will own the water distribution system in this development. The CCDPW recommends that the water distribution system including fire hydrant locations be designed to meet or exceed the Countys standards and that hydrants be spaced at no greater than 600 and at each intersection, in accordance with the 10 States Standards for Water. We recommend that the Town request that the serving fire company review fire hydrant spacing and locations.

The Department also recommends consideration of looping the water supply from Courts of Mallory (Augusta Loop) back to an available connection point in MD Route 7.

A SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan, Sanitary Sewer Plan, and a Mass & Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans, which will appear in the minutes but will not be read at this time. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, Reforestation will require a consistency

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 164 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

The sanitary sewer submittal must reflect the proposed water lines and all proposed fire hydrant locations.

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

The Developer should inform AMTRAK of any stormwater impacts on their ROW.

The cul-de-sac bulbs do not meet the Countys Road Code Standard for radius. Therefore, a variance request, in accordance with Section 1.06 of the Road Code, to use 50 radii vs. the standard 75 must be received by the DPW prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat approval.

Young Avenue, from Ponfield Drive to Loring Drive, Nagle Court, from Ponfield Drive to Loring Drive, and Loring Avenue must be designed as Collectors. Alternatively, the Applicant may request a variance to retain these sections as Minor Road cross-section using Minor Collector pavement design of Standard R-23 of the Road Code.

The private mini-road off of Alex Court is inconsistent with the remainder of the Development and the Department recommends that it be converted to a Minor Road Standard.

All driveways must be paved to the ROW and this must be so indicated on the Lot Grading Plan.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 165 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

All lots must front on the least major roads wherever possible.

The phasing of this development will significantly impact the competency of the roadways in completed sections because of the potential for large amounts of construction traffic accessing later sections. Subsequently, The Department will require that a phasing plan be submitted for use in developing a plan for when internal road sections will be accepted and the magnitude of maintenance bonds that will be required as well as the time frame over which they will be held.

The Department assumes that SHA will require full accel and decel lanes at the two MD Route 7 entrances.

A sanitary sewer allocation request must be submitted.

The Developer must provide the Department with an analysis of the existing sanitary sewer lines running back to Mauldin Avenue demonstrating to the Departments satisfaction that they are adequate to accommodate the new flows. The analysis approach proposed must be reviewed with the Department prior to any analysis. Any upgrades required to meet the new demand will be the responsibility of the Developer. A feasibility study, performed by McCrone Engineering, for the Mauldin Avenue sewer line is available for review at the CCDPWs office and may prove useful.

If the Planning Commission approves the Concept Plat, the Department will require a Concept Master Sanitary Sewer Plan for the entire development prior to Preliminary Plat submittal for any section of the development. The Department will require that gravity sewer be maximized where feasible and pump stations will be minimized.

This project will be subject to the Benefit Assessment for the North East Sanitary Sub-district as well as Connection fees.

A sanitary sewer stub should be included with the stub road to the Lands of Rasnake.

If the Planning Commission requires sidewalks, the Final Plats should include a note indicating that sidewalks maintenance will be the responsibility of the adjacent property owner.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 166 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The Department recommends that the Town require PWA for the water line.

PWAs will be required by the CCDPW for the sanitary sewer and the roads & storm drains.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required by the CCDPW for the SWM facilities.

Ms. Murray asked about the sidewalk maintenance. Ms. Murray asked Mr. Woodhull if he had said the person show has the house there in front, is that normal.

Mr. Woodhull replied yes, they would have the responsibility.

Mr. Walbeck asked who would tie into Augusta Loop. There is a stretch of road that is over on the Courts of Mallory, who is going to build that, you folks?

Mr. Geraghty replied well Im not sure because I dont know what the status of Augusta Loop is going to be when we develop the road. The Town of North East as I understand it has asked the developer to make available that for the connection. But I dont know who is going to be in there building and at what time. So, weve made obviously on our land all the necessary connections available. Its going to depend upon the joint timing for a construction standpoint. I cant really go and build on their land if the Town of North East want it than the Town of North East should really in that design plan for them to build a stub road up to my property line.

Mr. Walbeck stated that he could see a hassle down the road with the developers of the Courts of Mallory saying hey I dont want this stub.

Mr. Geraghty stated that they had already expressed it to him. They have already left easement in there for water and utilities so theyre well aware of the situation.

Mr. Woodhull stated that it had been part of the TAC comments for Courts of Mallory.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 167 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Walbeck stated that tot lots and play areas, you have one decent size act of open space and that is about all. Will 350 homes and relatively small lot sizes it appears to him that more active open space scattered through that property. He believed that they need at least two, about the same size, as the one already developed. Tot lots separate from active open space maybe on the corner of them where little children play and they need the facilities which are generally provided by the developer for tot lots.

Mr. Geraghty stated they do have connectivity to the open spaces. You can see on many of the locations. Obviously it is a fully tree site but we can clearly work in some additional open space. He was not sure of the total acreage because it would depend upon the actual features but they will make an effort to include some more area for active open space.

Mr. Mortimer asked what school district would serve this project. Have you looked in the impact on the schools? Mr. Geraghty replied North East. He had looked briefly at some of the information the previous engineers had. It looks like it is pretty much in the same boat as rest of schools. Not really worst not any better than the rest of the County.

Mr. Walbeck stated the school information. North East Elementary School is at 67% utilization. They where just upgraded. Middle school is at 106% and the high school is at 104%.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

5. Donald Sutton and Edward Herbst presented Edward J. Herbst, et al, Trustee, Lots 1 7, Reservoir Road, Final Plat, McCrone, Inc., Seventh Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Sutton advised that this project was last in front of this committee in April of 2003 as a Preliminary Plat. At that time there was discussion regarding the wells in the area. The issue was about the well in the area. The developer proceeded ahead and received well permit applications and drilled seven wells on these lots, one well per lot. The report has been sent to the Health Department for each of the wells on these lots. He has not received these reports but believes they are adequate.

In addition there were some issues with some old tires in the back of Lot 2. That is still on going and they are trying to remove them but it has been wet and it is on going. It will be done prior to recordation. The developer is working with DPW with their concern of the lack of a fill it on Perch Lane against the Lands of Donald Barrow.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 168 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated that the zoning was DR which permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per one (1) acre.

The Concept Plat was approved on 8/20/01 at a density of 1/4.06, conditioned on:

1) Moving all septic areas out of the perennial stream buffer;

2) A boundary line survey being completed prior to Preliminary Plat submittal;

3) The road name being approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat;

4) The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan being approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat;

5) Moving all well locations at least 100 from any septic area;

6) Providing documentation of the extinguishments of these right-of-way and easements;

7) Examining the feasibility of reducing the number of panhandle lots or at least using one combined driveway, and

8) Documentation being provided designating the rights of Dale L., Sr. and Janet Brown concerning the rights-of-way.

A Preliminary Plat for proposed Lots 1-5 was approved on 11/19/01, conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) Department of Public Works requirements being met; and

3) The final Forest Conservation Plan being approved prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Final Plat.

A Preliminary Plat for proposed Lots 6-7 was approved on 4/21/03, conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) A Landscape Plan being approved prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission;

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 169 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 4) The final Forest Conservation Plan being approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat, and the forest retention lines on the Final Plan and the FCP exactly matching up;

5) A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space being established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation;

6) A mini-road maintenance association being established prior to recordation, with all lot owners becoming members.

This Final Plat is generally consistent with the approved Concept and Preliminary Plats. It proposes two (2) lots on 6.09 acres. It proposes seven (7) lots on 32.47 acres, for a proposed density of 1/4.639.

No common open space is required for subdivisions with fewer than 10 lots.

20% landscaping of the development envelope is required in the DR zone.

The proposed road name has been approved.

Rows of street trees with 10 planting easements are required, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of the proposed mini-road. Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements. The Record Plat shall depict and/or reference the required 10 planting easement.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) was approved this 8/20/01. The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) was approved on 4/11/03. The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan have been approved. A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 170 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

A Mini-Road Maintenance Association must be established, with all lot owners becoming members.

Mr. Woodhull stated that Final design for SWM, Roads & Storm Drains, as well as, Mass & Final Grading Plans are currently under review with one major issue outstanding (the issue of adequate fill it that was mentioned by the engineer, still to be addressed).

The Department did receive and approve a request for a Road Code Variance to Section 3.07.15 of the Road Code when the Applicant provided evidence that adjoining lot owners did not wish to convey needed easements.

All driveways must be paved to the ROW and this must be so indicated on the Lot Grading Plan.

Mr. Mortimer asked if it had been panhandled just because of the way it perc. Mr. Sutton replied yes, the perc had generated a lot of the design for lot 7. They had gone through the drought season with out doing perc because of the issues.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

6. Donald Sutton presented Valley Vista Estates, Mechanics Valley Road, Concept Plat, McCrone, Fifth Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Sutton advised that David Dodge who is working with the developer for this project was unable to attend todays meeting. This plat was submitted once before but was withdrawn. At which time the applicant was awaiting information from the Town of North East concerning annexation and the providing of water to the site. The Town has agreed, in meeting minutes between the Town Mayor and developer to provide water to the site. Theyre not willing to annex the property at this time but will seek it at a later time. The sewer will be through the County sewer lines and it is Mr. Suttons understanding was that there was an upgrade to the pump station on Rte 40. These issues will need to be dealt with by the developer. The boundary survey has been completed and they are proposing 217 single family lots. There is currently one access to the property off Mechanics Valley Road. They realized that there will be upgrades necessary for Mechanics Valley Road. They will be working with DPW on this issue. A TIS was done in 2001 and it is currently being revised and updated. The issue of providing a second access has always been a concern of everyone. Mr. Dodge is currently working with Ms.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 171 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Futty to obtain the needed to land to allow the second access from Rte 40. The negotiations are ongoing.

Mr. Sutton pointed out two typographical errors on the Concept Plat, (1) the notations on the plat near the recreation area in the middle of the property should read open space parking 16 spaces and (2) Mechanics Court should show an island cul-de-sac on the plat.

In reference to Tract 2, the common open space north of the railroad is an area that will be set aside of Forest Conservation. No planned activities by the community are planned in that area to help eliminate the crossing of the rail road issue which was a concern.

Mr. Walbeck noted that this area was included in the density calculations.

Mr. Sutton replied however we do not need that area for the open space acreage that is required. They have exceeded the open space requirement.

Mr. Walbeck replied but for the housing density you do need it.

Mr. Sutton stated, that was why decision was made not to be developed. They are providing an access simply for going in and being able to maintain it. That is between Lots 8 and 9.

Mr. Walbeck stated that is not an access. Mr. Sutton replied that is an open space.

Mr. Walbeck replied you cant cross the railroad. Mr. Sutton replied there was an existing crossing at that point which is shown on the railroad ROW plats for an agriculture crossing and that is why the gravel road starts at the lot but did not intended to the community to use.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated that the zoning was SR which permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per one (1) acre or two (2) dwelling unit per one (1) acre with community facilities. This Concept Plat proposes 217 lots on 216.805 acres, for a proposed density of 1/.999. A Concept Plat for this property was

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 172 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 reviewed by the TAC in December 2003; it proposed only 209 lots. In addition, this project was previously reviewed by the TAC on 9/5/01 when it was proposed to be annexed into the Town of North East.

Note #16 indicates that a boundary line survey has already been completed.

Slopes greater than 25% must be shown again on the preliminary plat. Steep slopes have been depicted.

A 25 buffer is required around all non-tidal wetlands and intermittent streams present. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland impacts prior to recordation. A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) must be done prior to preliminary plat review by the Planning Commission.

57.6% common open space is proposed. 15% is required. Consideration should be given to exploring possible greenway and hiking trail linkages, especially in the open space along the Northeast Creek. Such linkages could include the East Coast Greenway and the Mason Dixon Trail. The Comprehensive Plan identifies a greenway along the Little Northeast Creek. In accordance with §s 178.2 and 182 of the Zoning Ordinance, land proposed as open space along the Little Northeast Creek should be set aside as an access easement or fee simple dedication if a safe way to the north of the CSX line is feasible.

Access to the common open space to the north of the CSX rail line is problematic. That is a Class 1 main line. Pedestrian crossings would not be safe and are not permitted.

Should Tracts 2 and 3 be sold off, then that would affect the density, common open space, forest conservation, and other calculations.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 173 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 At a minimum, 15% of the required open space shall not consist of perennial or intermittent stream buffers, nontidal wetlands or buffers, steep slopes, or habitats of rare, threatened and endangered species. No more than 40% of the common open space required shall consist of those areas designated as nontidal or tidal wetlands. Those calculations should again be included on the Preliminary Plat.

Protective fencing is recommended around the stormwater management areas especially those near designated recreation areas. Such protective fencing should be included in the Public Works Agreement.

With respect to those recreation areas, if playground equipment is proposed, then it, too, should be included in the Public Works Agreement.

Note # 13 indicates that the AT&T easement will be relocated, but it does not say where.

20% landscaping of the development envelope is required in the SR zone.

Sidewalks are recommended on at least one side of all internal roads, the names of which all have been approved.

How many parking spaces are proposed for each lot? Are they proposed to be off-street? Mr. Sutton replied there would be two off street parking spaces.

Who will own and maintain the 16 proposed open space parking spaces opposite proposed Lots 51 53? Mr. Sutton replied that they had looked at Homeowners Association owning and maintaining it and will work with DPW on how they want to deal with it.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the frontages on Mechanics Valley Road and the Pulaski Highway. Note #20 indicates that a waiver of the Bufferyard C requirement is being requested. This relates to sight distance issues.

Rows of street trees are required with a 10 planting easement, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of all internal roads. Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements. In areas with community facilities, no street trees shall be planted within 20 feet of sewer laterals and cleanouts.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 174 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) was approved 12/5/03. The site is not home to any rare, threatened, or endangered species.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

Deed restrictions for the long-term protection of the Forest Retention/Afforestation Areas (FRAs) must be recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation, with the metes and bounds description of the FRA being shown on the record plat.

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space and common facilities must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

Verification of sewer capacity must be obtained from the Cecil County Department of Public Works prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 175 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Verification of water allocation must be obtained from the Town of North East prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission.

A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) reveals that this development would create a level of service (LOS) at the US 40/Mechanics Valley Road intersection below what the Comprehensive Plan deems acceptable for this area. In addition, the TIS recommend that the developer pursue the construction of an additional southbound lane along Mechanics Valley Road. This additional lane would allow for on exclusive left turn lane and one shared thru and right turn lane.

Consistent with previous SHA comments, the TIS must be updated.

Staff recommends that access onto US 40 be obtained. That would enhance the layout from both the urban design (including pedestrian access to future transit service) and emergency access management standpoints.

Fire hydrant/standpipe locations should be shown on the Preliminary Plat, and they should consistent with DPW regulations and recommendations by the North East Volunteer Fire Company.

What is the structure depicted on proposed lots 136 & 149? Mr. Sutton replied that there was an existing structure shown on the aerial topo that will be removed.

Mr. Woodhull noted for the record that it was CCDPW understanding that the Town of North East will own the water distribution system in this development. The CCDPW recommends that the water distribution system including fire hydrant locations be designed to meet or exceed the Countys standards and those of the ten states standard for water. We also recommend that the Town request that the serving fire company review fire hydrant spacing and locations.

The following submittals, at a minimum, must be approved by the Department of Public Works prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval: a Stormwater Management Plan; a Street and Storm Drain Plan; a Mass and Final Grading Plan; and a Sanitary Sewer Plan, which must reflect the proposed water mains. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans, which will appear in the minutes but will not be read at this time. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 176 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

Sight distance measurements must be provided to the DPW to establish compliance with the Cecil County Road Code.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the Owners expense.

Any applicable Road Code Variance must be requested prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat approval.

The phasing of this development will significantly impact the competency of the roadways in completed sections because of the potential for large amounts of construction traffic accessing later sections. Subsequently, a phasing plan must be submitted for use in developing a plan for when internal road sections will be accepted by the County and the magnitude of maintenance bonds that will be required as well as the time frame over which they will be held.

Clearly, a second entrance onto Route 40 will provide an enormous benefit in this regard.

All driveways must be paved at least to the right of way and this must be so indicated on the Lot Grading Plan.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 177 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Lot frontage dimensions dictate that closed section road is used. Modified curb and gutter may be used internally, but standard 7 curb will be required for the entrance(s) from at least the PCs.

Lots 95, 96, 107, 116, 136, & 144 must be denied access to Valley Vista Drive and Lots 53 & 66 must be denied access to South Falls Drive.

All lots must front Minor Roads wherever possible. Where substantiated as necessary, lots may front Major Collector Roads; however, additional pavement cross section or other measures such as driveway turnarounds where required must show as a requirement on the Lot grading Plan.

Significant road improvements will be necessary to Mechanics Valley Road and possibly the intersection with U.S. Route 40. Improvements may include acceleration and deceleration lanes, a bypass lane on Mechanics Valley Road, and/or vertical alignment corrections south of the entrance on Mechanics Valley Road (knoll about 385 south of entrance) and/or full upgrade of Mechanics Valley Road.

The nature and extent of the Mechanics Valley Road upgrades will be affected by whether or not access is achievable. We believe that a 217-unit subdivision with only one point of ingress/egress is unprecedented in Cecil County.

If Tract 3 is proposed for active recreation, as was speculated at one point, the pedestrian traffic across Mechanics Valley Road must be considered. Vehicular points of entry should likewise be cautiously considered for Tract 3.

If the Planning Commission requires sidewalks, the Final Plats should include a note indicating that sidewalks maintenance will be required of the adjacent property owner, as required by the Cecil County Road Code. There are no sidewalks currently along Mechanics Valley Road.

The Route 40 pump station has no more capacity and sewer allocation cannot be made until it is upgraded. Mechanics Valley LLC has executed an agreement with the Board of County Commissioners that, if successfully executed, will provide build-out capacity for the corridor. The agreement projects completion of the new station by February 2006.

The Department recommends that the Town require a PWA for the water line.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 178 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The County will require PWAs for the internal streets & storm drains and sanitary sewer work as well as an I&M Agreement for all SWM facilities.

Mr. Mortimer asked for additional information concerning the Rte 40 access. Mr. Sutton replied currently the only property that we own is within the stream and flood plain areas and is not adequate to be used for a road. Conversations have occurred with Ms. Futty regarding acquisition of a portion of her property, her entire property. I think they have even offered to build her a new home on one of the lots in the development or some sort of land swap. They have not completed those negotiations but they have not been, she has not been willing to sell her property at this point. So I cannot come to you and say we can get this Rte 40 entrance. I know that they are still working on trying to acquire it. That is a goal because we know that it will make a better plan for the development. That is why we have shown the possibility of the layout with that.

Mr. Mortimer asked if the applicant had their minimum lots for 12,000 ft². Mr. Sutton replied that is correct.

Mr. Walbeck stated continuing the question about the access to Rte 40. I dont believe that we can realistically count on that happening, supposing identifying that we comment ourselves to a Concept Plat that proposes that in the future. I think that we would be negligent if we do not do something to provide better access to this parcel. What I am going to propose to the Planning Commission and hope that they will consider, this morning I drove out to Whitaker Woods where they face a similar circumstance but not quite as many homes. There the developer provided a divided center strip entrance access road back to the first intersection. That essentially gives a, not really two roads, but at least two paths of traffic back into there. That is one way to help to improve the access to this facility. I am going to ask the Planning Commission to consider that when we get to the recommendations. The second thing is the westerly portion of the development, the 68 lots there are separated from the major development buy a stream and there is just one 60 ROW access. I think we would do well to require a second access to that westerly portion from a continuation of Valley Vista Drive parallel to the railroad across the stream further up and connecting into Creek Court. Than there would be two ways into that westerly development section. It may be that people will say the terrain is too awkward to do that I dont think that it is much different then from down where the present roadway is planned for. You may have something to say about that.

Mr. Sutton stated that it was a little steeper in that area. You can see the steep slops that they have to deal with. There 25% steep sloops with a cross action and 15% in the shading. They tried to minimize the stream impact.

Mr. Walbeck stated his next question concerned Tract 2 being labeled common open space. In the past we have not agreed to non-contiguous property being open space for development. And why you can say this is contiguous because there is no other propertys between it. It really is the CSX between it and we are forbidden to cross it no matter what you say about that old ROW. I dont think it can reliably be counted upon as open space. You may want it for Aforestation or Reforestation or whatever but I dont think it should be County in the density for this tract. That is not going to hurt because youve got plenty of acreage anyway.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 179 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Sutton stated with the facilities acreage we do. Our concern was how to label it because if you leave it in the owners name then theyve got a property that they basically cant do anything with.

Mr. Walbeck replied its still going to be land locked. Its going to be in the Homeowners Association.

Mr. Mortimer stated that he did not understand the issue because it did not effect the density calculation.

Mr. Walbeck replied that it was open space and therefore is the Homeowners Associations responsibility.

Mr. Sennstrom asked have you talked to the SHA about whether they would give you an access route to Rte 40?

Mr. Sutton replied yes that was in some of the preliminary work we did with the original Concept Plat that we had. He could not remember the last time that they spoke with the SHA, but they have been contacted.

Mr. Sennstrom asked if the SHA was opposed to it. Mr. Sutton replied, they where not opposed to it. They where talking about what the applicant need to do with Mechanics Valley Road intersection.

No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

Mr. Walbeck duly sworn everyone appearing in opposition according to law.

Faye Weaver, 521 Bouchelle Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal. Ms. Weaver stated that she owned the 100 acre farm across the road from the parcel. It has been in her family since 1940 and is still being farmed and probably will be farmed until her or her children pass away. If you are talking about any traffic going across Mechanics Valley Road, that pedestrian traffic will be on my property. She had several concerns, (1) In addition to the current trucks there will be two more cars per 200 new house added, in addition to the other vehicles generated from this parcels; (2) There is a concern with the buffers zones with the Town taking water from the North East Creek (3) Concerned with present and future water supplies; (4) Additional Emergency Services cost will be picked up by the tax payers; and (5) Four-Wheelers on the railroad tracks will increase the trespassing and damage to her property.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 180 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

L. Campbell, 752 Mechanics Valley Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal. Ms. Campbell stated that she had several concerns about the proposed development (1) The proposed property set primarily on sloping land and the run off on into the Little Elk Creek that empties into the North East River that untimely empties into the Chesapeake Bay; (2) The increase of yet again another Cecil County rural area and lost of wildlife habitat; (3) Traffic concern with the updated TIS and where the additional land will come from for a south bound lane; and (4) The traffic that will be generated from the project.

She spoke for multiple people that where unable to get off from work but were opposed to this large development.

Shirley Carter, 385 Lums Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal. Ms. Carter spoke for herself and husband, Bill, about their concerns, (1) the large amount of dump truck travels from the quarry and the hot mix plant which will be joined by the traffic from the proposed development and (2) County Schools and Emergency System impact on the rest of the County.

Rodney Gulberson, 785 Mechanics Valley Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal. He stated that his property adjoins the Futty farm. He is opposed to development. Why create all of these problems when I can go out and buy a house with a for sale sign in the yard. He spoke on the possible dangers of being near the railroad.

Val Petterson, 433 Lums Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal. His concerns included (1) Both the Town of North East and County water supply seasonal fluctuation; (2) Maxed out school upgrades and over capacity; (3) Over burned secondary roads with no access to Rte 40; (4) Safety issues concerning proximity of the train tracks and (5) Unfair financial burden to the community.

Mr. Petterson requested that the board disapprove this project at this time.

Meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 181 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

April 27, 2004, 10:00 p.m.

Continuation of April 19, 2004 Meeting

(Subdivisions)

PRESENT: Brown, Campbell, DiGiacomo, Kilby, Mortimer, Prickett, Sennstrom, Walbeck, Williams, Woodhull, and Jones

ABSENT: Carter, Farrell, Moore and Murray

7. Barry Montgomery, Michael Burcham and Tom Montgomery presented Bethel Springs, Section 2, Lots 24-69, Bethel Church Road, Final Plat, McCrone, Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Barry Montgomery advised that he was before the committee seeking approval. It was brought to his attention last Monday morning that this project needs the Master Sewer Plan updated to include this piece of property. He asked that this be a condition upon approval of the Final Plat. An aquifer test has been completed by Mark Eisner of Advanced Land and Water, Inc., in addition to the Ground Water Appropriation Permit. Mr. Montgomery submitted a copy of the Aquifer Test results. Bethel Springs 1 wells are excellent. Not too deep, plenty of water.

Mr. Tom Montgomery stated that his study was a comprehensive study of not only Bethel Springs but also the future Bedrock and the Beaver Lodge projects which were covered in the report.

Mr. Walbeck stated that is what generated our request for those reports because Whitaker Woods wells were going dry.

Mr. Tom Montgomery noted that MBE also addressed that issue.

Mr. Burcham stated that they originally received Preliminary Plat approval on this project in June of 2001. They had started their engineering design on this project and where in the mist of that and last year in May of

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 182 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 2003 they came back to the Planning Commission and requested an extension of their Preliminary Plat approval so that they could continue moving forward with the engineering design of this project. That was approved with the original conditions that where set forth on the 2001 approval. After they had prepared the Final Plat and also had prepared the final Forest Conservation Plan to go along with this project the comment came back from David Black regarding the stream buffer situation that is shown on Sheet #3. The area behind Lot 61 63 was shown on our Preliminary Plat and has also been design for a SWM pond in that area and it is labeled Stormwater Management Maintenance Access Drainable and Utilities Easement. And just behind that area there is an intermittent stream that goes through this parcel. On their Preliminary Plat, at that time, the buffer requirement for intermittent streams was 25. As they received the Preliminary Plat approval and they began their engineering design they were using the 25 buffer for their design of the SWM. Since that time the buffer requirement in the Forest Conservation Regulations has been noted as 50 wide buffer. David Black had asked them to address the 50 buffer on this plan. After design of the SWM ponds and extensive review by the DPW on our SWM they are asking that the Planning Commission still allow them to use the 25 buffer that was originally approved on the Preliminary Plat in 2001. And likewise on the other side of that intermittent stream behind Lots 57 and 58 there will be a need for SWM pond on that side of the stream also. You can see that the easement comes down right to the point of the 25 buffer were the out source pipe from our SWM pond has been designed to release the water into that stream. They asked for a variance from the 50 buffer requirement under todays regulations based on our Preliminary Plat approval with it shown as 25 on the Preliminary Plat that was approved in 2001 and subsequently extended in 2003.

Mr. Walbeck asked if the Preliminary Plat had expired and required an extension.

Mr. Burcham replied yes it was extended in 2003 and it was approved with the original conditions form the 2001 plat.

Mr. Walbeck stated that is where it normally runs into trouble with the regulations changes after you have not done anything after the two year period.

Mr. Montgomery replied that the preliminary had been extended and there were no issues brought up that required any changes and that was why he went on with the design work based on what had previously been approved.

Mr. Mortimer asked when the change in the buffer was made.

Mr. Sutton replied he did not know the exact date.

Mr. Walbeck asked Mr. Stennstrom if knew when the buffer requirements had been made.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 183 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Sennstrom replied probably within the past three years.

Ms. Prickett stated three years.

Mr. Mortimer stated, but it was before the commission approved to extend the 2001.

Mr. Montgomery replied no after.

Mr. Mortimer questioned if had been after May of 2003.

Mr. Montgomery stated, if it was before why didnt the department make that note.

Mr. Walbeck stated we understand the question, lets see what the staff has to say.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated that the zoning was SR which permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit one (1) acre.

The Section 1, Lots 1-22, Record Plat was signed on 10/30/01.

A Section 2 Concept Plat, then known as the Lands of Tarkka, LLC, was approved on 3/19/01 at a density of 1/1.03.

The Section 2 Preliminary Plat was approved on 6/18/01, conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 184 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 2) DPW requirements being met;

3) A revised preliminary plat being submitted with the forest retention areas shown prior to Planning Commission review of the final plat;

4) Verification of sewer allocation being received from DPW prior to final plat review by the Planning Commission;

5) A Homeowners Assn. for maintenance of common open space being established w/ $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation, or, if there is to be one Homeowners Assn. for both sections of Bethel Springs, then these lot owners becoming members of it w/ $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation;

6) The FCP and Landscape Plan being approved prior to final plat review by the Planning Commission;

7) Existing structures on fee simple access to open space being removed prior to recordation; and

8) The aquifer test being completed prior to final plat review.

The Planning Commission granted a one-year extension of Preliminary Plat approval on 5/19/03.

This Section 2 Final Plat is generally consistent with the approved Concept and Preliminary Plats. However, as the Bethel Springs Section 1 Final and Record Plats consisted of only 22 lots. Are there any plans for a proposed Lot 23? Mr. Burcham replied no, they would renumber them prior to recordation.

Individual well and county sewer service is proposed. DPW has verified sewerage capacity.

A 25 buffer is required around all non-tidal wetlands and intermittent streams present. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers for all non-tidal wetland impacts prior to recordation. A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) has been done.

This proposal satisfies the general open space provisions of the SR zone. 15% is required, 36% is proposed.

A minimum of 20% landscaping of the development envelope is required in the SR zone.

Rows of street trees with a 10 planting easement are required, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of all proposed internal roads. Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 185 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 bufferyard and street tree requirements. In areas with community facilities, no street trees shall be planted within 20 feet of sewer laterals and cleanouts.

The 10 planting easement must be shown on the Record Plat.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) was approved 10/17/97.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) was approved 5/10/00. The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan have not been approved and inherent in that approval is the approval of the 25 stream buffer that was referred to.

A landscape agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

As was noted on at the Preliminary Plat review the Master Water and Sewer Plan will need to be amended to show this as a SW1 area.

The Record Plats shall contain a statement signed by the Health Department, approving authority; to the effect that use of the community sewerage is in conformance with the Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan.

The Record Plats shall also contain a statement, signed by the owner, to the effect that such facilities will be available to all lots offered for sale.

A Homeowners Association must be established for maintenance of common open space with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 186 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Walbeck confirmed that the Health Department statement only referenced sewage.

Mr. Woodhull stated that the Department had outstanding issues with the Developer, in regards to SWM, roads, and sanitary sewer in Bethel Springs, Section 1, which should be addressed to the Planning Commissions satisfaction before approval of this plat is given. These issues were identified to the Developer via letters from the Departments Supervisor of Construction Inspectors and the Supervisor of Stormwater Management Inspectors sent in March of this year.

The SWM, Road & Storm Drain, and Sanitary Sewer Plans have been reviewed and comments returned to the Engineer. None of these comments are major in nature. However, the Department will not sign the Final Plat until they have been satisfactorily addressed and administrative issues (PWAs & I&M) are completed.

On Lots 62 and 63 the easements leave little room for driveways. Therefore they recommend that the developer install the driveway entrances for these two lots.

Ms. Kilby stated that she had a couple of concerns; one being a continuing concern with the water situation in the area, when water is withdrawn from the ground and put into the public sewer, which provides no recharge for that area. It is being shipped out to somewhere else. The other issue is about the change in the buffer. Ms. Kilby questioned Mr. Montgomery about his statement that the department should have known that. Isnt it part of the Engineers job? They should keep up with the regulations stay abreast themselves of when changes are incorporate.

Mr. Barry Montgomery responded absolutely but Tony just made the comment that we were not in compliance and it wasnt an issue. Am I right?

Mr. DiGiacomo replied well technically it is not in compliance, but given the specific set of circumstances and given the specific design, Mr. Black and I reviewed this and it certainly appears that with this specific design that a 25 buffer for that intermittent stream would be sufficient.

Mr. Barry Montgomery but to answer your question absolutely, they are supposed to know if whether a process and procedure.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 187 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Ms. Kilby stated that you are paying the engineer to keep up with the regulations and had a concern that the County staff is always expected to.

Mr. Montgomery stated that he started with a concept and preliminary on through the process and yes I agree with you they are supposed to know. That is what we hired them for.

Ms. Prickett asked why the buffer was changed from 25 to 50? Mr. Sennstrom replied that several years ago a review of the local regulations, based on the State Model Ordinance and at that time representatives from DNR suggested, was done. The County made some changes to the local Forest Conservation Regulations to keep consistent and in agreement with what the State had done over the years, therefore conforming to the State model ordinance. The County went through an amendment process through the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners amending different sections of the Forest Regulations to keep them consistent with the changes that the State had made over the years.

Ms. Kilby asked Mr. Sennstrom, beyond that what is the purpose of the buffers? Mr. Sennstrom replied the bottom line of whether it is perennial stream buffer, intermittent stream buffer or critical area stream buffer. It is a water quality issue. That is the last chance for any run off heading towards the drainage, whether it is a perennial stream, intermittent stream or larger conveyance. The filter before it gets into the stream and last area that should be kept at a natural state.

Mr. Walbeck asked Mr. Woodhull if he could identify what the deficiencies in Section 1 were.

Mr. Woodhull replied that the letter from Mike Heil, SWM Inspector, addressed the contemporary dewatering device from the riser appears to be silken and needs to be clean. The pond is unable to drain and there is an excessive amount of sentiment in the pond that will have to be removed before ICO can be submitted.

The roads had some bolt down issues, clean out, out fall at the east entrance of Billy Goss Loop. The most serious issue it that Inlets 5, 6, 7 and 8 have water surcharge due to SWM pond not functioning property. Corrective action to the pond will be needed. Clean out Inlets 1, 2, 3 and 4, clean up perc lines going to the sanitary sewer line we have clean out manholes 474B and 474C and locate manhole 474A. There is mud in manhole 5. Sewer lateral needs to be excavated to determine where the pipe is not connected. In order for mud to get into that manhole either somebody is opening the manhole or it is coming in though a hole in the pipe. Mr. Woodhull volunteered to make copies of the report if anyone wanted one.

Mr. Walbeck asked Mr. Woodhull if he could inform the committee of any corrective actions and any action to be taken.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 188 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Barry Montgomery stated I dont know why this has come up about Section 1. Section 1 is covered by somewhat of at least $350,000 bond. Ok. A guarantee to do the things that are in there. The SWM facility is covered by probably a $100,000 bond and guaranteed. Three weeks ago. At least three weeks ago Tom and Joe Montgomery where there to deal with the dewatering device. Joe Meadows who is a contractor on the job was there and dealt with the water dewatering device. I was away until Friday back Friday week ago and Mike tells me that there is issues and the Public Works Department is taking issues with that to do with this project and the punch list, punch list is a final punch list to finish up the project. Ok they sent us out a letter in March. Ok we gave it to the contractor, and were in the process of working on it. On Saturday a week back I was there myself that morning, and if there was nothing getting done I was going to fix it. I got there to the pond and the water in the pond was down at least a foot and a half. I talked to Gary Paige on Friday afternoon about some of the issues. Over the weekend I got more information about it. On Sunday evening went, the pond was down at least two foot or more the catch basin was in the street, the water was out of them and water was flowing out of the out the out fall. I called Gary Paige on Monday morning, I sent the Public Works Department a letter explaining what we where doing and what was going on an ask him to give us an update before the Planning Commission. Before the Planning Commission met which he assured me that he would inform all the people that we where in the process and that we where working on it. We finished the final coat of paving last fall before the winter set in so that the people, and took care of all of that. And this punch list that we get with every other project as we are coming down the closure and it take a month or two to get all of these items finished and taken care of. And we have been at this for years in this County and I dont why the Public Works what to take an issue about one project when Ive got four other ones that are the same. I mean they didnt give us a list of four other one that need to finished up. They just did this. I dont quite understand the issue but we are working on it as diligently as possible to take care of it and fix it accommodating the weather and so on. At the end of last week there was no water in the pond. It was down to the dewatering device. You could see the stone.

Ms. Kilby stated that several years ago there had been several projects and incidents when the County had a difficult time in getting Mr. Montgomery to recognize some issue that needed to be corrected in a timely manner. She believes that at although Mr. Montgomerys company was doing a much better job than it had been in the past, it may be part of why the action had been taken at this point.

Mr. Woodhull stated that the maintenance of the pond is supposed to be ongoing process during development. DPW concern was that the inspection had not even gotten an identification of a course of action that would be taken. That is why it was included in order to elevate it. When the letters are sent out the applicant could respond back with a simple, give us 30 days, 60 days, we have a plan. When there was no response DPW assumed that there was no action being taken. As of Monday, 4/19/04, when this plat was originally scheduled to be heard, the inspector was out at the pond and reported back that there was still water in the pond higher than the low flow device and didnt look like it was going out.

Mr. Tom Montgomery stated that the water level should have been down. It had rained an inch the night before and this morning it is about a foot above the invert.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 189 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Woodhull stated that DPW would go out and take a look at it.

Mr. Tom Montgomery stated that once the water goes down a little bit more they would change the filter.

Mr. Walbeck stated that for the Planning Commissions information a one year extension of the Preliminary Plat was granted on 5/19/03. That extension will expire before the June meeting. Therefore the decision will need to be made today, approve the plat or grant another extension.

Mr. Burcham stated that he would like to go back to the stream issue. He pointed out the fact that adjoining the SWM ponds is where the critical issue of using the original 25 stream buffer is important. Other areas where the stream crosses between Lots 58 and 59 and towards Bethel Springs Drive we could still accommodate the 50 buffer. Also on the side of Lot 58, all the way down to the where the SWM easement comes down close to the stream they can accommodate the required 50 buffer. It is just those areas that are directly adjoining the out falls of the ponds and the grading of the ponds that have already been designed that we would like to have the variances to use the 25 buffer.

Ms. Prickett stated I think that we should add that the report should be read by the powers to be. Make sure that the Montgomerys arent the only ones who have had a chance to read it.

Mr. Woodhull stated that MDE and the Water Authorities had requested the study. He believed that DPW had a copy but he would check.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated that OPZ had a copy. It is his recollection that the Health Department and MDE also had a copy. It was based on that and other information that the GAP was issued in personally talking to Mike Eisner on this issue.

Mr. Burcham stated it was a direct result of that report that MDE granted the Groundwater Appropriation Permit and had issued the permit for the wells in this project.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 190 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 8. ______presented Colora Springs, Lots 2 10, Concept Plat, Colora Road, McCrone, Inc., Sixth Election District was WITHDRAWN

9. ______presented Colora Springs, Lots 2 10, Preliminary Plat, Colora Road, McCrone, Inc., Sixth Election District was WITHDRAWN

10. Mike Pugh, Michael Leaf and Michael Burcham presented The Chesapeake Club Fairway Links, Area H-2 & H-3, Lots 188-349, Shady Beach Road, Preliminary Plat, McCrone, Fifth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Pugh reviewed the map defining the specific section (Area H-2 & H-3, Lots 188-349) that would be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Over the course of the last year they had been working on Section H. Section H is located on the right side of Chesapeake Club Drive as you enter the golf course and then following the southern end of the property. Mr. Pugh stated that although it is shown on the plat as a concept it currently had Preliminary Plat approval in place. An additional 60 lots had Final Plat approval and where ready for recordation. The only purpose for this application was to change the units on Tournament Circle from single family dwelling to town houses. This is a mixed community with public water and sewer consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicants are nearing the end of town home lots availability and therefore are seeking to introduce some town house lots to continue the mix use process in this area. They are showing the townhouses in order to increase the inventory. At this time they are not seeking any amendment or change to any other lots, and they do already have preliminary approval.

Mr. Burcham stated that after they built the Tournament Circle revision to change these units to townhouses, they were shown on the TAC submittal as 20 wide. The developer has asked us to change these units to 22 wide and therefore they are six townhouses less than when it went through the TAC meeting. They have also make a slight revision to the off street parking areas and they have added an off street parking area between Lots 281 and 282 so that they could accommodate the majority of the townhouse section with additional parking spaces.

Mr. Walbeck stated that the numbers do not add up on the parking spaces. You say you are providing 50 additional spots but your numbers and circles do not add up to 50.

Mr. Burcham replied well we are trying to accommodate these townhouse units so that they can be three bedroom units and they are required to have 2½ spaces per unit.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 191 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Walbeck, but you said somewhere on here you would have 50 additional parking spaces.

Mr. Burcham stated yes we will have to provide 50 in order to do a three bedroom unit on every lot.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated that the zone was RM. The original Concept Plat was approved 5/19/87 for 1440 units on 411 acres, for a density of 3.5/1. The RM zone allows for a density of 6/1 with community facilities.

An Area H Preliminary Plat for proposed lots 110-216 was approved on 5/20/02.

The most recent revised Concept Plat was approved on 9/16/02, and an Area H-1 Final Plat for proposed lots 128-187 was approved on 1/22/04.

This Preliminary Plat is generally consistent with the approved revised Concept Plat.

What will be the disposition of the golf cart path depicted on proposed Lots 188-193? Mr. Burcham replied the golf course path has already been removed on Lots 188-191. Mr. DiGiacomo questioned 192 and 193 removal. Mr. Burcham and Mr. Pugh stated the remainder of that path will be removed prior to record plat.

Chesapeake Club Drive was accepted by the County in July, 2003. As the original Chesapeake Clubs TIS is dated, a revised TIS may be required prior to the submittal of Preliminary Plats for subsequent sections.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 192 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland impacts prior to recordation. A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) has been completed.

This proposal satisfies the general open space provisions of the RM zone. 11.85 acres, or 25.88%, is being proposed.

At a minimum, 15% of the required open space shall not consist of perennial or intermittent stream buffers, nontidal wetlands or buffers, steep slopes, or habitats of rare, threatened and endangered species. No more than 40% of the common open space required shall consist of those areas designated as nontidal or tidal wetlands. Those threshold calculations must be included on the plat submitted for Planning Commission review.

Note #11 erroneously supports the number of overflow spaces at 50. Mr. DiGiacomo counted 49 and therefore it will need to be corrected on the Final Plat.

A fee-simple common open space greenway overlaying the sewer easement running between Five Iron Drive and Tournament Circle would enhance common open space access.

Sidewalks or walkways are recommended, in keeping with the designs of completed sections. However, it is doubtful that the walk/bike lane depicted can be successfully implemented in the proposed townhouse section.

25% landscaping of the development envelope is required in the RM zone. Street trees with a 10 planting easement are required (§186.1). In areas with community facilities, no street trees shall be planted within 20 feet of sewer laterals and cleanouts.

The Section H-2 and H-3 Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) was approved on 5/15/02, and a revised Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) was approved on 9/11/02. No forest retention areas have been shown on the plat, so it is impossible to determine consistency with the latest revised PFCP that has been submitted.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 193 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The intermittent stream buffer between Chip Shot Court and Five Iron Drive is labeled as 25 but measures 50. That must be corrected.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Final Plat.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments. Consideration should be given to providing active recreational amenities in the areas of common open space.

The proposed road names have been approved.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements or if these section are in joined previously established Homeowners Association these owners much become members and again $50 per recorded lot must be placed in escrow to that existing Homeowners Association prior to recordation.

Water allocation must be confirmed by the Town of North East prior to Final Plat approval.

Sewer allocation must be confirmed by the Department of Public Works prior to Final Plat approval.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 194 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The approximate locations of the townhouse structures have not been provided, per §4.1.22 (s) 1.

Mr. Burcham presented the revised plans that show the townhouse building locations and the Forest Retention line from the approved Forest Conservation Plan. They are available for review.

Mr. DiGiacomo asked Mr. Burcham to make the plans available now to the Planning Commission members to review.

Mr. Mortimer asked if there was parking on each lot plus the overflow parking. Mr. Burcham replied that is correct. There will be two spaces for each lot and the half space will be accommodated in overflow parking. When the applicants get to the final design stage of the parking areas they will add in the additional space so that each unit can accommodate three bedrooms.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated a caller had contacted OPZ, inquiring about the status of the townhouses proposed in this plat, indicated that she had already entered into a contract to purchase one. If true, then the applicant is reminded that is in direct violation of §3.4 of the Subdivision Regulations.

Mr. Pugh stated that they have no knowledge of that. If there is any information pertaining to it they would be interested in it.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the young lady who called was given Mr. Pughs phone number and she noted that she would call Mr. Pugh.

Mr. Woodhull stated that It is the Departments understanding that the Town of North East will be responsible for the water mains. The CCDPW recommends that the water distribution system be designed to meet or exceed the Countys standards.

A SWM Plan, Street & Storm Drain Plan, Mass and Final Grading Plan and Sanitary Sewer Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans, which will appear in the minutes but will not be read at this time. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 195 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Identify the 8 sewer main and SMH 88, associated with Area H-1 construction, on this plat. The design drawings for section H-1 must identify the two proposed sewer connections to SMH 88, to be installed with Sections H-2 & H-3

The Department has issued a sanitary sewer allocation update letter, where by 167 ELU would be available for Areas H-1, H-2, & H-3. The 60 lots in Area H-1 added to the 162 lots proposed for Areas H-2 & H-3 equals 222 lots, therefore a deficit of 55 lots (222-167 = 55) will remain after the existing allocation is depleted.

In order to minimize the reliance on force mains and pump stations in developing the remainder of this property the Department request a strategic plan or if you like a concept of sewer service for all further areas of the Chesapeake Club be submitted for review. All possibilities should be explored including the possibility of connecting to the Village at North East. Such a plan should be provided prior to submittal of future sections.

All sanitary sewer mains located outside of the Countys ROW must be ductile iron and an access-way is required along its entire length.

All lots must connect to the sanitary sewer main at the street in front of the units (this is particularly in reference to Units 224-234).

The sanitary sewer line must be run to a manhole located beyond the temporary Tee Turnaround on Bay Club Parkway.

The phasing of this development will significantly impact the competency of the roadways in completed sections because of the potential for large amounts of construction traffic accessing later sections. Subsequently, a phasing plan must be submitted for use in developing a plan for when internal road sections will be accepted by the County and the magnitude of maintenance bonds that will be required as well as the time frame over which they will be held.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 196 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Tournament Circle is not compatible with the bike/pedestrian path system proposed and the Department will not support their use in this location. If the Planning Commission requires sidewalks the Department will require that they be located as shown on Standard R-5 of the Road Code.

The bike/pedestrian path is acceptable to the Department of Public Works for the remainder of the internal streets in Areas H-2 & H-3. The extent of their use must be delineated on the plat for clarity.

Any applicable Road Code Variances must be requested prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat approval.

All driveways must be paved at least to the right of way and this must be so indicated on the Lot Grading Plan.

Outlet culverts must be extended to the SWM facility.

A PWA will be required for internal streets, storm drains, sanitary sewers, and any private utility improvements.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

Mr. Pugh stated just for clarification purposes, if you look on the plat you will see this detail of the combined walking and bike path with the payment. You might recall that in H-1 we introduced that section and this would just simply continue the already approved through the balance of the plat for Tournament Circle.

Ms. Prickett said I know that it has been mentioned but somehow it escaped me. How many. What is the difference from what you had here originally when it was approved to townhouses you now have.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 197 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Pugh asked the total number of units? Mr. Prickett replied yes.

Mr. Pugh replied 56 additional units.

Ms. Prickett asked is that with the six taken out that is on the map. Mr. Pugh replied yes.

Mr. Mortimer asked can you show where this is coming from and going to on the map.

Mr. Pugh showed Mr. Mortimer. Mr. Pugh stated that pertinent to the comments received prior to moving into any further sections they will affording the Planning Commission an overall layout which it will show the road moving up to connect to Irishtown Road. As a construction part of H they will be extending the water lines along the proposed routing of the road to connect.

Mr. Mortimer stated that his question was more around emergency access. This is an awful lot of homes to be depending on just that one access. He questioned if the long term plan was to have access from this road. Mr. Pugh yes.

Mr. Walbeck referenced Valley Vista asking if this was a boulevard type entrance with more than one access. Mr. Pugh replied yes this is a collector road.

Mr. Walbeck asked if the parking space numbers would be solved and the graphics if they truly represent individual parking spaces. Mr. Pugh replied yes.

No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

Harry Barbin, 608 Huntington Pike, Rockway, PA appeared in opposition to the proposal stating that he was President of Chesapeake Bay Golf Course. We have a major concern about this development. Weve had a major concern for a number of years and we have expressed it many many times to the developers, to the County and here we are again. This is a development which is going to be a disaster to this community. It is extremely dangerous to have these homes built so close to the golf course. This is typical to this developer. See the photographs. They just completed or they are construction now townhouses next to our Hole 16. There are within five or six feet of our fairway, 150 yard off to the right off the T. Those houses will get bombed, believe me, and Andy will describe how dangerous it is and how fast a golf ball can travel in a short

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 198 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 period of time. They are getting hit now. Fortunately there is no one in there at the moment, but when they live there these people and most people do not, that live in these house, do not play golf and are not sensitive to the hazards of an airing golf ball. There is not many golfers that are going to his the ball completely straight consistently except Arnold Palmer and people like that. Most the time it will be airing golf balls. We have complained to them. We have talked to them. We have pleaded with them about the dangerous conditions. We have been there almost 10 years, 11 years now. Now there is a significant increase in development and they are smacking in as many houses as they can get regardless of the hazards and the conditions and the parking and the road. Those house that they have just built, that are under construction now, according to the plan I saw where suppose to have a 42 road between the two rows of houses. There are two rows of houses there. I measured the road its 20. You can park two cars next to each other sideways on that road. Theres no sidewalks, theres no curb, theres no gutters. You know. Its a disaster for those people. Most people arent aware until they get to move there and see what the brought for about $180,000 - $190,000. So we have complained to them and they represented to the County many times improperly that we are working on an agreement to try to accommodate some of this development. We do not have an agreement. We do not anticipate having an agreement with them because we cant deal with them. We have pleaded with them. Weve told them you know were experienced people in the golf business, we know the hazards. It could be a great community and we dont oppose houses but we oppose house built within 30 of a fairway. It they would be sensitive to that I think that we could have a super development and we would encourage that but its going to be a hazard. I prepared a letter with these comments that I am making and the objection that the golf course has to this development. The H-1, H-2, H-3 which we are talking about and with all of those new townhouse going in there. All smacked in, small roads no sidewalks presumably, no open space, no play areas. Its really a tragedy for this county to permit that. So we are going to oppose it and continue to oppose it and do everything we can to stop this development because it is a disaster to the community and us. Mr. Barbin submitted a letter to the Planning Commission which is attached.

Mr. Mortimer asked, what would you recommend? Mr. Barbin replied I think proper setbacks. Actually he presented to the County a model Golf Course Community Zoning Ordinance. And we didnt make it up. It was done in Florida where they have a lot of golf course communities. Its done in Pennsylvania and they combinate. Its a planned community with a golf course not a haphazard thing like this. I dont know what happened to the ordinance.

Mr. Andrew Barbin stated you gave it to Al Wein, Eric Sennstrom and the County Commissioners all received a copy as well as the Planning & Zoning Office.

Mr. Barbin stated and the comment we got back from Mr. Wein was the code provides for a 30 setback and according to them that is accurate. Its not accurate. Its not even close to being accurate.

Ms. Prickett stated well I thought you just said 30 from the fairway. Mr. Barbin replied yes thats was what the zoning was. That is the town zoning, not what we are suggesting. We suggest 200, in some areas 200.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 199 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Andrew Barbin submitted a letter to the Planning Commission from Al Wein dated 12/11/03 and a response letter from Harry Barbin dated 12/18/03 which are attached.

Mr. Barbin went on to say that the setback on those are like 30 according to the Zoning Ordinance. Weve had people hit with golf balls that live in some of the houses close by. A child got hit last year. Windows get broken.

Mr. Leaf stated we are here today on an amendment just for this one section changing these single family units into townhouse units. None of the units boarder on the golf course. As I now understand the comments of the Barbins are really here about a much bigger issue which as they have said they have brought up many times. All of these lots already have preliminary approval so that is already done and I dont think that the Planning Commission can do anything about it. So I think that any comments should be limited simply to this Tournament Circle and the change that is proposed today which is simply to convert already approved single family to townhouse lots.

Harry C. Barbin, III, 267 Winchester Drive, Horsham, PA appeared in opposition to the proposal stated that he was President of the general partnership that runs the golf courses. Question to the committee on notification, how are land owners in the area of the development notified, through the newspaper?

Mr. Walbeck, notified of what?

Mr. Harry C. Barbin, III replied notified of these hearings and proceedings. Is it just newspapers and those types of things. There is no certified letters that go to the actual people that abut the properties.

Mr. Sennstrom stated that the agenda is faxed to the Whig and it is up to them to decide whether they want to publish it or not. There is no requirement for them to do so.

Mr. Harry C. Barbin, III stated that just for point of record I think this is a different project. My understanding was that the gentleman just said, the attorney just said about the houses. This is a different project. This is a residential golf course community that has two separate ownerships. In 1988 this plan was approved by the Paparazzos (one entity), 1993 it was revised (one entity). In 1993 it was divided off. October we purchased the golf course, he kept the development in an effort to work together as a team. That was the plan by the Paparazzo and by us when we purchased it. There is a cross easement agreement that addresses major major problems, netting all these different things that come into play with this project. This is not just a residential community being built. Its a residential community with activity. This has activity. The activity is going to influence and effect the residential homes. When you are talking about the H-1 area section here which is the revision in the H-3 section here the amount of homes and the location of where they

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 200 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 are effect the golf course which is quote the set back for these units. I wanted to say about the notification is that we havent been here because we are basically the land owner which is in conjunction with this property but we dont get notification and find out about these meeting until after they have occurred.

Mr. Walbeck stated that there is a proposal to revise the Comprehensive Plan to include increase notification to adjacent property owners.

Andrew Barbin, 39 Open Meadow Court, Elkton, appeared in opposition to the proposal stated that he was Co-owner and Vice President of and General Manager, PG Golf professional which makes me an expert on the game of golf and an expert of Chesapeake Bay Golf Club. I am requesting like my partners here to adopt and revise the current zoning ordinance and create a golf course ordinance from 40 setbacks to 200 setbacks in certain areas and put a stop to this H section, the H-1 which is being amended and H-2 and H-3 that are about to be approved. This is a very unsafe and hazardous and it is a disaster about to happen. Three scenarios were presented of possible accidents concerning golf balls using pictures. A golf ball can travel 200 miles per hour, going 200 yards or 600 feet in any direction. There only two people involved in golf course decision in this County that play golf. A list of the players was distributed and is attached. He stated that his main concern was that there was no golf course consultant in the County to help approve these projects. Not even the developers or McCrone. Last year a child was hit by a golf ball. Not on the side of the golf course but it happened 600 into the other section that is not even on the golf course and it hit the little girl in the hand. None of the accidents were serious. Phone calls are received every week because of some type of golf ball incident. He also used the pictures to present housing that has been hit with balls and the netting that is used and will be put up. At present only four holes are being impacted that is a 120,000 golf T shots. If you add 18 holes which this development is going to have that is 540,000 golf balls just off of the T boxes that can potentially hit someone. Attached is a sample of the letter that all homeowners on Hole 16 has been asked to sign by Ryland Homes. They recognize that there is a serious situation here and that letter proves it. This is a letter being signed today from an approval that was made in 1992. In closing there is no yard, place for children to play, curbing, parking and poor SWM. This project has to be shut down now and fixed and put a master plan together.

Mr. Leonard Lockhard, 4 Park Circle, Rising Sun, MD, appeared in opposition to the proposal stated that he is the legal counsel for the Burbin family. They have been working hard for about three years to come to an agreement between the golf course and the developers. Its proved to be impossible. They are not asking for anything but projection for the citizens of Cecil County. We are not asking for any money. We are not asking for any payoffs. We are not asking for anything. The citizens of Cecil County are now in danger. They will be come more in danger if these things are permitted. I beg of you protect our kids, protect the adults.

Mr. Russ Melrath, 8 Jamestown Court, North East appeared in neither favor of or in opposition to the proposal. He stated that from 1995 1999 he lived on the 16 T. One of the services that the Homeowners Association provided was the cleaning out of our gutters. I got a knock one morning on my front door and I went to the front door and the man handed me, the maintenance man handed me a golf club and he said he found it on my roof of my townhouse and I am on the 16 T. That is no longer possible because on the left side it is not as clear cut as it was on the right side. He mentioned this to the general audience and the Planning Commission because the trees grow and from when this happened in 1996 to now eight years later he does not believe that you could get the club that high up on the roof now. He stated that if the planners do not clear cut as they had on that hole it would be of benefit.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 201 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

11. Michael Burcham, Donald Fieldhouse and Diana Boucher presented Donald J. Fieldhouse et ux (Lands of), Bouchelle Road, Preliminary Final Plat, McCrone, Fifth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Burcham advised of the history of this project. The project began with some from Mr. Fieldhouse and Ms. Boucher July of last year. After some review of the information it was determined that there was a minor subdivision available on this property. They where also informed by OPZ that there was one minor subdivision left. They then proceeded with a contract with Mr. Fieldhouse to create this one lot and create a minor subdivision on their property for his daughter Diane. After submittal to all required agencies for a minor subdivision a phone call was received in December of last year stating that they had no comment and it was satisfactory. So they went through the process, created the mylars and submitted them to the agencies for review as a minor subdivision. It went through DPW and Health Department but when it was reviewed by a different reviewer in the OPZ. At that time it was brought to the applicants attention that there was no minor subdivision available along this property. Therefore the plan was generated as a major subdivision plat and is now before the Planning Commission.

Mr. Walbeck asked if it was true that when you submitted it there was no more minor subdivision potential. Mr. Burcham replied yes that is true. Mr. Black from the OPZ sent him a letter outlining the specific lots that had come out of the parcel as it was originally created. After double checking Mr. Burcham agreed with Mr. Black that he was correct.

Mr. Burcham stated that he was before the Planning Commission to create one lot parent to child transfer which is exempt from Forest Conservation requirements. A SWM exemption form has been submitted to DPW for disturbment of less than 5000ft² and prepared the required Lot Grading Plan to go along with the one lot and the construction of the new home. Proposing Mt. Horeb Lane which is private driveway that also accesses Mr. Fieldhouses resident. When creating the one lot at 1.89 acres, being a major subdivision dedicating a 30 wide strip along Bouchelle Road for the widening of Bouchelle Road in the future. There was a request to DPW to denied access to Bouchelle Road and will access the private driveway to get to the new house location. The property is all wooded at this time. They have shown the Bufferyard C requirement along Bouchelle Road. There is existing vegetation should meet the requirement of the bufferyard at 30 wide.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated that the zoning was NAR which permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres. This Preliminary-Final Plat proposes one (1) lot plus remaining lands on 13.098 acres, for a proposed density of 1/6.549.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 202 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

A boundary line survey has been done.

A 25 buffer is required around any non-tidal wetlands and intermittent streams present. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for any non-tidal wetland and stream impacts prior to recordation.

Any habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided.

No open space is required.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontage of Bouchelle Road.

Note #12 indicates that this project is exempt under §3.2K (for a daughter).

A Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat. A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The access point to Mt. Horeb Road must be shown on the Record Plat.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 203 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Woodhull stated that the SWM has been received with Mikes request and it does appear to be satisfactory for an exemption from SWM Ordinance. They have addressed all of their other outstanding issues with the exception of one comment.

Mt. Horeb Lane should be considered as a private mini-road at least for the purpose of establishing a Private Mini-Road Association to address rights, obligations, and maintenance issues for the common drive.

Ms. Prickett asked how many other houses would be allowed to this subdivision. Mr. Walbeck replied there will not be any more because they have met their minor subdivision potential which is four lots and this additional one will be the last one.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

12. Michael McAllister and Robert Murray presented Winfield, Section 2, Calvert Road, Preliminary Plat, McAllister Surveyor, Ninth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. McAllister advised that this Preliminary Plat consisted of 10 lots. The design is very similar to the approved Concept Plat approved by the Planning Commission in April 2003. There was a slight change to the property line between Lot 14 and the panhandle to Lot 21 to straighten the line out. The Concept Plat had a little jog in it which has been taken out. There have been some minor changes to the septic areas which had been approved by the Health Department relative to their comments at the TAC meeting. They have addressed other comments from TAC. Common was added to Common Open Space areas. Note #12 and #14 were changed relative to comments from the TAC meeting. The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan has been approved by the OPZ. The Health Department is satisfied with this plat. They realized that they will have to apply or an upgraded Groundwater Appropriation permits which was the other comment from the Health Department. The property is zone NAR with a proposal of 10 lots with the smallest lot being 1.10 acres. They are well within their allowed density of 1/5. They have a letter from DPW approving the entrance location. Note A that shows the general 10 easement for planting of street trees. They are required 15% open space and the applicant has created 18.8% which is mentioned on 20. A 300 building restrictions lines have been depicted on Lot 21 due to agriculture operations on the south and east sides of the property. They have shown a regeneration area for Aforestation/Forestation Conservation area on Lot 21. The engineer, Jim Ryan has done some work on the project to create the proposed SWM easements on Lots 17, 18 and 19. They also intend to divert as much water as possible towards the back of the property towards the cul-de-sac part of Herowin Way from the stream. At the design sign stream the crest, high area of the property, will be moved closer to Calvert Road to divert more water away from Calvert Road to delieviate the drainage towards Calvert Road. This will eventually go into the proposed SWM pond. They have been working with DPW on their design of the

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 204 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 intersection of Pearlwin Way with Calvert Road. They understand fully as far as drainage issues are concerned they have to satisfy their requirement with DPW as far as SWM, Lot Grading Plans, Road and Sentiment Control Plans are concerned and will be done prior to Final Plat approval. The owners of Section 1 are to become members of the Homeowners Association and will have access to the common open space of which there is one show off of West Rays Way.

Mr. Walbeck questioned if there would be one or two Homeowner Associations.

Mr. McAllister replied that there would have to be a new Homeowners Association. He wasnt sure how the mechanics of that would work because there is an existing Homeowners Association for Section 1.

Mr. Walbeck stated that he was concerned about the maintenance issues, the open space, drainage and things like that.

Mr. McAllister stated that there would not be a lot of maintenance in the open space. The drainage issues basically are in areas that are not in drainage cover which will have to be maintained by the Homeowners Association. The Homeowners Association for this section will be responsible for its section of drainage improvement. It is not the responsibility of Section 1 to be responsible for Section 2. There is an existing Homeowner Association for Section 1.

Mr. Murray stated that we will be responsible for those areas around Section 1 as far as mowing and all of that. In fact that property abutts my property and Im taking care of that myself.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated that the zoning was NAR which permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres. A condition of Section 1s approval was that any subsequent subdivision on the remaining lands would require the submission of a Concept Plat.

The Section 2 Concept Plat was approved on 4/21/03, at a density of 1/6.58 for this section, conditioned on:

1) All acreage discrepancies being satisfactorily resolved prior the TAC review of the Preliminary Plat;

2) A road name being approved prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat; and

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 205 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 3) Bufferyard A requirements on Lot 21 being waived provided the 300-foot setback, as depicted, is maintained.

This Preliminary Plat proposes 10 lots on 65.7627 acres, and it is consistent with the approved Concept Plat. The 8 approved lots in Section 1 and the 10 proposed lots in Section 2 would yield a combined density of 1 dwelling unit per 5.26 acres.

A boundary line survey has been done.

Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland impacts prior to recordation.

Per the Planning Commissions policy, established on 3/20/95 and revised on 1/16/96, so long as the wetlands are in the common open space or the forest retention area, a JD need not be done.

This proposal satisfies the general open space provisions of the NAR zone. 14.2 acres of common open space are required. 17.8 acres are proposed.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the Calvert Road frontages.

Rows of street trees are required with 10 planting easements, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of the proposed mini-road. Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 206 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) was approved on 4/10/03.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) has not been approved. The details of the Preliminary Plat and the PFCP must match up.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The name Pearlwin Way has been approved.

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established for improvements with $50 per recorded each lot, for both Sections 1 and 2, placed in escrow prior to recordation. Will there be one or two Homeowner Associations? Mr. McAllister replied there is already one in existence for Section one right. That is only relative to Section 1. Mr. DiGiacomo stated they would need to make any modifications to the Article of Information to allow for the new lots.

Mr. DiGiacomo asked if the road would be a County or Mini Road. Mr. McAllister replied it is not a mini-road.

Mr. Woodhull stated that A SWM plan, a Road & Storm Drain plan, and a Mass and Final Grading plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans, which will appear in the minutes but will not be read at this time. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, Reforestation will require a

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 207 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

Adequate roadside drainage along Calvert Road must be provided and the Lot Grading Plan should show bank grading along Calvert Road (full frontage) as necessary during design.

A Road Code Variance request was submitted. Portions of the request were granted, but the remainder was remanded to the Applicant for further substantiation.

All driveways must be paved at least to the right of way and this must be so indicated on the Lot Grading Plan.

A PWA will be required for internal streets and storm drains.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

Mr. Williams asked if the access road for Lots 20 and 21 were coming off the south side Pearlwin Way. Mr. McAllister replied yes.

Ms. Kilby asked if Pearlwin Way would be a County road. Mr. McAllister replied yes.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 208 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Ms. Kilby replied no the access way between. Mr. McAllister no they are panhandles.

Mr. Walbeck had a concern about the drainage along Calvert Road. He was out there 12 days ago just after a storm. Section 1 had water ponded in the ditches and was not draining right. What is going to be done with the drainage to clear that all the way down to the next road that was so contentious when the first section came in? Mr. Woodhull stated that he did not have anything before him pertaining to that issue but could certainly provide with an answer.

Mr. Walbeck stated that he did not want to get into a catch 22. Section 1 does not look like it is properly constructed. If it was in fact property engineered from a drainage standpoint along Calvert Road. Its ponding in the ditches. Its not draining down to whatever the next road it. If you read the TAC minutes there is a very long letter that our Citizen Representative presented to the TAC.

Mr. McAllister stated that there was a similar problem with the drainage situation existed prior to our proposal of this subdivision. He is not 100% sure that it is their responsibility to clean up all the existing situations prior to their development. They have certain regulations they have to work with based on the SWM and Lot Grading Ordinances and requirements that they have done. After discussing this issue with their engineer, the end result of Section 1 was that there was less water and drainage area going to the outfall the was there before the subdivision. They understand that it is an issue and as they have stated before they will work with DPW prior to approval to the Final Plat. This is a Preliminary Plat and they are not in any position to provide any answers at this time. They cannot move to that point without Preliminary Plat approval to do the design work prior to Final Plat.

Mr. Walbeck stated, I guess Im a little confused. I through Preliminary Plats wouldnt show most of this engineering that solve these kinds of problems.

Mr. McAllister replied no its not. Preliminary Plats shows basic drains, lanes and ditching along Pearlwin Way, 5% grade going towards Calvert Road and going away from Calvert Road. They had never done engineering plans prior to Preliminary Plat approval. It has never been required.

Mr. Walbeck stated that his concern was the drains of Section 1 and ultimately Section 2. They had talked a lot about it when they reviewed Section 1. The residents spoke on how bad it was, the Citizen Representative had confirmed it because he lives right down the road from it and he thought that the where reassured in Section 1 was going to be taken care of. At least the water coming from Section 1, but when he was out there it was ponded and Section 1 appeared to be completed. The drainage aspect of it was completed but yet it is not satisfactory.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 209 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Murray stated that the facility that they designed to take care of the water going on to Calvert Road from Section 1 does work. It does keep the water off of Calvert Road. There has been a little bit of settling in that since that was just constructed within the past year.

Mr. Walbeck stated that he did not mean the water that was running across Calvert Road.

Mr. Murray stated that they had taken the water off Calvert Road from that area that was going on to Calvert Road, which was the request and they did work with DPW to design this area to take care of that water off of Calvert Road. The facility will work and there is only a slight bit of water that was laying there two weeks ago and its been a very very wet spring and winter. They are working on taking care of those settlement issues which DPW has sent me a letter that he will address.

Mr. Walbeck stated that his concern was that the standard statement DPW made that downstream conveyance of stormwater must be analyzed and he assumed correct or at least made adequate.

Mr. Woodhull stated that particular section addresses the quantity 10 year storm. The project is not adversely impacting the first choke point or culvert leading downstream nor causing a tail water condition that would impacting the neighbors.

Mr. Walbeck stated that he wanted to be sure that DPW does in fact follow up on everything that was committed to the private developer for the drainage along Calvert Road.

Mr. Woodhull stated that DPW had been out to the site along with the reviewers, inspectors to correct that situation.

Mr. Walbeck continued to comment on Mr. McDowells comments; the grading done in Phase 1 has not been effective in controlling the flow of water to the road.

Mr. Murray stated that they had not legal responsibility for the water drainage down Berkley Road. He has spoken with Mr. Tome, Mr. Ryan and DPW. He has been waiting for a response. Planning Commission and DPW requested that they not put more water onto the road.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 210 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Ms. Kilby questioned the comments regarding the water being taken from Phase 1 development under Calvert Road and being discharged into a matter which is impacting the Orrs property.

Mr. Murray replied that the water has been going down Berkley Road from Calvert Road for decades. This was not a new problem. With less water coming out from Phase 1 they are putting less water down Berkley Road.

Mr. Walbeck requested Mr. Woodhull, DPW, to review Mr. McDowells comments. He stated that it seemed that by correcting Calvert Road it worsened Berkley Road, which was not their intention.

Mr. Woodhull stated that they had not heard from anyone on Berkley Road, including Mr. Orr. He will verify if anyone had contacted DPW.

Mr. McAllister noted that Bufferyard C was shown as one of the comments.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 211 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

ITEM B DECISIONS

1. Paradise Streams, Red Toad Road and Ebenezer Church Road, Concept Plat, Will Whiteman Land Surveying, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Brown and unanimously carried to approve with conditions.

1) A sensitive species survey being completed prior to Preliminary Plat approval;

2) A boundary line survey being done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes;

3) Set back modifications being granted for Lots 5, 6, and 7;

4) The diameter of the bulb on the cul-de-sac being modified per todays presentation.

2. Constellation, LLC, Irishtown Road and Old Elk Neck Road, Concept Plat, Stephens Environmental Consulting, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Brown, seconded by Prickett and unanimously carried to approve with conditions.

1) A boundary line survey being done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes.

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 212 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 3. Aston Pointe, Jackson Hall School Road and Rte 273, Concept Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fourth Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Brown and carried to approve with conditions.

1) The road names being approved prior to Preliminary Plat approval;

2) The estimated staging of construction being shown of the Preliminary Plat submitted for TAC review;

3) The PFCPs being approved prior to Preliminary Plat approval;

4) The sensitive areas thresholds in the common open space information being provided on the Preliminary Plat prior to TAC review;

5) A Sensitive Species Survey being completed prior to the TACs review of the Preliminary Plat;

6) A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) being completed prior to the TACs review of the Preliminary Plat;

7) The boundary line survey being completed prior to the TACs review of the Preliminary Plat;

8) The Jurisdictional Determination (JD) being completed prior to Preliminary Plat approval and;

9) A bufferyard and setback modification being granted for the existing structure on proposed Lot 301.

Brown, Mortimer and Walbeck in favor

Prickett and Williams opposed

Murray recused

4. Ridgley Forest, Rte 7 and Deans Bank Road, Concept Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Murray, seconded by Brown and carried to disapprove.

1) The boundary line survey being completed prior to Preliminary Plat review by the TAC;

2) The TIS being completed prior to Preliminary Plat review by the TAC;

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 213 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 3) A JD being completed prior to Preliminary Plat review by the Planning Commission;

4) At least three areas of active open space with tot lots being included in the design.

Brown, Mortimer and Murray in favor

Prickett and Williams opposed

5. Edward J. Herbst, et al, Trustee, Lots 1 7, Reservoir Road, Final Plat, McCrone, Inc., Seventh Election District

Motion made by Mortimer and seconded by Murray and unanimously carried to approve with the conditions.

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) The Landscape Agreement being executed prior to recordation of the Record Plat;

4) A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space being established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation;

5) A mini-road maintenance association being established prior to recordation, with all lot owners becoming members;

6) Deed restrictions for the long-term protection of the Forest Retention/Afforestation Areas (FRAs) must be recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation, with. the metes and bounds description of the FRA must be shown on the record plat and;

7) The Record Plat depicting and/or referencing the required 10 street tree planting easement, consistent with §186.1.

6. Valley Vista Estates, Mechanics Valley Road, Concept Plat, McCrone, Fifth Election District

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 214 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Motion made by Pricket and seconded by Mortimer and unanimously carried to disapprove based on lack of adequate access to the subdivision from Rte 40.

April 19, 2004 meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m.

7. Bethel Springs, Section 2, Lots 24-69, Bethel Church Road, Final Plat, McCrone, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Brown, seconded by Mortimer and unanimously carried to approve with conditions.

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements as they specifically relation to Section 2 being met;

3) A Homeowners Association being established for maintenance of common open space with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation,

4) A Landscape Agreement being executed prior to recordation;

5) Deed restrictions for long-term protection of the forest retention areas being recorded prior to recordation of the plat; with the metes and bounds description of the FRA being shown on the record plat;

6) The standard forest retention street tree note being included on the Record Plat;

7) That the standard statement, signed by the owner, to the effect that sewer facilities will be available to all lots offered for sale, being included on the Record Plat;

8) The lot numbering sequence beginning with the number 23 for these proposed lots;

9) The 10 street tree planting easement being shown on the Record Plat;

10) The Master Water and Sewer Plan being amended to include this property prior to recordation and;

11) A variance being granted for the 25 buffer in the Forest Retention area where the area next to the SWM facility only.

8. Colora Springs, Lots 2 10, Concept Plat, Colora Road, McCrone, Inc., Sixth Election District

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 215 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

WITHDRAWN

9. Colora Springs, Lots 2 10, Preliminary Plat, Colora Road, McCrone, Inc., Sixth Election District

WITHDRAWN

10. The Chesapeake Club Fairway Links, Area H-2 & H-3, Lots 188-349, Shady Beach Road, Preliminary Plat, McCrone, Fifth Election District

Motion made by Brown, seconded by Williams and carried to approve with conditions.

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) The FCP and Landscape Plan being approved and their details matching up prior to Final Plat review;

4) Sidewalks or walkways, in keeping with the designs of completed sections, being included;

5) Water allocation must be confirmed by the Town of North East prior to Final Plat approval;

6) Sewer allocation must be confirmed by the Department of Public Works prior to Final Plat approval;

7) The approximate locations of the townhouse structures being show on the Final Plat and;

8) Note #11 being revised to provide the correct number of overflow parking spaces.

Brown, Mortimer and Williams in favor

Prickett opposed

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 216 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 11. Donald J. Fieldhouse et ux (Lands of), Bouchelle Road, Preliminary Final Plat, McCrone, Fifth Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Prickett and unanimously carried to approve with conditions.

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) A Landscape Agreement being executed prior to recordation and;

4) Mt. Horeb Lane being shown on the Record Plat

Winfield, Section 2, Calvert Road, Preliminary Plat, McAllister Surveyor, Ninth Election District

Motion made by Brown, seconded by Mortimer and unanimously carried to approve with conditions.

1) Health Dept. requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan being approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat and;

4) Deed restrictions for the long-term protection of the Forest Retention/ Afforestation Areas (FRAs) being recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation, with the metes and bounds description of the FRA must be shown on the record plat.

There were no further comments.

Meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m.

NEXT MEETING: May 17, 2004 at 12:00 p.m. in the County Administration Building

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 217 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Respectfully submitted,

Lisa A. Jones

Administrative Assistant

April 19, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 218 May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m.

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Subdivisions)

PRESENT: Campbell, DiGiacomo, Farrell, Kilby, Moore, Mortimer, Murray, Prickett, Sennstrom, Walbeck, Woodhull, and Jones

ABSENT: Brown, Carter and Williams

Mr. Walbeck announced that the Aston Pointe Amendment to the Master Water and Sewer Plan originally scheduled for 5/20/04, 7:00 p.m. would not be heard due to lack of a quorum. Therefore it would be rescheduled to be heard on the June Planning Commission agenda at 7:00 p.m.

MINUTES: Motion made by Murray, seconded by Mortimer, and unanimously carried to approve the April 19, 2004 minutes as mailed.

1. Doug Kopeck presented Glennas Heights, Lots 1-28, Johnson Road, Concept Plat, Campbell & Noland Associates, Third Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Kopeck stated Glennas Heights was a 28 lot subdivision located along Johnson Road, zoned NAR. The development will be clustered, separated by a utility easement right-a-way. The site has been perced for 25 of the 28 lots. The wetland delineation has been completed. There is a stream that parallels Johnson Road. One point of ingress/egress has been proposed to a cul-de-sac with a 5 mini road crossing the utility easement, in order to gain access to the bulk of the property located in the back of the site. The lot areas are approximately one acre in size with a proposal of 60% open space, allowing the bonus density to be obtained. An application will be submitted to the US Army Corp of Engineers and MDE for the road crossing, which will minimize environmental impact. The applicant has elected to have one access point to the development in the attempt of minimizing the impact to the environment. Every effort has been made to prevent cutting streets down and disturbing any wetlands on the site.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 219 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Walbeck commented that Mr. Kopecks statement concerning the right to cluster and bonus density was incorrect. It is within the purview of this Commission to grant bonus density if it is in the best interest of the development. It is not an automatic approval.

Mr. Walbeck asked where the stream crossed the road. Mr. Kopeck pointed the crossing out to Mr. Walbeck.

Ms. Murray read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was NAR, which permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres. Bonus density eligibility carries with it a permitted density of 1/3.

This Concept Plat proposes 28 lots on 70.26 acres, invoking the minor subdivision potential of two (2) of the three (3) deed parcels. Therefore, eight of the proposed lots are minor subdivision lots, and the density would be calculated as follows:

Total site area is 70.26 ac.

8 potential minor sub lots - 8.00 ac.

Remaining site area 62.26 ac.

1 unit/3 acres: 62.26 /3 = 20 lots (density of 1/3.113)

Add minor subs = 8 lots

TOTAL PROPOSED LOTS = 28

Without invoking the minor subdivision potential of the individual deed parcels, only 14 lots could be realized without the granting of bonus density or 23 with bonus density.

Note #18 indicates that a boundary line survey has been completed.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 220 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The acreage of the proposed large lot (# 28) is cited as 27.18 on the plat, but 27.25 in the Site Data table, which cites the common open space acreage as 15.10. There is at least 60% total open space proposed; however, the acreage discrepancy for the proposed large lot must be corrected. In addition, as the acreages for Parcel A and deed Parcel 1 have not been provided anywhere, it is impossible to double-check the acreage totals.

The larger polygon next to Parcel A, deed reference SRA 21/273, is still not referenced. Is it part of Parcel 1, NDS 1/783? Mr. Kopeck stated yes. Mr. DiGiacomo stated that it would need to be referenced prior to TACs reviewing the Preliminary Plat.

Mr. DiGiacomo continued: Dwellings or impervious surfaces shall not occur on slopes with a grade of 25% or more covering a contiguous area of 10,000 ft2 or more. On slopes between 15 and 25%, good engineering practices shall be used to ensure sediment and erosion control and slope stabilization before, during and after disturbance activities. Slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the preliminary plat.

All perennial streams shown on the USGS Quad map, and their buffers, must be clearly delineated on the Preliminary Plat.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone.

No sidewalks are recommended in the NAR zone.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of Johnson Road.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 221 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Technically, a Bufferyard Standard A is not required on proposed Lots 9-13 and 25-27, even though some of the dwelling locations are only 100 from an adjacent agricultural use. For subdivisions proposed on property contiguous to operating farms, notice shall be provided on the plat that an agricultural operation is being conducted on a contiguous property and said agricultural operation is protected from nuisance claims provided the conditions of Article I, § 4 are being complied with.

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. The habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided.

The FSD was approved on 4/14/04. The Natural Heritage Service reports that the Long-awned Diplachne and Whorled Mountain Mint, endangered plant species, are known to occur within the vicinity. A sensitive species survey must be completed prior to TAC review of the Preliminary Plat.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The name Cobble Drive has been approved. The mini road name must still be approved by the County 911 Emergency Center prior to Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat. All proposed road names are required on Concept Plats, per §4.0.13 (h).

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 222 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments. Covenants prohibiting the subdivision of the large lot must be recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

A mini-road maintenance association must be established prior to recordation, with the owners of all lots accessing the mini-road becoming members.

Mr. Woodhull stated a SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan, and a Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

The Lot Grading Plan must include the standard note addressing the limits of construction. (No clearing or grading is permitted beyond the limits of disturbance show hereon. Any expanded clearing and/or grading in the absence of an approved revised lot grading plan may be considered non-compliance with Chapter 251 of the Cecil County Code and either or both the developer and/or builder may be subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein). The Lot Grading Plans for Lots 22& 23 will require special consideration of the steep slope between them to prevent adverse impact on Lot 23.

The stream you propose to discharge the pond to, is a tributary of the Octoraro Creek, which has a Stream Segment Use Designation of IV-P (Recreational Trout Waters). The engineer is cautioned that Chapter 3, Section 3.1.1 of the 2000 Maryland Stormwater Design Manual, Volume I states The use of stormwater ponds on coldwater streams capable of supporting trout (Use III and IV) may be prohibited. Stormwater ponds located in Use III and IV watersheds should be designed to significantly reduce and/or eliminate thermal impacts. The engineer is cautioned to refer to Chapter 4, Section 4.1 of the 2000 Maryland Stormwater Design Manual, Volume I.

If stormwater discharge is directed off of the site on to adjacent property owners, it is the responsibility of the Developer to obtain appropriate easements from the affected property owners per Section 251-13 of the Cecil County SWM Ordinance.

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 223 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The outfall pipe and associate outlet located in the stream buffer will require MDE & COE approval for installation as well as for continued maintenance.

The SWM Facility adjacent to Lot 1 must have adequate setback from the TOE of the embankment to the edge of the stream buffer to allow for maintenance.

Sight distance measurements must be provided to the DPW to establish compliance with the Cecil County Road Code.

The ROW dedication must read 30 wide strip to be dedicated in fee simple to the Board of County Commissioners of Cecil County.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the Owners expense.

Johnson Road is approximately 18 wide with no shoulders, and roadside drainage is spotty with some poor conditions in and around the proposed entrance.

However, the department anticipates that the addition of some 270 trips per day will require substantial off-site roadwork beyond the limits set by Section 3.07.15. Existing wetlands may complicate this off-site work.

The department believes the proposed entrance location is a poor choice and prefers an entrance on the west side of the property.

If the Planning Commission approves the proposed entrance the department will require substantial Geo-tech investigation of the suitability of the sub-grade, along the proposed roadway, to support a County road. The

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 224 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 area of this investigation runs from the property line between Lots 22 and 23 to the intersection with Johnson Road.

The applicant may be required to obtain wetlands disturbance permits for the required Johnson Road improvements east of the proposed entrance.

The ROW for Cobble Drive along the frontage of Lots 5-10 must remain at 50 wide.

Cobble Drive must meet Minor Road Standard R-6, which does not reflect the 24 wide paved surface depicted.

Lot 3 and 23 must be denied access to Cobble Drive in the area of the intermediate turnaround per Standard R-16 of the Road Code.

Any private mini-road proposed must meet the requirements spelled out in Section 2.13 of the Road Code. These requirements include placing a statement, on the approved Final Plat that clearly outlines the responsibilities of the Mini-Road Maintenance Association in the maintenance of roads and storm drainage systems. (The proposed internal roads will not be dedicated for public ownership or maintenance. The Mini-Road Maintenance Association shall retain title to the road and all maintenance responsibilities.)

The private mini-road must end as a cul-de-sac as detailed in Standard R-15 of the Road Code.

Mr. Woodhull asked how the common drive for Lots 15 & 16 would be established and would the deeds for these lots include language spelling out the maintenance responsibilities of each lot owner? Mr. Kopeck replied yes.

Mr. Woodhull asked what provisions were proposed for acquiring ROW across Susquehanna Transmission Co. property to access Lots 25-28. Mr. Kopeck stated they would negotiate access across. One of the reasons the applicant chose this access point was to eliminate bringing a public road across from the other side.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 225 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Woodhull further stated the length of Cobble Drive required that an intermediate turnaround be provided. Road Code Standard R-16 details the approved geometry for this. However the Department was open to possible alternatives if substantiated by a Road Code Variance request.

Any applicable Road Code Variance must be requested prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat approval.

All driveways must be paved at least to the right of way and this must be so indicated on the Lot Grading Plan.

The 2003 aerial photo of this site indicates that there are existing drives interconnecting Lot 24 with the Lands of Halsey.

Mr. Woodhull asked what the intention was for controlling access between Lot 24 and the adjacent property. Would there be denied access? Mr. Kopec stated they would have to work with the adjacent property owners in order to figure out a solution because theyre presently sharing the same drive, in addition to working out ingress/egress and Health Department issues.

Mr. Woodhull continued: An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

A PWA will be required for internal streets and storm drains.

Mr. Mortimer asked since the applicant was asking for both bonus density and minor subdivision, how does that work? Mr. Sennstrom stated generally what had been done in the past was when a piece of property has minor subdivision potential, and a major subdivision is being proposed on the same parcel the OPZ allows, as a way to encourage the minor subdivision, lots to be included into the subdivision, therefore allowing accessed off an external road to be included into the density calculation. If one acre is deducted for each minor subdivision lot, there is the potential for this major subdivision to be created on the remaining acreage. In this case you have separate deed parcels comprising this parcel. They have full minor subdivision potential therefore they are proposing to subdivide those off first and then to come back with the major subdivision and do it all at one time. What Mr. DiGiacomo was saying in his comments were, since there was a potential to create eight lots through the minor subdivision process, eight acres were being deducted from the gross acreage, then the remaining 62 acres would be divided by 1/3. They are seeking bonus density which gives you 20 lots. Therefore they are seeking a potential 28 lots.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 226 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Mortimer questioned the net result of a 70 acre lot having 28 homes and which totaled a density of a little over 1/2. Mr. Sennstrom replied that if the Planning Commission does not think that this design is something that should be approved they have the discretion of disapproved due to bonus density.

Mr. Mortimer asked if the water and perc issues are unresolved. Mr. Kopec stated Lots 25 and 28 had been perced. There is a probability that there will be a total of 26 lots. The design was altered in order to match both the environment and the intent of the NAR zone, which is to leave open space. Trying to get the extra lots near Lot 24 would require another entrance, causing significant issues with the MDE, Soil Conservation and the Corp of Engineers.

Mr. Mortimer questioned the plat design and inadequacy of the roads to deal with the design. Mr. Kopec replied that a TIS would be conduced for site distance purposes because of where the ingress/egress was shown.

Mr. Mortimer asked if they had to upgrade a 100 on each side. Mr. Woodhull stated 100 on each side, possibly to the east to correct drainage problems, which would further determined between now and the preliminary proposal.

Mr. Mortimer stated he had been under the impression that Johnson Road may not be capable of handling the 270 trips per day. Mr. Woodhull stated they were saying that with the additional 270 trips it should be upgraded at least in the area adjacent to the east side entrance along their property line.

Mr. Kopec stated the wetland where along the east side of the road, therefore the applicant will have to work closely with the County in resolving this problem. He questioned which would be more important, public safety or saving the wetlands.

Mr. Woodhull stated although DPW does not have specific road standards concerning wetlands or environmental problems, they would work closely with the engineers.

Ms. Kilby asked if the BGE ROW was presently being farmed. Mr. Kopec replied yes.

Ms. Kilby asked if the property was being farmed by McCoy. Mr. Kopec replied he didnt know if they had cropped this year, but in the past it had been farmed through the BG.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 227 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Ms. Kilby stated that her farming operation did a similar thing concerning the rental agreement. Therefore she wondered if someone was farming the property, and if they had a rental agreement. It could cause a problem down the road in respect to the crossing? Mr. Kopec replied that he would look into the matter.

Ms. Kilby questioned a comment made by Mr. Woodhull about the possibility of the SWM facility out falling into a tributary of the Octoraro which was a class 4P. Mr. Woodhull replied 4P.

Ms. Kilby asked Mr. Woodhull to review the language of not being permitted. Mr. Woodhull state the way the design manuals where written, the cold water streams were capable of supporting trout which is a 3 or 4 use designation may be prohibited by MDE and their 378 reviews. If it is not prohibited any SWM pond in the use 3 or 4 watershed should be designed to release water within 12 hours.

Mr. Kopec added 12 hour dry down time.

Mr. Woodhull went on to say, to allow it not to become so hot that it would adversely impact the receiving stream.

Ms. Kilby asked who would make this determination, MDE? Mr. Woodhull responded MDE will approve or disapprove a pond existence.

Mr. Kopec stated typically in an use 3 or 4 watershed would not want the thermal loading that could occur in a wet pond situation. His belief is that it will be a dry pond or at a very minimum a 12 hours draw down period so that the water does not stay there longer than 12 hours, because of thermal loading, which is a typical requirement of MDE in the use 3 and 4 water shed.

Mr. Mortimer asked when this would occur. Why is it not happening now in terms of MDEs ruling. Mr. Woodhull replied when the design proposal is received, they will submit a pond review to Soil Conservation, at which time the State will approve or disapprove.

Mr. Mortimer asked if it shouldnt be done earlier in the process. Mr. Kopec stated that they had submitted an application to the State on 4/20/04. Comments were forthcoming on the proposal. He believes that one of the comments will concern thermal loading with the stormwater discharge and the location. He also added in respect to MDE and the crossing in the use 3 or 4 watershed, any impacts to wetlands or waters will require mitigations regardless. A small mitigation area has been proposed to offset the anticipated impacts for the road crossing. The wetlands have been delineated and the applicant had tried to choose the narrowest point to

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 228 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 cross, which would meet the County codes and site distance issues.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

2. David Parrack and Tim Whittie presented Aston Pointe, Jackson Hall School Road and Rte 273, Modified Concept Plat Approval, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fourth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed.

Ms. Murray read a statement and recused herself from any discussion or decision making concerning the Aston Pointe project, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. Parrack advised he was before the committee on behalf of Aston Development in connection to the proposed subdivision known as Aston Pointe.

Mr. Whittie stated the applicants where before the committee to revise the approved concept plan to eliminate the connection at Locharron Drive. Per a letter dated 5/7/04 they have reviewed the existing roadway along the Locharron Drive and Kirkcaldy Drive. It was in their opinion that the additional traffic on the roads would only add to the deteriorating road conditions. The road connection would provide little benefit to Aston Pointe. As planned, there are two connections on existing roads to Jackson Hall School Road and Cat Swamp Road as well as connections to Lands of Wohner. All of which will provide safe ingress/egress and community connectivity. During the recent public hearings and meetings, many residents have requested that the connection be removed from the plan. Therefore, today, the applicant is before the committee to remove the connection. The plan itself will remain as previously approved.

Health Department had no comments.

Mr. DiGiacomo informed the Planning Commission that there had been numerous communications, via email, fax and US mail, concerning the proposed modification of the Master Water and Sewer Plan, some relating to the Locharron Drive connection, some relating to both, which he had with him should the Commission care to review them.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 229 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. DiGiacomo stated the Aston Pointe Concept Plat (302 lots on approximately 390.04 acres, at a density of 1/1.29) was conditionally approved on 4/19/04.

The layout of the approved Concept Plat included connectivity to the existing Locharran Drive street stub in the Highlands. This proposed amendment seeks to eliminate that connection.

While the proposed stub connection to Locharron Drive can be seen as consist with the Cecil County Comprehensive Plan, Cecil County Subdivision Regulations, best planning practices, and the approved final design of Locharron Drive in the Highlands, other considerations still must be taken into account.

From the perspective of precedent, there are several pertinent Planning Commission decisions that argue strongly in favor of the requested amendment:

1) The Highlands, Section 3, was approved without the intended extension of Kirkcaldy Drive to Jackson Hall School Road;

2) Calvert Acres where there was no connectivity per the approved Concept Plat, and, even more recently;

3) Marley Farms, Section D, where there was no connectivity because of the concerns about impervious surface as well as other considerations.

On balance, in this specific situation, consistency with clear precedents regarding the potential conflicts between the impervious surfaces of roadway connections and environmental considerations must be taken into consideration. In addition, general principles of best planning practices, while valuable, must always be leavened by carefully taking into account the specific circumstances of individual situations. Moreover, given specific existing roadway geometrics, additional traffic volumes on Valley Road and at the Barksdale-Valley Road intersection may produce potentially insoluble congestion and safety issues.

In this case, given the Countys experience with access to the Highlands over several decades, as well as established precedent, it is clear that the planning benefits that would be derived by connectivity could be only marginal even before adding in the environmental and social costs.

Mr. Woodhull stated that for reasons previously outlined, the Department of Public Works continues to recommend that the connectivity shown on the approved Concept Plat remain. However, we recognize that there is strong community opposition to this and we understand that the Planning Commission must weigh this community will against technical and regulatory issues.

If the Planning Commission approves this requested change to delete connectivity to Locharron Drive the Department requests consideration be given as to how the Roads Division can conduct snow removal operations in the Highlands. If Locharron Drive is to remain a dead-end street, the department requires that the Temporary Tee-Turnaround be replaced with a cul-de-sac as required by the Road Code.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 230 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Walbeck stated the Planning Commission had received a copy of the petition, which has been circulated by the members of the Highlands. Almost 100% of the residents signed the petition. He believed that the four that did not sign where not available at the time. In addition he has received some 15 emails or letters, all expressing opposition to the connection. The Planning Commission was well aware of the opposition from the community as well as the applicant requesting that the connection not be made. You have heard the two considerations from the OPZ and DPW. The Planning Commission will weight both in their decision making this afternoon.

Mr. Farrell asked how snow was currently removed from Locharron Drive. Mr. Woodhull stated that the snow is not removed. It is pushed to the end of Locharron Drive on to the property of Lockwood and left to melt there. With the addition of two lots on Aston Pointe, that are immediate adjacent to the T turn around, they will down gradient down hill of the snow pile and the County would be responsible for spreading snow melt in that area.

Mr. Farrell asked if a turn around would help alleviate this problem. Mr. Woodhull replied the cul-de-sac bulb would not relieve the issue. One answer would be connectivity or a front end loader physically removing it from the site.

Mr. Farrell questioned if a cul-de-sac turn around would help. Mr. Woodhull replied yes.

Mr. Farrell asked who would pay to have the cul-de-sac installed. Mr. Woodhull replied DPW had not researched who would be responsible for funding.

Mr. Walbeck stated the last lot on the north side of Locharron Drive was County owned property. Mr. Woodhull replied yes. Mr. Walbeck questioned the possibility of snow being piled on the County owned property. Mr. Woodhull replied it was a possibility, but the property was up gradient of the two proposed Aston Ponte lots which poses the likelihood of the County impacting the properties.

Mr. Walbeck asked everyone who planned to speak in favor to stand. All appearing in favor of the proposal were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed.

John Gill, 152 Kirkcaldy Drive, stated the residents of the Highlands had taken up a petition over the tie in of Locharron Drive into the Highland, and would like the Planning Commission to vote in favor of eliminating the tie in. Every home that was contacted is represented by one or more signatures on the petition with the exception of one with a conflict of interest and four homes that where unavailable. The petition had been sent

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 231 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 to the Commissioners, Planning Commission and the Office of Planning and Zoning. They respectfully request that the Planning Commission consider the concerns and desires of the Highlands residents in assisting in eliminating any plans of this tie in now or in the future. They ask that the Planning Commission not alter their precious way of life in the Highlands they had enjoyed for approximately 27 years. Mr. Gill read the reasons stated on the petition.

Barbara Christian, 12 Locharron Drive, read Susan & John Marchesi comments, a copy attached for reference.

Yvonne Settle, 19 Locharron Drive, stated she had been a resident for 25 years and she objects to the Aston Pointe/Locharron Drive tie in. In addition to the reasons previously mentioned in opposition of Aston Pointe, she opposed to the negative impact to the local environment, trash both in the neighborhood and roads and squirrels, birds and deer being hit by speeding cars. In regards to the additional emergency vehicle access the cost was far greater than the trivial benefit. Many of the roads in the Highland are dead end streets with the same snow removal as Locharron Drive.

Blaine Tilghman, 137 Kirkcaldy Drive, stated one of the most positive things about having one way in and out was the low amount of crime experienced over the past 27 years. Mr. Tilghman submitted his comments in writing, a copy attached for reference.

Stephanie Blaisdell, 144 Ballentrae Drive, stated in addition to the road maintenance there would also be a loss of revenue should the tie in be approved.

Edward Higger, 139 Kirkcaldy Drive, stated agreement with the proposal to delete the connection.

Pat Fennessey, 23 Locharron Drive, stated she had lived in the Highlands since its creation. The residents did not have water on Locharron Drive for many months. While other areas had water they had water trucked in. Only through the efforts of Ethal Murray were the residents given the tie in which resolved the water problem.

Guy Johnson, 3 Megan Circle, stated his support for the proposition before the Planning Commission. The only thing said today that goes against the proposition was snow removal, which with the talents of the Planning Commission and DPW could be resolved.

Mark Scott, 104 Ballantrae Drive, stated as a resident of the Highland for seven years he would hope DPW would find a more creative engineering solution and support everything previously said.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 232 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Ray Christian, 12 Locharron Drive, stated he have lived in the Highlands since 1978. Section 1 of the Highlands was created in 1974, Section 2 was created in 1976. He had not seen any snow removal problem that the County had not been able to handle. There was at one time a T in the pavement of Locharron Drive, which people had used as a turn around. The County owns a lot, the old water tank, with approximately 100 of frontage that could be used as a cul-de-sac at a minimum expense if a turn around is a problem. When the streets where first paved there was a barricade between Locharron and the Murrays property. Mr. Christian spoke on various items concerning Road Codes in addition to § 7.22 and §2.12 (b2).

Laura Vassiliou, 28 Locharron Drive, stated she did not agree with the tie in. They had purchased their home in the Highlands one year ago because of the character. She suggested the Commission take into consideration the long time residents of the Highlands. There is no need for additional access for emergency vehicles. Kirkcaldy Drive is deteriorating and the money would be better spent repairing the road rather than construction for additional traffic.

Shelly Thress, 154 Kirkcaldy Drive, stated she had been a resident of the Highlands for three years, after moving to Cecil County from North Carolina. They love the beautiful open spaces in Cecil County. There is an extreme concern with the proposed Aston Pointe project, especially should it tie into the Highlands. It would be the first of many Newark style developments to enter Cecil County. With the potential of traffic from 300 homes, with no sidewalks in the Highlands, there were safety concerns for the neighborhood children. Snow removal cannot compare to the threat proposed to the children. Please agree with the developer and do not tie into Locharron Drive.

Bill Horne, 155 Kirkcaldy Drive, stated he supported all previous comments. In addition with reference to the safety in the neighbor there were no sidewalks or street lighting and the roads were in very poor condition. He is in support of no connection.

Kathleen Galbraith, 127 Ballantrae Drive, stated her supports of not having the connection. She was the second or third resident to move into the Highlands.

Lindsey Johnson, 161 Kirkcaldy Drive, stated that she agreed with the previous safety issues covered. She is currently learning to drive a stick shift car in her neighborhood. It is important that all children have the same opportunities afforded to her, such as roller blading, hockey, playing sports in the yard without the worry of people driving 50 mph through the neighborhood.

Gary Bolender, 117 Kirkcaldy Drive, stated he had lived in the Highlands for eight or nine years and was in agreement with everything previously said. In addition his wife is a teacher at Cecil Manor Elementary School. Many of her coworkers expressed the interest in using the tie in to travel to Delaware to shop. Not

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 233 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 only will there be additional traffic from the Aston Pointe development but also this will be creating the Newark bypass. All of the additional traffic will be a big safety concern.

Naomi Felts, 150 Ballantrae Drive, stated she had lived in the Highlands for 27 years. They moved there so that their family could have a safe place to live, as the new generation is also doing. The tie in will diminish her ability to move about the neighborhood in her electric cart. Both Ms. Felts and her husband are opposed to the tie in. There would be roughly 1000 cars a day accessing the neighborhood.

Kristen Magas, President of the Highlands Civic Association, 6 Ballantrae Court, thanked the residents for coming before the Commission today to voice their opposition to the tie in. They want to retain the character and safety in their community. The Highlands Civic Association is still firmly opposed to the Aston Pointe development at the currently proposed density. They are concerned about the impact of the traffic on the road and the quality of the education in the schools. They will continue to make their feeling know. The tie into Locharron is an acutely troubling feature of the Highlands development. Ms. Magus is personally troubled about the safety of her family on Valley Road. Visibility is poor and there are no road shoulders. This tie in would only make this worse. For all the reasons presented here today, please accept the proposal to remove the tie in to Locharron Drive.

Joseph Murphy, 130 Ballantrae Drive, stated he had moved from Delaware to the Highlands because it was a small community with no connections to any other communities. Although the taxes were higher it was ok because it was a smaller community with low crime and no connection to any other developments. This is the reason he moved there and now it looks like it is going to be taken away.

Han Nafzinger, 138 Kirkcaldy Drive stated that he agree with the proposal to remove the connectivity because of the detrimental effect it would have on the safety and serenity of the development he currently lives in.

Richard Quillin, 159 Kirkcaldy Drive stated he has lived in the Highlands for 24 years. One thing that has not been mentioned was the current exit from the Highlands. When you come out of Kirkcaldy Drive there is an immediate right or left that you must make. Additional traffic will only add to the difficulty of getting in and out of the Highland and it will also backup the traffic onto Valley and Kirkcaldy. Currently there is very poor site distance with the cars coming from the Delaware side. Mr. Quillin agreed with all the previous comments made. The Highlands has been a great place to live and the residents do not want another development like those found in Newark, Delaware.

Carol Johnson, 161 Kirkcaldy Drive stated that she was the mother of the child trying to drive the stick shift, so obviously she was the teacher. She would like to address the snow issue. They live at the intersection of Locharron and Kirkcaldy. All the snow ends up in their front yard. Even if there were a cul-de-sac at the top of the road the snow would melt and drain into the storm drain. They have never called DPW to file any type of complaint in 14 years. Ms. Johnson agreed with the proposal to not tie in.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 234 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Shelly Thress, 154 Kirkcaldy Drive, appeared in favor of the proposal. Comments attached.

Erich and Dawn Selhorst, 148 Ballantrae Drive, appeared in favor of the proposal. Comments attached.

Christine Swanson, 142 Ballantrae Drive, appeared in favor of the proposal. Comments attached.

Mr. Walbeck complimented the residents of the Highlands that showed up today. He expressed his distress in hearing of so many children playing in the streets. Realizing that there was light traffic but fearful that it was an accident waiting to happen. Hopefully the parents keep close watch of the children playing in the streets.

Barbara Zwilgmeyer, 123 Kirkcaldy Drive, stated her home was located at the bottom of the hill. It was her belief that the County Government, OPZ and DPW job was to look at the rules, concerning residents and be a sharp shooter in looking for potential problems. Ms. Zwilgmeyer loves her home for all of the reason that everyone else has stated. Kirkcaldy is wider than Locharron and Ballentrae and it is a straight shot down a hill. You can take your foot off the gas and coast down at 20 mph. In reference to the comment made about children playing in the street, their children are rarely in the front yard for fear of fast traveling cars. Making the connection and bring more traffic in would exacerbate the problem. Ms. Zwilgmeyer is in agreement with taking the tie in out for the benefit of the residents. The residents enjoy riding bikes and going for walks. Making a tie in would be like living on a road with vehicles that at times travel through the development at Rte 40 speeds. And these are people that live in the development as opposed to unconcerned residents that would be cutting through to another development, or cutting through to Pennsylvania to eliminate other congestive spots at the State line. Once again I agree that the tie in should not take place.

No on appeared in opposition of the proposal.

3. Will Whiteman presented Paradise Streams, Red Toad Road, Preliminary Plat, Will Whiteman Land Surveying Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Whiteman advised that this project went before TAC on 4/7/04. Lots 5 & 6 will have separate sewage area. There were some concerns generated from the TAC meeting. One of which was the size of the cul-de-sac bulb. A road code variance has been requested in order to trim the cul-de-sac bulb down to a 60 radius. After the submittal a letter was received from Mr. Carter of DPW granting the variance to reduce the cul-de-sac bulb. Another concern was

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 235 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 showing the septic line crossing of Regal Regency Court with a utility easement. The septic line was to be encased in an 8 ductile iron sleeve which would extend 2 beyond the ROW line and be marked by a monument. DPW has asked that a concrete monument be used as the marker, but Mr. Whiteman would suggest that a metal or aluminum marker be used with the same type of cap, which would allow it to be driven down, therefore eliminating the chance of mistaking it with a property marker. Another issue included the Health Department requesting changes on the plat that had been made in conjunction with Mr. Moore. A variance request was made to allow a 30 building restriction line along Lots 5, 6, and 7, as to appose to an 40 building restriction which was required by the zoning.

Ms. Murray read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. Whiteman stated that both the Forest Retention Line and the proposed SWM area were shown on the plat.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was NAR w/MEB overlay. The NAR zone permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres. The Concept Plat was approved by the Planning Commission at a density of 1/5.103 on 4/19/04, conditioned on:

1) A sensitive species survey being completed prior to Preliminary Plat approval;

2) A boundary line survey being done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes;

3) Setback modifications being granted for Lots 5, 6, and 7 and;

4) The diameter of the bulb on the cul-de-sac being modified to 60.

This Preliminary Plat, consistent with the approved Concept Plat, proposes 3 major- and 4 minor-subdivision lots on 19.309 acres.

In the MEB overlay zone, mineral extraction activities are permitted per §s 17 and 67.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. A note to that effect should appear on the plat, and all adjacent properties in the MEB overlay zone should be shown on the plat.

A boundary line has been done.

Reference must be made to Minor Subdivision 2767. The current deed is WLB 1331/420.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 236 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The labeling for proposed Lot 7 has been done in pencil by hand. It should be machine labeled.

On slopes between 15 and 25%, good engineering practices shall be used to ensure sediment and erosion control and slope stabilization before, during and after disturbance activities.

The sensitive species survey has been done, and one (rough leaved aster) was found on site. The entirety of the species buffer falls within the forest retention areas on proposed Lots 5 and 6. Its location and its associated buffer must appear on the Final Plat.

Per Planning Commission policy adopted on 3/20/95 and revised on 1/16/96, if the wetlands have been field-delineated and if all such wetlands are within the proposed forest retention areas, then a JD need not be done. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland and stream impacts prior to recordation.

No common open space is required for fewer than 10 lots.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of Red Toad Road.

Rows of street trees with 10 planting easements are required, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of the proposed Regal Regency Court.

Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) was approved on 1/13/04.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) has been approved.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 237 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The proposed road name has been approved.

Mr. Woodhull stated that a SWM Plan and a Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

The Lot Grading Plan must include the standard note addressing the limits of construction. (No clearing or grading is permitted beyond the limits of disturbance show hereon. Any expanded clearing and/or grading in the absence of an approved revised lot grading plan may be considered non-compliance with Chapter 251 of the Cecil County Code and either or both the developer and/or Builder may be subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein.)

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 238 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Regency Court. However, the Department for sees only minor requirements in this area because of the existing condition of Red Toad Road; primarily, suitable conveyance must be confirmed or established and maintained.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the Owners expense.

All driveways must be paved to the ROW and this must be so indicated on the Lot Grading Plan.

The Department will allow the proposed 40 ROW because of the absences of sidewalks in this Development, in accordance with Standard Detail R-6.

A Road Code Variance request was submitted and approved for the reduced size of the cul-de-sac bulb.

The easements required for the septic system piping for Lots 5 & 6 under Regal Regency Court must be denoted as being private.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

A PWA will be required for internal streets and storm drains.

As previously mentioned DPW is not tied to the concrete monument. If Mr. Whiteman has another suggestion for a surveyor mark, that will work for DPW.

Mr. Sennstrom stated since this area was in a mineral extraction district the applicant would need to address the issue of the minerals having been recovered or unrecoverable.

Mr. Whiteman stated that a letter had been submitted to the Planning Commission addressing this issue.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 239 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

4. Faron Pyles presented The Woods at Spring House Station, Lot 21, Dr. Jack Road, Final Plat, Northern Bay Land Planning, Engineering & Surveying Corp., Seventh Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Pyles advised that the Preliminary Plat for the entire project was approved in September 2003. The remainder of the project was currently under engineering and would be presented to the Planning Commission in the near future. Lot 21 was the largest lot in the subdivision. There would be no additional subdivision of this lot as noted on the Final Plat, subsequent to recordation as well as in the Declaration of Restrictions. There was an omission of an 80 wide strip, Forest Retention Area, for the balance of the subdivision located inside the mutual property line. This balance of the subdivision will be added to this plat, with mets and bounds, prior to recordation.

Mr. Walbeck referenced a note stating to the east of Lot 21 be remaining Land of Woods at Spring House Station. Theyre not the remaining lands. Then clarifying the remaining lands. Mr. Pyles replied it should be noted at future development.

Mr. Walbeck stated or Lots 1-21. Mr. Pyles replied yes.

Ms. Murray read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was NAR which permits a base density of 1/5, or 1/3 bonus density.

The Concept Plat proposed 29 lots and was approved on 5/19/03 at a bonus density of 1/3.04, conditioned on:

1) The Corn Flower Circle and Morning Glory Way road names being approved by the County 911 Emergency Center prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat;

2) A Boundary Line Survey being done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes;

3) Minor Subdivisions 1337, 1624, 2459, and 2558 being cited on the Preliminary Plat;

4) A sensitive species being conducted prior to TAC review of the Preliminary Plat;

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 240 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 5) The details of ingress and egress relating to the lands of Malone and Wiseman being shown prior to TAC review of Preliminary Plat; and

6) The existing mobile homes being removed, or brought into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance prior to recordation.

The Preliminary Plat proposed 21 lots for a proposed density of 1/4.505, and was approved on 9/15/03, conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) The Final Forest Conservation Plan and Landscape Plan being approved prior to Final Plat review.

This Final Plat proposes Lot 21, the large lot.

An expanded perennial stream buffer has been shown.

The sensitive species survey has revealed that there are no habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species on site. There is FIDS habitat.

This proposed large lot would consist of 43.90 acres, or 46.40%, on the approved Preliminary Plat. As the total open space acreage was then 65%, the slight reduction of lot 21s acreage should not, in and of itself, jeopardize bonus density eligibility.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone.

The FSD and PFCP have been approved.

Technically, proposed Lot 21 is exempt under §3.2N; however, the PFCP included it in the FRAs. Either the FCP must be modified or the record plat must show the FRAs.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 241 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Deed restrictions for the long-term protection of any Forest Retention/Afforestation Areas (FRAs) must be recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation. The metes and bounds description of the FRA must be shown on the record plat.

Adequate documentation has been provided that the existing mobile homes have been on site since the 1960s. Therefore, as existing non-confirming uses, they need not be removed.

Covenants prohibiting the subdivision of the large lot, proposed lot 21, must be recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space and landscaped island must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

Mr. Woodhull stated that a SWM submittal for this entire subdivision or this particular lot has not been received and is required. Lot 21 on its own may qualify for a SWM Exemption if no additional development beyond the existing structures is proposed. This determination can only be made after the Department has reviewed the relevant submittal.

Mr. Mortimer questioned if the proposal was to basically leave Lot 21 open as part of the over all plan. Mr. Pyles replied as it is.

Mr. Walbeck asked in regards to Mr. DiGiacomos comment on the open space, would Lot 21 have to lose any acreage. Mr. Pyles replied no. Mr. DiGiacomo stated no, there had been a slight adjustment, but it appears that it would not affect the overall bonus density eligibility.

Mr. Walbeck stated then we will have slightly more than 60% total open space. Mr. DiGiacomo replied yes.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

5. Bud Felty and Leonard Iacono presented Chesapeake Ridge, Marysville Road, Preliminary Plat, McCrone Inc., Fifth Election District

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 242 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Felty advised they where requesting extension of the Preliminary Plat approval for Chesapeake Ridge. There was a need to continue the extension of the preliminary approval because the eminent domain case was still in court and had not yet been resolved.

Mr. Walbeck asked it the project was in court or waiting to get on the ticket. Mr. Felty stated Mr. Iacono can give testimony that there was a hearing schedule on 5/12/04 at which time Judge Dexter Thompson recused himself. Therefore another judge has been assigned to the case and the hearing has been rescheduled for 6/1/04. The applicants are in limbo waiting for the results. This plat has not changed from the last time it was before the Planning Commission.

Ms. Murray read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the Concept Plat was approved 3/15/99, conditioned on:

1) Verification in writing from the Town of North East regarding water allocation being received prior to preliminary plat review by the Technical Advisory Committee,

2) A Traffic Impact Study being done and reviewed by the Department of Public Works, the Office of Planning and Zoning, the State Highway Administration, and the Countys consultant prior to preliminary plat review by the Technical Advisory Committee,

3) Buildings and parking areas being rearranged to eliminate the impacts on the steep slopes and priority retention areas,

4) Sidewalks being provided on both sides of all internal roads, and

5) Off-site road improvements to Marysville Road, Lums Road, and Peninsula Drive being examined prior to preliminary plat review by the Technical Advisory Committee.

The Preliminary Plat was approved 7/19/99, conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met,

2) Department of Public Works requirements being met,

3) Forest retention areas being shown on the plat,

4) A Landscape Plan being approved prior to final plat review by the Planning Commission,

5) A Landscape Agreement being executed prior to recordation,

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 243 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 6) The Final Forest Conservation Plan being approved prior to final plat review by the Planning Commission,

7) Marysville Road from Lums Road to the project site being upgraded to minor road standards closed section of the Road Code,

8) Lums Road from Marysville Road to MD Rte. 272 being upgraded to minor collector road closed section standard of the Road Code,

9) Lums Road intersection with MD Rte. 272 being widened to accommodate two eastbound lanes, one for left and through movements and one for right turns, in accordance with the TIS recommendations,

10) Marysville Road from Lums Road south, a distance of 50 yards, be upgraded to open section minor road,

11) The cost of right-of-way acquisition, negotiations, surveying, engineering, and construction being the responsibility of the developer,

12) All right-of-way acquisition along Marysville Road and Lums Road necessary for improvements being accomplished prior to Planning Commission review of the final plat,

13) Construction drawings for Marysville Road and Lums Road being included in improvement drawings for Phase 1 prior to Planning Commission review of the final plat,

14) Percentages of open space exclusive of stormwater management areas being provided,

15) Improvements to common open space being included in the Public Works Agreement for Phase 1,

16) Water allocation agreement being executed with the Town of North East prior to final plat review by the Planning Commission, and

17) Approval of the priority retention area impacts on highly erodible soils, on 15% slopes, and specimen tree issues.

§4.1.17 of the subdivision regulations provides that Preliminary Plats shall be valid for two years from date of approval. Therefore, an extension was sought and granted for one year on 6/18/01.

On 10/15/01 the Planning Commission approved a request to modify Condition # 12 of Preliminary Plat approval, conditioned on surety being posted by the developer, acceptable to the County, equal to the cost to obtain right-of-way along Marysville and Lums Roads necessary for improvements, and that being included in the Public Works Agreement.

Another extension of Preliminary Plat approval was granted for one year on 6/17/02.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 244 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Another extension of Preliminary Plat approval was granted for one year on 6/16/03.

Another one-year extension of Preliminary Plat approval is now sought.

§4.1.18 of the Cecil County Subdivision Regulations stipulates, The Planning Commission may, at their regular monthly meeting, grant an extension of the Preliminary approval upon application of the developer. In connection with such request, the Commission shall consider the following: a) Change of adjoining land use. b) Change in street or highway plan. c) Change in zoning or subdivision regulations.

There have been no such changes.

Mr. Woodhull stated the Department recommends the extension of the Preliminary Plat approval in order to provide additional time for the eminent domain-motions to be resolved in the courts.

Mr. Walbeck asked the applicants if they had any additional comments in regards to the court case.

Mr. Felty stated it had been very frustrating. The latest time frame was 6/1/04, and he was not sure if the case would be heard at that time. Therefore, the applicants were before the Planning Commission requesting an extension.

Mr. Mortimer questioned the case, eminent domain, and if someone was claiming rights to the land.

Mr. Felty stated there was a requirement made by the Planning Commission that Marysville Road be upgraded through Lums Road and up to Rte 272. All of the road improvement could have been completed within an existing 30 wide ROW, with the exception of the concrete inlet boxes on the storm drains, but the community would not grant any type of settlement or temporary easements.

Mr. Iacono stated he had offered up to four times the appraised value.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 245 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Walbeck added the developer was unable to acquire the property needed to completed the needed improvements to Marysville Road and therefore the County agreed to acquire the property through the emanate domain process, which is what is pending in court.

Mr. Iacono stated he was constructing the improvements and paying the dollars.

Ms. Prickett asked, for the County to do this?

Mr. Iacono replied no, the applicant constructs it under the County requirements.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

6. Donald Sutton and Donald Willis, Jr. presented David Willis Jr. (Lands of), Lots 1-16, Blue Ball Road, Concept Plat, McCrone, Inc., Fourth and Ninth Election Districts

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Sutton advised that the project consists of Lots 1-16 with a total of 150 acres located on both sides of Blue Ball Road with a density of 1 unit per 10 acre. Lots 1-4 will share a joint access based on site visibility requirements with the Cecil County Department of Public Works. The applicant is working on minimize the number of access point onto Blue Ball Road. Old Creek Drive will service the remaining number of lots. Lot 16 will be a remaining land area on the east side of Blue Ball Road.

Ms. Murray read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was NAR which permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres. This Concept Plat proposes 16 lots on 161.1 acres, for a proposed density of 1/10.068.

It has been brought to the Countys attention that a private deed restriction limits the subdivision of this property to 15 lots until 5/29/13. This proposal exceeds that limitation by one lot; however, the County does

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 246 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 not enforce private deed restrictions. Rather, it is the Countys role to administer a planning process that ensures proposals consistency with public development policies as articulated in documents such as the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, and Forest Conservation Regulations.

A boundary line survey must be done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes.

Slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the preliminary plat.

A 25 buffer is required around all non-tidal wetlands and intermittent present. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland and stream impacts prior to recordation. A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) must be done prior to preliminary plat review by the Planning Commission.

The habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided.

The common open space requirement is satisfied (15% is required; 16.01% is proposed).

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone.

No sidewalks are required in the NAR zone.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of Blue Ball Road.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 247 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

Bufferyard Standard A is required along the lot lines of proposed lots 1-2, 7-11 & 16 to buffer adjacent agricultural uses. For subdivisions proposed on property contiguous to operating farms, notice shall be provided on the plat that an agricultural operation is being conducted on a contiguous property and said agricultural operation is protected from nuisance claims provided the conditions of Article I, § 4 are being complied with.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) has been approved.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

A Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat. A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The road name Old Creek Drive has been approved.

Access to common open space between and beside lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 248 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Four (4) panhandle lots are proposed.

Mr. DiGiacomo asked if the proposed Lots 1-4 would utilize shared driveways. Mr. Sutton replied yes.

Mr. DiGiacomo asked why a mini-road hadnt been proposed or why no connectivity has been made to Old Creek Drive. Mr. Sutton stated there was a drainage area and wetland area between Lots 1-4 and Lots 5 and 6 which would constitute meeting a stream or wetland crossing in that area. They had proposed Lots 1-4 with Lots 2 and 3 being panhandles in order to minimize the impact. This is a better design. The applicant had discussed the plan with DPW about replacing the mini road come with a cul-de-sac at the end which will work for the driveways.

Mr. Mortimer asked how it was better. Mr. Sutton stated it mimics what is going on with Blue Ball Village just north of this property. This will provide enough stacking room to allow two cars just short of Blue Ball Road. Allowing vehicles to wait until the traffic has moved. There is a site distance issue on this road. The applicants believe that by doing this they can provide each homeowner safe access out without having to constructing a full mini road in this area.

Mr. Mortimer and Mr. Sutton continued discussion concerning the outlet on to Blue Ball Road referencing a plan supplied by Mr. Sutton.

Mr. Sutton stated that Mr. Willis, Jr., would like to create Lots 1-4 first and the remainder lots would be completed at a later time. Old Creek Drive would happen sometime in the future but not at this time. The applicants will request a waiver of the Bufferyard C along Blue Ball Road because of the sight distance issues.

Mr. Walbeck asked if the applicant were implying that when the cars were stacked the planted buffer would cause problems with the site viability. Mr. Sutton replied it would not help the visibility. There will be some grading done on the bank but the road turns would not help with the site distance issue.

Consideration should be given to the installation of a dry hydrant along the Little Northeast Creek. The Rising Sun Volunteer Fire Company has requested a drafting tank or a dry hydrant.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 249 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

Mr. Woodhull stated that a SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan, and a Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

The Lot Grading Plan must include the standard note addressing the limits of construction. (No clearing or grading is permitted beyond the limits of disturbance show hereon. Any expanded clearing and/or grading in the absence of an approved revised lot grading plan may be considered non-compliance with Chapter 251 of the Cecil County Code and either or both the developer and/or Builder may be subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein.)

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utility poles must be relocated at the Owners expense.

Sight distance measurements must be provided to the DPW to establish compliance with the Cecil County Road Code.

Regardless of phasing, the Department will not accept the internal roads until 80% of all the lots are complete, unless the Developer includes a separate, dedicated construction entrance beyond the first phase of construction or provide a Maintenance bond of 50% of the roadway construction costs.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 250 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 these two entrances.

The entrance geometry for the proposed road serving Lots 5-15 must provide for acceleration/de-acceleration lanes. While the Road Code, for the proposed traffic loading, may not warrant them the Department is concerned that the proximity of the over-vertical condition on Blue Ball Road, just north of the entrance, combined with turning movements in and out of the Development will create a traffic safety issue.

Lot 15 must be denied access to Blue Ball Road along its entire road frontage and the first 75 of Old Creek Drive.

If a separate entrance for Lots 1-4 is approved is approved, the Department will require a common entrance at least 25 wide and 60 long with the Lot 1 & 4 drives entering at least 50 from the edge of Blue Ball road. The perpetual maintenance of this area by the four (4) owners must be reflected in the deeds. The required sight triangles must also be included in this same area. Substantial bank regarding will be required. In reference to the planning in that area, those site triangles will need to remain clear in order to gain safe site/stopping distance.

All driveways must be paved at least to the right of way and this must be so indicated on the Lot Grading Plan.

Any applicable Road Code Variance must be requested prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat approval.

A PWA is required for the Roads and Storm Drains.

An I&M Agreement is required for SWM facilities.

Mr. Mortimer asked if Lot 16 would always be left open. Mr. Sutton replied that was the plan at this time.

Mr. Mortimer asked what would happen to the building on Lot 15. Mr. Sutton replied the tenant house would be removed and replaced with a new home.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 251 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Ms. Kilby asked if an easement would be placed on Lot 16 noting that it could not be subdivided in the future. Mr. Willis, stated, I will go on the record, the families are here, you are here, go on the record here today saying that there will never be more than 16 lots ever.

Ms. Kilby stated that if there isnt an easement placed on Lot 16 in the future it could change hands at some point and be removed. Mr. Willis stated that he would like to get a Confirmatory Deed binding himself with no intention of selling the property off again. If the property where sold in the future it would bind any future purchasers of the property from subdividing.

Ms. Kilby asked if this would legally bind the lot from further subdivision.

Ms. Campbell stated a note could be placed on the plat.

Ms. Kilby stated when land is referred to as remaining land, that implies that the remaining land will at some point be subdivided.

Ms. Campbell stated that is not necessary true.

Ms. Kilby stated yes, but remaining land are usually the key words.

Ms. Campbell stated that it would depend on whether it was stamped on the plat.

Mr. Sennstrom stated it would be a voluntary requirement by the developer. The County cannot compel anyone to say that they will not subdivide any further than what is shown on the plat. Right now he is proposing a Concept Plat at one unit per ten acres in a zoning district based on one unit per five acres. The Planning Commission could potentially grant a bonus density of one unit per three acres.

Mr. Willis Jr., stated, Clara, whatever needs to be done.

Ms. Campbell stated if Mr. Willis is voluntarily agreeing to restrict this area, there is no reason why they cant.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 252 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Willis Jr., stated, Absolutely, It can go in the minute, and we can have it typed up hopefully sooner rather than later.

Mr. Mortimer asked if the deed was restricted that would that cover it.

Ms. Campbell stated Mr. Willis would have to do it voluntarily.

Mr. Sennstrom stated yes, but Mr. Willis would have to do it voluntarily. You could not compel him to. If Lot 16 was the large lot and he was attempting bonus density then one of the requirements that the County has, is that the large lot be precluded from further subdivision with a note on the plat and a covenant recorded in Land Records to preclude that further subdivision. He is not proposing bonus density. He is way under the potential. Even base density could yield from this gross acreage. If the Planning Commission were to condition him not to further subdivide, and it was challenged in court, the judge may question what the Planning Commission based their decision on; when he was only proposing one unit per ten acres which was half of what the base density would yield. The concern is if the decision was every challenged the judge would either reverse it or remand it back to the Planning Commission make a findings that the decision was inconsistent.

Ms. Prickett stated well if he does it voluntarily it would be ok.

Ms. Sennstrom stated that would be up to Mr. Willis to decide.

David Willis, Sr., 207 Walnut Lane appeared in favor of the proposal. He was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. He was quite familiar with the project. Mr. Sutton and David Willis Jr., failed to point out that with the original four lots, if it was approved, the balance of the farm would be in land preservation for at least five years. The homes would be very tastefully done by one or two builders. The large lot in question was approximately 76 acres. They did not want a stipulation like Ms. Campbell was talking about to hold the project up.

Mr. Walbeck asked everyone who planned to speak in opposition of the proposal to stand. All appearing in opposition of the proposal were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed.

Marlene Gautsch, 3367 Blue Ball Road, appeared in opposition of the proposal stating if you look on your plat her property was number 23 and therefore butts up against the common open space. She was aware that it

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 253 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 costs a lot of money to purchase land in Cecil County these days, but when you are a developer it is a gamble you take. Not having a road crossing over the stream does not preclude denying the four lots and making Lots 5 and 6 larger. She asked that the Planning Commission take into consideration the removal of the farmland and the deed restriction for Lots 10, 11 and 16. There was also a concern with the open space that backs up to her property. There is a ridge line that will need to be maintained.

Mr. Walbeck stated that there would be a Homeowners Association responsible for the maintenance of the common open space.

Ms. Gautsch asked if the Homeowners Association does not maintain the open space, who would? Mr. Walbeck replied she would have to go to court. Ms. Gautsch replied she would have to go to court rather than someone owning this huge piece of property and take care of it. This was a big concern of hers. At present the Staffords mow the grass a couple times a year and the cows graze, therefore, it is taken care of.

David Holston, 32 Blue Ball Road, appeared in opposition of the proposal stating he had two concerns. First being the further subdivision of Lot 16, which he would like to see remain as farmland if possible. A letter from Mr. Willis to the Shallcross stated that he planned on leaving the entire farm as farmland. It the property does not remain as farmland there was a concern with the Little North East Creek and the quality of wetland surrounding the property. The second concern was the impact with any road repairs on his property. The old farm house was located close to the road.

Robert Shallcross, 538 Pearl Street, appeared in opposition of the proposal stating his wifes name was Barbara Reynolds. They had tried to keep the farm in the family. Mr. Willis came along and gave them all the right answers promising that the land would not be anything but a farm. Soon he heard Mr. Willis needed to recoup some of his money with a couple of house. Next it was 15 houses. Then at TAC the request for approval of 55 houses. Then there were various changes in the size of the homes. He believes that the farm will be developed. Everyone needs to set down with the lawyers and complete the deed restriction. He asked that the Planning Commission hold off on making any decision until after the deed restriction has been signed.

Mr. Walbeck asked if there was a time table for resolving the legal implications. Mr. Shallcross replied it up to the Willis.

Mr. Willis stated he would like to go on record as stating the Shallcross treated him like family. Hes a great man, Mr. Shallcross. He took me to the bank helped me get the loan. He sets on the board of MBRS. Mr. Willis would like to keep the property in agriculture for as long as possible, five years. The property was purchased for a large sum of money by taking out a three interest only loan. His plan from the beginning was to sell a few lots off and get whatever he could, for a small parcel of property, in order to pay down the principal achieving a manageable payment. There was a misunderstanding early on which had been rectified.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 254 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 A misunderstanding ensued when Mr. Willis stated, during a question posed by the Board of Education at TAC, that 1800 ft² homes would be constructed on the site. The size of the home was an approximated number used, knowing it would be 15 years before homes would actually be built. Mr. Willis is aware that 15 parcels were the initial agreement. The number of homes has since increased to 16 lots, should the deteriorating tenant home remain on the property. The present tenants, residing in the tenant home, are paying weekly in the anticipation of moving out. Only four homes will be built on the property. The ground is still being worked by Wayne Stafford. Mr. Willis offered the tenant home with two acres to the farmers son, who rejected the offer. Mr. Willis stated he was prepared to walk down the street to the attorneys and resolve this issue with a stroke of the pen. He does not want the four lots held up. He needs to get the principle down. He has a verbal agreement with Gary Slagle to build the first four homes.

7. Donald Sutton and David Willis, Sr., presented Antego, Lots 1-33, Deaver Road, Preliminary Plat, McCrone, Inc., Third Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Willis advised the project was a limited liability partnership with Willis, Slagle and Willis. The partners were David Willis Jr., Davis Willis Sr., and the Slagles, each having a third.

Mr. Sutton stated the project had been reduced from the Concept Plat to 33 lots due to perc testing. It was originally an internal loop road system, but perc tests had not panned out as the applicant had proposed. The intermediate turnarounds have been dealt with at Lot 7, 27 and 26 to comply with County regulations road lengths. Additional test had been done between TAC and PC submittal which resulted in the lost of one additional lot from the 34 that was presented to TAC.

Ms. Murray read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was SR which permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per one (1) acre in the absence of community facilities.

The Concept Plat (44 lots on 138.1 acres, for a proposed density of 1/3.138) was approved on 12/15/03, conditioned on:

1) A boundary line survey being conducted prior to the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes;

2) A JD being completed prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat;

3) All SWM areas being relocated outside stream buffers, and

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 255 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 4) All intermittent stream buffers being shown.

The Preliminary Plat submitted for TAC review proposed 34 lots on 138.15 acres. This Preliminary Plat now proposes 33 lots on 138.15 acres, for a proposed density of 1/4.186. It is generally consistent with the approved Concept Plat.

The boundary line survey been done.

As now proposed, there are 4 panhandle lots.

Sheet 2 of 3 continues to have a different date than sheets 1 and 3.

Steep slopes are depicted on portions of proposed on portions of Lots 16, 26-30, and common open space. On slopes between 15 and 25%, good engineering practices shall be used to ensure sediment and erosion control and slope stabilization before, during and after disturbance activities.

The word aid continues to be misspelled in Note # 15.

15% common open space is required in the SR zone; 45.6% is proposed.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 256 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

20% landscaping of the development envelope is required in the SR zone.

Sidewalks are recommended on at least one side of the proposed Antego Drive.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of Deaver Road, except where sight distance creates a safety issue.

The contiguous agricultural operation notice appears on the plat.

Rows of street trees with a 10 planting easement are required, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of the proposed Antego Drive. Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) was approved on 12/9/03.

The PFCP has been approved.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The road name Antego Drive has been approved.

Access to common open space between and beside lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 257 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

Consideration should be given to the installation of dry hydrants along the ponds, streams, and stormwater management facilities.

Mr. Woodhull stated that a SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan, and a Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval.

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

Special care will be necessary to verify that no portion of the proposed northern SWM Facility is located within the 100-year Flood Plain.

Antego Drive will cross several existing ponds. The construction plans must show these areas as being substantially undercut to ensure sound sub-base. Geotechnical inspection of the sub-base will be essential.

Section 3.07.15 of the Road Code directs that Deaver Road must be upgraded to a Minor Collector Standard for a distance of 100 either side of the point of intersection between Deaver Road and the Antego Drive. Currently Deaver road has an ADT of approximately 690.

In the area of the entrance substantial tree removal and bank grading will be required to achieve good sight distance.

The sight distance measurement provided for Antego Drive must be reviewed by DPW after tree removal and bank grading to verify compliance with the Cecil County Road Code.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 258 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The Denied Access shown on Sheet 2 of 3 must be extended to indicate that it applies to Deaver Road along Lot 1 entire frontage.

All driveways must be paved at least to the right of way

Remove the property line at the entrance to Antego Drive separating the ROW from the Deaver Road frontage easement.

Drainage easement between Lots 15 & 16 may need to be wider depending on joint usage as conveyance and SWM access.

This same access must be shown on Sheet 1.

SWM runoff, between Lots 11 &12, 15 & 16, and 26 & 27, must be conveyed by pipe to the rear property line at a minimum.

A PWA will be required for internal streets and storm drains.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

Mr. Sutton stated since the Health Department has altered the conditions of Lots 13 and 14, with additional perc testing necessary. He would ask the Planning Commission to review the remaining portion of the subdivision plat omitting Lots 13 and 14 since they would not be receiving Preliminary Plat approval.

Mr. Walbeck stated so you are asking for Concept Plat approval for Lots 1-12, 15-33.

Mr. Sutton stated secondly, referenced Mr. DiGiacomos comment about sidewalks on one side of Antego Drive. The density being accomplished at present is basically a cross between a bonus density in the NAR zone and not really a bonus density. The applicant asked that the sidewalk not be a requirement of the Final

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 259 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Plat for road design.

Mr. Mortimer asked if Lot 17 had a small panhandle. Mr. Sutton replied yes they had done this before with other subdivisions where you are pumping to a septic area.

Mr. Mortimer asked if the septic was in the panhandle. Mr. Sutton replied the County Health Department requirement is that each lot have ownership over their own septic area. That is why you see the panhandle and the pump station.

Mr. Walbeck asked who called for the sidewalk requirement. Was it the Office of Planning and Zoning or Department of Public Works? Mr. DiGiacomo stated that the recommendation for SR zone was sidewalk on one side, NAR, SAR and RR no sidewalks and DR, TR, BR are typically recommended sidewalks on both sides.

Mr. Mortimer asked since this was like a 1/4 density, why wouldnt it be treated like a NAR lot instead of a SR lot. Mr. DiGiacomo stated the reason OPZ recommended sidewalks was in order to encourage alternative modes of transportation and connectivity. The recommendation in this case is marginal, because of the unlikelihood of sidewalks along Deaver Road or connecting to other communities.

Mr. Mortimer asked if when you stated you recommended it that meant the developer still has the choice. Mr. DiGiacomo replied the Planning Commission have the choice.

Ms. Kilby asked what the implication would be if Lots 13 and 14 were removed from todays decision making. Mr. Walbeck replied if concept approval is given with the exception of Lots 13 and 14, they cannot do anything with those two lots until something is worked out.

Mr. Walbeck stated they would have to come back for preliminary approval at a later time.

Mr. Sutton stated they would come back with a Preliminary Plat showing the additional perc test reconfiguration of the septic areas for those two lots. Basically reserving the right for future development.

Mr. Mortimer stated and if you cant work it out it just becomes? Mr. Sutton stated if the perc cant be worked out, the deed will become one large lot or no lot.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 260 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Ms. Campbell stated if the applicant could come back with just one lot. Mr. Sutton we may come back with one. Worst case is if we reconfigure it to some other fashion. Whatever prec design is agreed upon, the lots would offset the acreage.

Mr. Woodhull stated that Pelham Manor had a similar approach when the lots were pulled because of perc requirements. This project came in several segments and it seemed to work there.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

8. Michael Burcham presented Chesapeake Club Condominium, Section 1, Phase 10, Units 25 26, Ridge Run Road, Final Plat, McCrone Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Burcham advised that he was representing Montgomery Builders Inc. It is part of the Chesapeake Club subdivision just outside of North East. The condominium duplex is currently under construction, nearing completion. The as built survey for these two units has been completed. These two units front off of Ridge Run Road, which is currently under ownership and maintenance by the Chesapeake Road Association, and is a private road. Ridge Run Road is in the process of being conveyed to the County Commissioners. An as built survey and the utilities plan for Ridge Run Road have been prepared and are currently being reviewed thy DPW. All of the other roadways that currently exist in this subdivision have been conveyed to the County Commissioners in fee simple. In reference to the small strip of land shown on Sheet 2, the light lines that are shown on the plat for Ridge Run Road depict the current private ROW that was established and conveyed to the Chesapeake Club Road Association. The small sliver of land shown on the plat that notes see detail, depicts the small area will be dedicated to the Board of County Commissioners. As the plan is prepared to convey this roadway to the Commissioners, they will be widening the roadway, ROW. Sheet 3 shows the as built, floor plans and the square foot of each unit. Sheet 4 shows the required elevation.

Ms. Kilby questioned the diagonal lines located on the right of Sheet 3. Mr. Burcham stated the diagonal lines shown indicate the limited common element outside of the units. It does not cross through the building.

Ms. Kilby questioned a variance because of units being built beyond the setbacks. Mr. Burcham replied no, that is in a different section of the Chesapeake Club.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 261 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Ms. Murray read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was RM.

This Final Condominium Plat is for two condominium units, or two dwelling units.

The Cecil County Subdivision Regulations define Condominium as follows:

A condominium is an ownership arrangement, not a land use; therefore, it is allowed in any district and under the same restrictions as the residential land uses that it comprises. A condominium shall not negate lot nor other requirements intended to provide adequate light, air, and privacy. A condominium is a dwelling unit which has all of the following characteristics:

(a) The use (the interior and associated exterior areas designated for private use in the development plan) is owned by the occupant.

(b) The unit may be any permitted dwelling type.

(c) All or a portion of the exterior open space and any community interior spaces are owned and maintained in accordance with the Condominium Act of the State of Maryland and other requirements specified in the County Code regarding such open spaces.

The original Chesapeake Club Concept Plat was approved 5/19/87.

The Section One Preliminary Plat was approved March 1991.

At that same time, the Planning Commission established a condominium approval process. This process was predicated upon the approved Concept Plat, and then established the use of a combined Preliminary Plat/Site Plan. Thus, the Section One Preliminary Plat was also a site plan which the Planning Commission approved at that same time, conditioned on no building permits being issued until:

1) Health Department requirements were met;

2) DPW requirements were met;

3) Town of North East requirements were met; and

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 262 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 4) SHA requirements were met.

The approved Preliminary Plat/Site Plan was very specific, with actual construction drawings. A revised Preliminary Plat that included Units 25 & 26 was approved on 6/17/97.

Generally, the condominium approval process that was established has worked as follows: From the approved Preliminary Plat/Site Plan, building permits are then issued. Next, the units are built, and then the Final Condominium Plats come back to the Planning Commission for approval, as built. The Final Condominium Plats are used to record the actual footprints of the units and the actual building plans as constructed.

In this case, the Final Plat as built drawings are consistent with the approved, revised Concept and Preliminary Plats.

Street trees and landscaping must be consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat/Site Plan, but no street trees shall be planted within 20 feet of sewer laterals and cleanouts.

The original Preliminary Plat/Site Plan was approved conditioned on Final Plat approval requiring the establishment of appropriate condominium instruments. The owners of these units must become members of the appropriate condominium association and these units must also become of the Road Maintenance Association unless until such time as the roads may be conveyed to Cecil County or any other agency or authority.

Mr. DiGiacomo asked if the condominium documents for Section1 still currently. Mr. Burcham replied they were still currently as far as he knew and they will be amended to include these units.

Mr. DiGiacomo asked that since these owners would become members of the Condo Association, will that necessitate any amendments to those documents. Mr. Burcham replied yes, there will be an amendment to include these two units.

Mr. DiGiacomo state those amendments will need to be submitted prior to recordation.

Mr. Woodhull stated that all of CCDPWs issues have been addressed.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 263 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

9. Michael Burcham and Tom Montgomery presented Crane Fields, Lots 11-20 & revised Lot 21, Wheatley Road, Preliminary Plat, McCrone, Inc., Ninth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Burcham advised that the property was listed under Montgomery Cecil Partnership. Before the Committee today was the remainder of the Crane Field subdivision. The revision of Lot 21 was included in a prior plat approval, but a slight adjustment had been made to the back property line on Lot 21, making it more consistent with rearrangement Lot 20. A TAC meeting question lead to the requirement of a road code variance due to the failed perc test on the left side of the road. The area between Lots 10 and 11 are now common open space, making the road approximately 260 longer than it was on the approved Concept Plat. Satisfactory perc has been received on all lots. Additional perc testing was done last week in order to further define the 10,000 sewage areas. Discussion with Matt Carter and Mark Woodhull of DPW lead to the request to show a 12 x 50 tape pull just north of Lot 10 in lieu of putting in an intermediate turnaround on this roadway. Reason being the proximity of the wetlands and the buffers adjoining Lot 20. This area would benefit the intermediates turnaround, which they felt would be a satisfactory solution to the additional length of the road as shown on this plan. The calculations for Lot 16s common open space, in addition to the common open space in the previous Section 1, next to Lot 5 entrance, met the 60% open space requirement for the large lot which was part of the original Concept Plat approval.

Ms. Murray read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was NAR which permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres. Bonus density of 1/3.04 was granted on 4/21/03 with approval pf the Concept Plat for 18 (numbered 5-22) lots on 54.8 acres, conditioned on:

1) The Frank Crane Drive road name being approved by the County 911 Emergency Center prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat;

2) The intermittent steam and wetland areas being shown, consistent with the FSD, on the Preliminary Plat submitted for TAC review;

3) A survey for the bog turtle being conducted prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat;

4) A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) being completed prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat; and

5) A Boundary Line Survey being done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 264 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The Preliminary Plat for proposed Lots 5-10 & 21-22 was approved on 7/21/03.

This Preliminary Plat is generally consistent with the approved Concept Preliminary Plats. On the approved Concept Plat, proposed Lot 19, the large lot, consisted of 24.8 acres, and there were 8.2 acres of common open space proposed, totaling 33 acres (60.21%). The previous sections approved Preliminary Plat proposed .9 acres of common open space. This Preliminary Plat proposes only 22.0 acres for the large lot and 10.5 acres of common open space.

All together, the common open space and large lot (.9 + 10.5 + 22.0) consist of 33.4 acres.

The boundary line survey and the JD have been completed.

The habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided. The Natural Heritage Service indicated that bog turtles were known to occur within the vicinity of the site. A Phase One bog turtle habitat report that was submitted on 7/11/03 indicated that one area of potential bog turtle habitat exists near to the common open space to the east of proposed Lots 19-20. Therefore, in accordance with Heritage service guidelines, a 125 no-disturbance buffer has been shown around that habitat area.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone.

Rows of street trees with 10 planting easements are required, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of Frank Crane Drive. Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) has been approved.

The PFCP for this section has been approved.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 265 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The Frank Crane Drive road name has been approved.

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments. Dry hydrants should be considered at the stormwater management ponds.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

Covenants prohibiting the subdivision of the large lot must be recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation.

Mr. Woodhull stated that a SWM Plan; street and Storm Drain Plan and a Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval.

The Lot Grading Plan must include the standard note addressing the limits of construction. (No clearing or grading is permitted beyond the limits of disturbance show hereon. Any expanded clearing and/or grading in the absence of an approved revised lot grading plan may be considered non-compliance with Chapter 251 of the Cecil County Code and either or both the developer and/or Builder may be subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein.)

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

If the SWM discharge is directed off of the site on to adjacent property owners it is the responsibility of the Developer to obtain appropriate easements from the affected property owners per Section 251-13 of the Cecil

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 266 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 County SWM Ordinance.

A Road Code Variance request to eliminate the need for the Intermediate Turnaround has been received and approval is forth coming.

The Department will not recommend acceptance of Frank Crane Drive until 80% of the total development is complete.

Section 3.07.15 of the Road Code directs that Wheatley Road must be upgraded to a Minor Collector Standard for a minimum distance of 100 either side of the point of intersection between Wheatley Road and the proposed entrance.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the Owners expense.

The DPW recommends as a condition of preliminary approval that a 50 wide strip be dedicated to the owners of the Other Lands of Mary Ann E. Crane to assure any future development of this property can access Frank Crane Drive and will not require any new access to Wheatley Road, which is classified as a collector road.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

A Public Water Agreement will be required for the Street and Storm Drains.

Mr. Walbeck asked if the additional 50 was located along Wheatley Road, to the east of the open space, next to Frank Crane Drive. Mr. Woodhull replied it was coming across either the open space or off of Rte 222 onto Frank Crane Drive in order to eliminate one more access point on to Wheatley Road.

Mr. Burcham stated that their intension was to supply the 50 on to the southern portion of Lot 22, just north of the open space; when the Final Plat is completed for Phase 1. Mr. Woodhull replied works for the Department of Public Works.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 267 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Montgomery questioned the Health Departments comment pertaining to additional perc. The perc was completed in the last week of December.

Mr. Walbeck asked if the perc had passed.

Mr. Montgomery replied they had done additional holes, numbers 74-77 and to his knowledge they where fine.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 268 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

ITEM B DECISIONS

1. Glennas Heights, Lots 1-28, Johnson Road, Concept Plat, Campbell & Noland Associates, Third Election District

Motion made by Murray to approve with conditions. Motion dies for lack of a second.

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Prickett and carried to disapprove due to

(1) site distance concern of where the entrance is in relation to the curb of the road,

(2) bonus density is not appropriate in view of two different parcels. (no effort has been made to show that the bonus density for this particular case would be in the best interest of the County and site distance and

(3) layout not compatible with the geography of the environment and site distance (environmental concerns of the wetlands being maintained to keep the site lines

(4) concern about the two parcels separated by five acres.

Farrell, Mortimer and Prickett in favor

Murray opposed.

2. Aston Pointe, Jackson Hall School Road and Rte 273, Modified Concept Plat Approval, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fourth Election District

Motion made by Farrell, seconded by Mortimer and unanimously carried to approve with conditions: (1) All other conditions of the Concept Plat approval remain in force; and (2) The developer providing right-of-way, if necessary, for a proper Locharron Drive cul-de-sac.

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 269 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 3. Paradise Streams, Red Toad Road, Preliminary Plat, Will Whiteman Land Surveying Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Farrell and unanimously carried to approve: (1) Health Department requirements being met; (2) DPW requirements being met, and (3) The rough leaved asters location and associated buffer appearing on the Final Plat.

4. The Woods at Spring House Station, Lot 21, Dr. Jack Road, Final Plat, Northern Bay Land Planning, Engineering & Surveying Corp., Seventh Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Prickett and unanimously carried to approve with conditions: (1) Health Department requirements being met; (2) DPW requirements being met; (3) The record plat showing the Forest Retention Areas (RAs); (4) Deed restrictions for the long-term protection of any Forest Retention/Afforestation Areas (FRAs) being recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation, with the metes and bounds description of the FRA must be shown on the record plat; (5) Covenants prohibiting the subdivision of the large lot, proposed lot 21, being recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation; (6) A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space and landscaped islands being established with $50 for this recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation; and (7) Future sections of approvals being contingent upon any necessary revisions, and those revisions being related to the Forest Conservation Plan, to this record plat being completed prior to those approvals.

5. Chesapeake Ridge, Marysville Road, Preliminary Plat, McCrone Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Murray and unanimously carried to approve another One-Year Extension of Preliminary Plat Approval. In making this recommendation that all conditions previously required conditions of Preliminary Plat approval remain in effect with this extension as has been the case with previously exceptions.

6. David Willis Jr. (Lands of), Lots 1-16, Blue Ball Road, Concept Plat, McCrone, Inc., Fourth and Ninth Election Districts

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Murray and unanimously carried to approve with conditions: (1) A boundary line survey being done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes; and (2) A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) being done prior to preliminary plat review by the Planning Commission

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 270 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 7. Antego, Lots 1-33, Deaver Road, Preliminary Plat, McCrone, Inc., Third Election District

Motion made by Prickett, seconded by Farrell and unanimously carried to approve with conditions: (1) Health Department requirements being met; (2) DPW requirements being met; (3) The Bufferyard C requirement being waived where deemed necessary by DPW to enhance safe sight distance; (4) Dry hydrants being installed where feasible; (5) All misspellings and date errors being corrected prior to Final Plat review; (6) Recommended sidewalks being waived; (7) Forrest Retention Areas being clearly showed on the Final Plat and (8) Removal Lots 13 and 14.

8. Chesapeake Club Condominium, Section 1, Phase 10, Units 25 26, Ridge Run Road, Final Plat, McCrone Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Farrell and unanimously carried to approve with conditions: (1) Health Department requirements being met; (2) Department of Public Works requirements being met; (3) A note being included on the Record Plat that the owners of these units must become members of the condominium association; and (4) Appropriate condominium/road maintenance association documents instruments being current for the inclusion of the owners of units 25 & 26 as members.

9. Crane Fields, Lots 11-20 & revised Lot 21, Wheatley Road, Preliminary Plat, McCrone, Inc., Ninth Election District

Motion made by Mortimer seconded by Prickett and unanimously carried to approve with conditions: (1) Health Department requirements being met; (2) Department of Public Works requirements being met; and (3) The FCP and Landscape Plan being approved prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Final Plat.

There were no further comments.

Meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.

NEXT MEETING: June 21, 2004 at 12:00 p.m. in the County Administration Building

May 17, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 271 June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m.

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Subdivisions)

PRESENT: Brown, Campbell, Carter, DiGiacomo, Kilby, Moore, Mortimer, Murray, Sennstrom, Walbeck, Williams, Woodhull, and Jones

ABSENT: Farrell, Prickett

Mr. Walbeck announced that Candlelight Ridge had been withdrawn. Each Planning Commission member present received a copy of the recently completed Water Resource Study.

MINUTES: Motion made by Murray, seconded by Mortimer, and unanimously carried to approve the May 20, 2004 minutes as mailed.

1. Candlelight Ridge, Phase 1, Red Toad Road, Final Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fifth Election District

Withdrawn

2. Tim Whittie presented West Creek Village, Fletchwood Road, Preliminary Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fourth Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Whittie advised that the property consisted of two parcels, both zoned RM to include 276 existing apartment units, with parking. The proposed

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 272 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 improvements consist of 190 townhouses, 198 apartments already approved for construction, and 240 proposed apartment units for a total of 904 units. Density requirement permits 1226 units. Parking spaces required 1903, 1960 have been proposed. Utility, water, sewer, storm drain and SWM facilities will be constructed in accordance to MDE regulations. A road connecting Fletchwood Road (Rte 277) to the existing apartment complex, therefore allowing the developer two access points to the site along Rte 277 and Willow Drive, has been proposed. West Creek Drive will be a public road up the Azalea Court crossing at which time will become a private road. The construction of a bridge has been proposed to aid in limiting disturbance of the wetlands and the creek. The applicant will meet with DPW to decide on maintenance details for the bridge. As part of the bridge construction a flood study will be completed, per MDE requirements. A Traffic Impact Study has been completed and submitted to the Office of Planning & Zoning, along with the recommendations for road improvements. The applicant is aware that the pump station will require upgrading, therefore, the townhouses will be constructed in phases.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was RM. A Concept Plat for Section II and a portion of Section I, under the name Hardy Realty, was reviewed by the TAC on 9/4/02 and by the Planning Commission on 9/16/02 and 10/21/02. It was approved on 10/21/02 at a density of 7.4/1, conditioned on:

1) A Traffic Impact Study being complete prior to the TAC review of the Preliminary Plat;

2) The Traffic Impact Studys scope of work including a needs assessment of, and possible feasibility study for, an alternative additional point of access;

3) A Jurisdictional Determination being done prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat;

4) The internal road names being approved by the Countys 911 Emergency Management Agency prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat;

5) The open space sensitive area acreages being provided prior to the TAC review of the Preliminary Plat; and

The West Creek Village Apts. Concept Plat was approved on 7/15/91. The Preliminary Plat was approved on 2/18/92 and (Tony, what is the correct date, 12/21/91); and the Final Plat was approved on 11/21/94. The Record Plat was signed on 2/23/95 (and revised on 6/4/96 and 12/13/00).

A revised West Creek Village Apts. Concept Plat was approved on 1/22/04, conditioned on:

1) A Traffic Impact Study being complete prior to the TAC review of the Preliminary Plat;

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 273 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 2) A Jurisdictional Determination being done prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat;

3) The internal road names being approved by the Countys 911 Emergency Management Agency prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat;

4) The open space sensitive area acreages being provided prior to the TAC review of the Preliminary Plat;

5) Waiver of the stream buffer expansion in the Development District;

6) Sidewalks being installed on both sides of all internal roads and along Fletchwood Road;

7) The depicted R-1 zoning being corrected on the Preliminary Plat;

8) A boundary line survey for density calculation purposes being complete prior to Preliminary Plat review;

9) All proposed Phase III structures being labeled or numbered on the preliminary Plat, for easier reference; and

10) If not done already, the elevations from the West Brach flood study being included on the Preliminary Plat.

This Preliminary Plat proposes a total of 904 dwelling units (234 already exiting) on 83.90 acres. 714 of the proposed dwelling units are apartments, at a density of 13/1; and 190 are townhouse units, at a proposed density of 6.5/1. The RM zone permits a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per 1 acre for townhouses and 16/1 for apartments or condos, with community facilities. This Preliminary Plat is consistent with the approved Revised Concept Plat.

This design is consistent with §7.2.12 (e) (4) of the Subdivision Regulations with respect to the proximity of the proposed entrance to Persimmon Lane.

The Traffic Impact Study (TIS) has been submitted and indicates that a traffic signal will be warranted at the Fletchwood/Peach Drive/West Creek Village Road intersection when approximately 50% of the development is built out, and that all intersections in the study area will operate at level-of-service D, which is an acceptable level-of-service in the Development District.

Note # 9 indicates that the boundary line survey has been done.

Note # 14 indicates that there are no slopes greater than 25%. On slopes between 15 and 25%, good engineering practices shall be used to ensure sediment and erosion control and slope stabilization before, during and after disturbance activities.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 274 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

A small portion of the proposed Cornus Court cul-de-sac and a fire hydrant are proposed to be located in the floodplain. It has already been indicated that FEMA is the source of the contour and elevation. Mr. DiGiacomo asked the applicant if he had reviewed the West Branch Flood Study. Mr. Whittie replied they would utilize the study during the design phase. Mr. DiGiacomo replied the study was one of the red conditions of concept approval; therefore, it will need to be reviewed. In addition any discrepancies between the study and the FEMA map would need to be addressed.

20% open space or 16.78 acres is required in the RM zone. About 39% or 32.61 acres are proposed.

15% of the required open space shall not consist of perennial or intermittent stream buffers, nontidal wetlands or buffers, steep slopes, or habitats of rare, threatened and endangered species. No more than 40% of the common open space required shall consist of those areas designated as nontidal or tidal wetlands. Those thresholds have been provided on the Preliminary Plat.

The Phase III structures have now been labeled.

Consideration should be given to providing active recreational amenities in the areas of common open space.

25% landscaping of the development envelope is required in the RM zone.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 275 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Sidewalks are recommended on both sides of all internal roads, as well as along Fletchwood Road.

Fire hydrant final locations should be selected in consultation with the Department of Public Works and the Singerly Volunteer Fire Company. Consideration should be given to the installation of a dry hydrant on the proposed bridge structure over the West Branch.

The minimum distance between townhouse structures shall be 60 if the townhouse structures are face to face. No townhouse structure shall be closer than 20 to any interior roadway or closer than 15 to any off-street parking area, excluding garages built into an individual townhouse unit.

Apartment buildings shall be set back at least 20 from all parking areas and internal roads (§29.4.h).

No apartment building can be constructed closer to any property line of the development tract than a distance equal to the height of the building (§29.4.d). Proposed Phase III apartment buildings 14A-1 and 14B-1 appear to be too close to the property line. If so a Variance will be required prior to Final Plat approval.

The maximum length of an apartment building is 300 feet (§29.4.j). Note # 15 indicates that a waiver is sought; however, a Variance will be required prior to Final Plat review.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontage of Fletchwood Road. The 25 peripheral bufferyard is also a Bufferyard Standard C.

An Area Table, as required by §4.1.22 (r), has not been included on the plat, though some of that information may be gleaned from the site data table and the townhouse schematic. However, the schematic is not drawn to scale, and it shows 20-wide lots could accommodating four 9-wide parking spaces, which is impossible. Final plat details shall be more precise.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 276 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Some of the parking spaces are depicted partly on individual lots and partly on common open space. Those spaces should be located on one or the other, but not both. In addition, some parking spaces are depicted on two individual lots; that situation should also be avoided.

§7.2.12.E.5 requires a 125 offset, centerline to centerline for roadways intersecting other roadways from opposite sides. Cornus Court and Marsh Lane are separated by only 100. That design must be revised.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) for the Hardy Realty parcel was approved on 10/2/02. A revised FSD, expanded to include both Parcel 75 and Parcel 316, was approved on 1/13/04.

The Phase I area could be considered exempt under §3.2M, as has been noted, although the words of the Forest Conservation Regulations must be added. The Phase II areas that deviate from the West Creek Village Apartments Record Plat are subject to the Forest Conservation Regulations, as is Phase III. If there are no deviations, then Phase II can be include in Note #16, covering the §3.2M exemption.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) was approved on 4/8/04.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The internal road names will need to be approved by the Countys 911 Emergency Management Agency prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat. Per the recommendation of the previously-proposed West Creek Drive name has been changed to West Creek Village Drive, to avoid

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 277 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 confusion, but there is no record of approval of the names Cornus Court and Marsh Lane. It will be the responsibility of the developer to obtain approval prior to Final Plat review.

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments. Additional open space access between structures should be considered in the townhouse portion between clusters.

The Record Plats shall contain a statement signed by the Health Department approving authority; to the effect that use of the community water supply and community sewerage system is in conformance with the Master Water and Sewer Plan. The Record Plats shall also contain a statement, signed by the owner, to the effect that such facilities will be available to all townhouses offered for sale.

Verification of water and sewer allocation must be received for each phase and/or section prior to the Planning Commissions review its Final Plat.

Mr. Woodhull stated the following submittals, at a minimum, must be approved by the Department of Public Works prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval: a Stormwater Management Plan; a Street and Storm Drain Plan; a Mass and Final Grading Plan; and a Sanitary Sewer and a Water System Plan. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

The Lot Grading Plan must include the standard note addressing the limits of construction. (No clearing or grading is permitted beyond the limits of disturbance show hereon. Any expanded clearing and/or grading in the absence of an approved revised lot grading plan may be considered non-compliance with Chapter 251 of the Cecil County Code and either or both the developer and/or Builder may be subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein.)

The downstream conveyance of stormwater must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the Countys SWM Ordinance. This includes analysis of the drainage ditches and cross culvert on MD 277.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 278 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 If stormwater discharge is directed off of the site on to adjacent property owners it is the responsibility of the developer to obtain appropriate easements from the affected property owners per Section 251-13 of the Cecil County SWM Ordinance.

The Final Plat must clarify the Phase II / Phase III demarcation line for West Creek Village Drive. Some portion of the road will be required in Phase II to access Apartment Building 11A.

The proposed County portion of West Creek Village Drive must be constructed to Road Code Standard R-4, while the private portion must meet Road Code Standard R-7. The other internal roads proposed as being deeded to the County must meet Road Code Standard R-3.

The Cornus Court cul-de-sac bulb is in non-compliance with the Road Code; however a Road Code Variance Request addressing this issue has been received, reviewed and granted by the department. However the street may not be located within the 100 year flood plain.

The department recommends careful consideration to the design of the bridge, on West Creek Village Drive, in terms of long-term maintainability. The developer must understand that the length of the proposed bridge places it under the regulation of the Federal Highway Administration, which requires bi-annual inspections by a professional engineer and must be maintained sufficiently to safely carry the design loads. The applicant should address how the long term maintenance of the bridge will be financially assured.

Cornus Court, Apartment Building 17, Lots 77-82 and 146-147, as well as, three (3) SWM Areas are immediately adjacent to the flood plain line, which has been graphically shown from the FEMA studies. In reality the flood plain follows some, probably as yet undefined, topographic contour because they could potentially be within the floodplain. An engineering analysis must be completed to delineate the 100-year flood plain line by contour. Mr. Whittie stated it would be submitted as part of the MDE application for the bridge crossing. Mr. Woodhull continued, posed emergency response concerning have been addressed.

The Meadowview Wastewater Treatment Plant has no unallocated capacity at this time. As such, no new connections may be made until system capacity is expanded.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 279 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 DPW can allocate 234 of the remaining 240 Equivalent Living Units (ELU) allocated to and prepaid by West Creek Village Apartments. This allocation expires in 2006. An assumed 6 ELU will be withheld until flow measurements have verified maximum flows in particular the clubhouse located in the apartment complex. A design-build project for the Meadowview WWTF began March 2004 with completion scheduled 18 months later at which point sufficient capacity will be available. It was our recommendation to the Planning Commission that Concept and Preliminary Plat approval be granted on the expectation of service in approximately 2 years, but Final Plat approval should only be granted for 234 new units until that time. Units beyond the pre-paid 240 ELU will also be subject to a Benefit Assessment, in addition to Connection Fees.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

PWAs will be required for the private as well as the proposed County internal streets& storm drains. PWAs are also required for the sanitary sewer and water mains.

Mr. Mortimer questioned the source of the water. Mr. Whittie replied Fletchwood Road, which is the main output. Mr. Mortimer asked and the source? Mr. Whittie and Woodhull replied Meadowview Water Plant.

Mr. Mortimer stated out of the proposed 900 and some odd units only 234 actually have capacity for discharge. Is that correct? Mr. Woodhull replied, 234 additional. There are already 216. All existing buildings have sewer connections built. The darker ones in Phase 2 has not been built yet and is part of the 234. They could be built in either of Phase 2 apartments already built or the townhouse.

Mr. Walbeck stated, when this Concept Plat was first approved, access to the rear of the apartment building was discussed. Although in many cases the alley way between the apartment buildings has been provided, particularly along the edges of the development, there is no convenient access to the rear. Mr. Whittie replied between the easement spaces and open space for access easements to the rear of the facilities would be recorded, therefore minimizing the walk. Discussion followed concerning access. Mr. Walbeck pointed out to Mr. Whittie which access areas needed to be clearly added to the deeds prior to recordation.

Mr. Walbeck asked how wide are Units 37 44 were? Mr. Whittie replied 20 wide.

Mr. Walbeck stated that the OPZ had a recommendation for active recreation facilities, which would be pretty important with the amount of homes proposed with very little open space. Could a TOT lot be constructed? Mr. Whittie pointed out possible areas for a TOT lot and play area in the center of the facility. Mr. Walbeck stated that the actual facility should be provided. Mr. Whittie stated that it would be installed as part of the project and would be a condition that they would be adhered to.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 280 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Woodhull stated that TOT lots would be included in the DPW Agreement and the department would prefer a listing of the items. Mr. Whittie replied that they would provide DPW with an itemized list of the equipment.

Mr. Williams asked who was responsible for the maintenance and inspection of the bridge. Mr. Whittie replied the owner would be responsible. A wooden bridge had been discussed as a possibility, but because it would require more maintenance than the traditional concrete type bridge; they are looking into both options, as well as concerns with DPW.

Mr. Mortimer asked why a wooden bridge had originally been proposed. Mr. Whittie replied a scenic amenity. Although because the wooden bridge would require more maintenance the owner is reassessing the options.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

3. Will Whiteman and Henry Passi presented EagleAire, Rte 272, Preliminary Plat, Will Whiteman Land Surveying Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Whiteman advised that six lots were proposed with Lot 6 being created around an existing dwelling in addition to well and septic. The applicants have met with the County on both SWM and access issues as well as with SHA since the Concept Plat was before the Planning Commission. A letter sighting the down slope wells, requested because of the geology, has been sent to the Health Department per their request. The 50 intermittent stream buffer going through the forest area and Forest Retention Lines had been addressed. A concern from TAC regarding the road leading into Lot 6 has been addressed.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was SR, which permits a maximum base density of 1 dwelling unit per 1 acre without community facilities. The Concept Plat was approved on 10/20/03 for 6 lots at a density of 1/2.822, conditioned on:

1) A boundary line survey being completed prior to TAC review of the Preliminary Plat;

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 281 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 2) A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) being completed prior to Preliminary Plat review by the Planning Commission; and

3) No sidewalks being required.

This Preliminary Plat, consistent with the approved Concept Plat, proposes 6 lots on 16.932 acres, for a proposed density of 1/2.822.

The boundary line survey has been done.

The existing dwelling currently has Turkey Point Road address. Upon approval, Lot 6 must have an EagleAire Way address.

A 25 intermittent stream buffer is required, except in FRAs, where it is expanded to 50, as depicted.

No common open space is required for only 6 lots.

20% landscaping of the development envelope is required in the SR zone.

A Bufferyard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the MD 272 road frontages.

Sidewalks are not required.

Rows of street trees, with 10 planting easements, are required outside the right-of-way, along both sides of the proposed EagleAire Way. Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 282 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) has been approved. There are no habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species on site.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) has been approved.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The mini-road name EagleAire Way has been approved.

A mini-road maintenance association must be established prior to recordation with all lot owners becoming members.

As noted on the plat, proposed Lots 1 and 3 must be denied access onto MD 272.

Mr. Woodhull stated a SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan and a Mass & Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 283 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 the Cecil County Code and either or both the developer and/or builder may be subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein.)

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

If the SWM facility discharge is directed off of the site on to adjacent property owners it is the responsibility of the developer to obtain appropriate easements from the affected property owners per Section 251-13 of the Cecil County SWM Ordinance.

Section 2.13 of the Road Code must be adhered to for the construction of the private road.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for SWM facilities.

A PWA will be required for the private mini road and storm drains.

Discussion followed concerning the bufferyard along Rte 272.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

4. Andrew Collins and Lester Temple presented Hopewell Ridge, Craigtown Road, Final Plat, Larson Engineering, Inc., Seventh Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Collins stated that they were seeking Final Plat approval for Hopewell Ridge, which is an 18 lot subdivision along Craigtown Road. The comments have been met from the Preliminary Plat of September 2003 meeting.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 284 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was NAR which permits a maximum base density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. Bonus density of 1/3.0867 was granted 3/17/03 with approval of the Concept Plat, conditioned on:

1) The common open space acreages and total being rectified;

2) The road name being approved prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat;

3) The boundary line survey being completed prior to the TAC review of the Preliminary Plat;

4) The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plans being approved prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat and any sensitive species issues being resolved as part pf Preliminary Plat approval; and

5) The Bufferyard C requirement being waived in favor of the landscaping design as depicted.

The Preliminary Plat was approved on 9/15/03, conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) Department of Public Works requirements being met;

3) The Final Plat verifying that the total open space provided is no less than 60% of the total acreage;

4) The adjacent agricultural operation note being placed on the Final Plat;

5) Covenants prohibiting the subdivision of the large lot being recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation;

6) The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan being approved prior to Final Plat review;

7) The details of the FCP and the Final Plat matching up;

8) The hooks shown across the AT&T right-of-way depicted on proposed Lots 12, 16, & 17 being removed if the right-of-way is not in fee-simple ownership;

9) A hyphen or slash for the BG-NAR zoning designation for parcel 490 and the MH-NAR designation for parcel 12 being included on the Final and Record Plats;

10) Easements for access and stormwater conveyance across the AT&T right of way must be formalized between the developer and AT&T.

The total acreage of the proposed large lot and common open space is 60.33% of the total, and this Final Plat is consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 285 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The plat must include reference to Minor Subdivision # 3483.

Easements for access and stormwater conveyance across the AT&T right of way must be formalized between the developer and AT&T prior to recordation.

This proposal is generally consistent with the approved Concept Plat and satisfies the open space provisions of the NAR zone for bonus density.

There is now both fee simple and easement access to the stormwater management area in the common open space. Access to common open space between and beside lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone.

Proposed lot 18 is denied direct access to Camp Meeting Ground and Craigtown Roads.

Rows of street trees are required, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of all Marian Drive. Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) and Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) have been approved.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan have been approved.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The proposed road name, Marian Drive, has been approved.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 286 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Covenants prohibiting the subdivision of the large lot must be recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space, and possibly a landscaped island, must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

For subdivisions proposed on property contiguous to operating farms, notice shall be provided on the plat that an agricultural operation is being conducted on a contiguous property and said agricultural operation is protected from nuisance claims provided the conditions of Article I, § 4 are being complied with. The inclusion of this note on the Final Plat was a condition of Preliminary Plat approval.

A Bufferyard standard A with a 100 agricultural setback is required on proposed Lot 18, as shown.

Mr. Woodhull stated the SWM Plan; Street and Storm Drain Plan; and Mass and Final Grading Plan were currently under review by this department. Several issues as well as administrative items remain outstanding. These must be resolved to the satisfaction of the departments approval of the Final Plat.

A 30 wide Access and Drainage Easement indicated on the most recent design submittal between Lots 13 & 14 must be shown on the Final Plat.

DPW request that the applicant discuss the impacts of the AT&T ROW on access and conveyance crossing it. The letter sent to the applicant from AT&T specifically addresses the sanity sewer line and the driveway but it doesnt mention the SWM Conveyance. DPW would like to see that incorporated in a follow up letter so that AT&T is aware of all their crossings, which will need to be shown on the Final Plat.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated as well as the access to the common open space.

Mr. Woodhull requested that the applicant add the conveyance easement dimensions for the yard inlet located in Lot 10 and then piped to the pond adjacent to Lot 16, in addition to the dimensions for the existing 20 wide AT&T ROW, be placed on the plats.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 287 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Mortimer questioned if the applicant had talked to AT&T regarding the driveway crossing over. Mr. Collins replied yes they had met with AT&T on the property in question. Mr. Mortimer asked if a letter would be sent by AT&T confirming their approval. Mr. Collins replied yes.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

5. Michael Burcham and Mary Slagle presented Marley Farms, Section D, Lots 51-56, Childs Road, Preliminary Plat, McCrone Inc., Third Election District

District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Burcham stated the project, Section D, Lots 51-56 was a continuation of the Marley Farms subdivision and will develop the remaining acres of that project. The original Concept Plat approved by the Planning Commission was for 10 lots but after perc testing and the establishment of the septic areas only 6 lots could be realized. Two lots front on Childs Road with a common drive access easement. An existing dwelling has been constructed on proposed lot 51. Lots 53-56 will be accessed by a private mini road coming off of Vista Drive and access to common open space for a proposed SWM area.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was SR which permits a maximum base density of 1 dwelling unit per 1 acre in the absence of community facilities.

The Section D Concept Plat (10 lots, common open space, and road area on 26.52 acres, for a proposed density of 1/2.652) was approved on 11/17/03, conditioned on:

1) A boundary line survey being completed prior to completion of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes;

2) A JD being completed prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat;

3) The vegetative equivalent of a Bufferyard D being incorporated into the FCP/Landscape Plan along the boundaries of the adjacent M2-zoned property; and

4) All road names being approved prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 288 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

This Preliminary Plat proposes only 6 lots on 26.52 acres, for a proposed density of 1/4.417. It is generally consistent with the approved Concept Plat.

A boundary line survey has been completed.

A building permit has been issued for this parcel with direct access from Childs Road in the area of proposed Lots 51-52. What is the current status of that construction, and what impact will it have on this design? Mr. Burcham replied Lot 51 dwelling was completed and occupied. It was revealed that the well for Lot 51 was drilled in the proposed area for Lot 52. The Health Department has required, prior to Record Plat, the applicant drill a well and connected on Lot 51, and provide the well data to them.

Mr. DiGiacomo continued all proposed lots except one are shown to have steep slopes. On slopes between 15 and 25%, good engineering practices shall be used to ensure sediment and erosion control and slope stabilization before, during and after disturbance activities.

The 110 perennial stream buffer, expanded at specific locations, has been shown.

Intermittent streams require a 25 buffer, to be expanded to 50 in forest retention areas. An expanded intermittent stream buffer has been shown, but forest retention areas have not, as required by §4.1.22 (h) of the Subdivision Regulations. In the absence of such information, a determination of FRA boundary consistency between the plat and the PFCP cannot be made.

Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland and stream impacts prior to recordation. The requirement of a Jurisdictional Determination (JD) being done was a condition by the Planning Commission was a condition of Concept Plat approval, however per Planning Commission policy adopted on 3/20/95 and revised on 1/16/96, if the wetlands have been field-delineated and if all such wetlands are within the proposed forest retention areas, then a JD need not be done. As no FRA has been depicted on the plat, it cannot be determined that all wetlands are proposed inside the FRA, and, therefore, a JD is required per the conditional approval of the Concept Plat.

3.98 acres (15%) of common open space are required in the SR zone; 5.11 acres are proposed.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 289 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 15% of the required open space shall not consist of perennial or intermittent stream buffers, nontidal wetlands or buffers, steep slopes, or habitats of rare, threatened and endangered species. No more than 40% of the common open space required shall consist of those areas designated as nontidal or tidal wetlands. Those figures have been provided.

Sidewalks are not recommended in this case, as their inclusion would be inconsistent with the design of previous sections of the subdivision.

20% landscaping of the development envelope is required in the SR zone.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of Childs Road.

The immediately adjacent property at 171 Childs Road is zoned M2. A condition of Concept Plat approval was that the FCP/Landscape Plan include the vegetative equivalent of a Bufferyard Standard D along the border of the adjacent M2-zoned property, on proposed Lots 52, 54 and the common open space.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) has been approved.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) has been approved.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 290 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 shown on the Record Plat.

The road name Deer Creek Lane has been approved.

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

If the owners of these proposed lots are to become members of an existing Marley Farms Homeowners Association, then any necessary revisions to the HOA charter must be approved and recorded, and $50 per recorded lot must be placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

If not, then a Section D Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation. Access rights of the owners from other sections to Section Ds common open space must be formalized and noted on the Record Plat.

A mini-road maintenance association must be established prior to recordation, with the owners of those lots accessing the mini-road becoming members.

Mr. Woodhull stated a SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan, and a Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval.

The Lot Grading Plan must include the standard note addressing the limits of construction. (No clearing or grading is permitted beyond the limits of disturbance show hereon. Any expanded clearing and/or grading in the absence of an approved revised lot grading plan may be considered non-compliance with Chapter 251 of the Cecil County Code and either or both the developer and/or Builder may be subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein.)

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

Specific attention will be required when addressing stormwater run-off from Lots 53, 54, & common open space and their impact on the Lands of 171 Childs Road, LLC as well as on Childs Road itself. If stormwater discharge is directed off of the site on to adjacent property owners it is the responsibility of the developer to

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 291 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 obtain appropriate easements from the affected property owners per Section 251-13 of the Cecil County SWM Ordinance.

The department proposes the following note, The proposed internal roads will not be dedicated for public ownership or maintenance. The Mini Road Maintenance Association shall retain title to the road and all maintenance responsibilities.

The common driveway entrance for Lots 51 & 52 must be paved within the ROW and made part of the PWA and as such bonded.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

A PWA will be required for the private mini road and storm drains.

Mr. Brown asked where the existing well was on the plat. Mr. Burcham replied the well marked existing well was the one drilled to date and serving the existing house on Lot 51. A new well will be drilled on the back of Lot 51 and connected to the existing dwelling prior to recordation of the plat.

Mr. Walbeck asked about the Forest Retention Area mentioned by Mr. DiGiacomo. Has it been identified? Mr. Burcham replied the Forest Retention lines have been approved on the Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan.

Mr. Walbeck asked about the Bufferyard Standard D along the M2 zoned property. Mr. Burcham replied it was shown on the plat bordering Lot 52 and in the back of Lot 54 and proposed SWM ponds are shown at 15 yard Bufferyard D.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 292 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

6. Mr. Burcham, Mary Slagle and Keith Baynes presented Colora Springs, Lots 2 10, Concept Plat, Colora Road, McCrone, Inc., Sixth Election District

Mr. Walbeck announced that Commissioner Kilby, Ex-Official member, was recusing herself from any participation of Colora Springs. She will speak as a private citizen with concerns on the project. Mr. Walbeck passed out a copy of Ms. Kilbys statement to the Planning Commission members.

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Burcham stated the Concept Plat was reviewed by the Planning Commission in November of 2003 and disapproved. Since that time the applicants have reviewed the property from several different angles, looking at ways to adjust the lots on this property to accommodate the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the Cecil County Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. After reviewing the project in several different ways the applicants have concluded that the plan meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. They have addressed the concerns of the County agencies. The three individual properties have been joined by a fee simple frontage. The common open space has been moved to encompass the existing pond. After research of the pond it was determined to have been designed and built under Soil Conservation guidelines. The pond will be used for a SWM facility. Assurance will be made that the pond meets the CCDPW requirements once the engineering design has begun. A stub road, per the recommendation of the DPW, will be built to the Lands of Hilton. The required intermediate turn around will be eliminated in lieu of an expanded T turn around at the end of the road, allowing large vehicles to turn around until such time as the roadway is continued into the adjoining property. A 100 setback has been applied to the Bufferyard A boundary behind Lots 6-10 in order to protect the farmland from the proposed homes. Since a road will be stubbed in for the potential of future development a 50 building setback has been proposed along with a Standard Bufferyard A to border the Hilton property from Lots 5-6 rather than the 100 setback. The area between the back of Lots 32-34, the nontidal and the existing residence of David Douglas will be include in a proposed Afforestation Plan to meet the Forest Conservation requirements. Lot 2 has been proposed to meet the 60% bonus density requirement application. Lots 3-10 in the rear of the property will be clustered in order to maintain rural character while keeping the clustered development away from the County road system.

Mr. Baynes stated the proposed subdivision consisted of 28.62 acres, located in the 6th Election District in Cecil County. It is located in the Rural Conservation District of the 1990 Comprehensive Plan and in the NAR zone of the 1993 Zoning Ordinance. The developers are proposing nine lots. Portions of the Comprehensive Plan dealing with the Rural Conservation District, the NAR zone dealing with density and an aerial photo of the site, where distributed to the Planning Commission members and placed into record. Within the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, when you are looking at rural conservation area, they talk about new developments being served by a internal road access in order to minimize curb cuts along State and County road. By looking at the plat and the aerial photo it is apparent this subdivision meets those objectives. Another goal of the Rural Conservation District is to cluster residential development and provide large open space areas, which has been met by this plan. The Comprehensive Plan goes on to specifically state that large lots, lots that equal the allowed density, should not be permitted. The 1/3 density is permitted if the units are clustered and large areas are left open, which will be achieved with Lot 2 and the open space. Under the Zoning Ordinance Section 22.2 C, dealing with parcels less than 30 acres does allow a density of 1/3 if 50% of the common open space or all of the lots except one large lot shall to encompass no more than

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 293 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 40% of the parcel and the large lot shall contain the remainder of the property. This development meets that requirement. Common open space is not required for nine lots but it has been provided around the proposed SWM area. The houses are obscured from the roadway while maintaining the rural character of the neighborhood with the natural buffer and the Standard Bufferyard A required. The standard notation on the plat and the County Right to Farm Ordinance will be sufficient to protect the current existing farming operation.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was NAR which permits a maximum base density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. Bonus density eligibility carries with it a permitted density of 1/3. This Concept Plat proposes 9 lots on 28.62 acres, for a proposed density of 1/3.18.

A boundary line survey must be done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes.

Slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the Preliminary Plat.

A 25 buffer is required around all non-tidal wetlands and intermittent streams present. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland and stream impacts prior to recordation. A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) must be done prior to Preliminary Plat review by the Planning Commission.

No common open space is required for only 9 lots. However, from the perspective of bonus density eligibility, the proposed large lot comprises 60.06%. Therefore, this proposal satisfies the bonus density eligibility requirements set forth in §22.2.c of the Zoning Ordinance. Common open space is proposed for the

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 294 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 stormwater management facility.

However, §22.2.c, which deals with parcels of fewer than 30 acres, requires 60% open space in the form of either a large lot or common open space, one or the other, all or nothing. Therefore, if a large lot is proposed to qualify for bonus density eligibility, then, technically, no common open space is allowed.

Nevertheless, §3.5 of the Subdivision Regulations empowers the Planning Commission to modify requirements because of unusual circumstance when no nullification of the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Subdivision Regulations would result. The creation of common open space upon which to situate stormwater management areas fits such circumstances, and, therefore, staff recommends permitting the common open space.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone. No sidewalks are recommended in the NAR zone.

Bufferyard Standard A is required along the rear lot lines of proposed lots 6 10 to buffer adjacent agricultural uses. For subdivisions proposed on property contiguous to operating farms, notice shall be provided on the plat that an agricultural operation is being conducted on a contiguous property and said agricultural operation is protected from nuisance claims provided the conditions of Article I, § 4 are being complied with.

Since Mr. Hilton has requested a stub road to his property to facilitate its development, staff recommends a modified Bufferyard A along the northern boundaries of proposed lots 5-6. As the land is currently in agricultural use, but there is clear intent of future development, a planted Bufferyard A (per Appendix B) with a reduced, 50 building restriction line is reasonable under these circumstances.

Staff recommends that a stub also be extended to the lands of Wells, to the south. That can be accomplished with the current, proposed configuration of the proposed Colora Springs Drive.

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 295 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) was approved on 11/17/03. The site contains neither the habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species nor FIDS.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The road name Colora Springs Drive has been approved.

Notation has been provided regarding access to the lands of Douglas.

Access to common open space must be marked with concrete monuments.

Covenants prohibiting the subdivision of the large lot must be recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of any common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

Mr. Baynes asked if the proposed subdivision plat, in his opinion, met all the client requirements for bonus density. Mr. DiGiacomo replied it met the requirements for bonus density eligibility.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 296 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Baynes asked if it was consistent with or exceeded other developments approved previously by the Planning Commission with bonus density. Mr. DiGiacomo replied he would have to check in order to answer the exceed portion of the question, but it meets the requirements. Mr. Baynes asked if it was consistent with other developments. Mr. DiGiacomo replied yes.

Mr. Baynes questioned if when Mr. DiGiacomo gave his recommendation later in the day, would it be based on whether the plat met all of the bonus density requirements. Mr. DiGiacomo replied it would be based upon the specifics of the presentation and its meshing with the Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Woodhull stated a SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan, and a Mass & Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

The Lot Grading Plan must include the standard note addressing the limits of construction. (No clearing or grading is permitted beyond the limits of disturbance show hereon. Any expanded clearing and/or grading in the absence of an approved revised lot grading plan may be considered non-compliance with Chapter 251 of the Cecil County Code and either or both the developer and/or Builder may be subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein.)

Mr. Woodhull verified with Burcham that the existing pond would be used for SWM. The SWM submittal must include an engineered as built of the pond and supporting calculations as to its capacity to meet the new demands, a hazard analysis and bridge analysis of the pond. SCD should either have or can assistant the applicant in doing so.

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 297 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 An intermediate turnaround is required by the Road Code and should be planned in the vicinity of the common open space.

Connectivity has been shown to the Lands of Hilton as well as the Lands of Wells which had been a request from DPW at previous presentations. Therefore the department has granted a Road Code Variance to eliminate the intermediate turnaround.

Section 3.07.15 of the Road Code directs that Colora Road must be upgraded to a Minor Collector Standard for a minimum distance of 100 either side of the point of intersection between Colora Road and the proposed entrance.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the owners expense.

Sight distance measurements must be provided for the proposed entrance.

All driveways must be paved to the ROW and so noted on the Lot Grading Plan.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

A PWA will be required for the road and storm drains.

Mr. Walbeck asked how the applicant would accomplish DPWs requirement to improve the road access along Colora Road for 100 on either side of private property. Mr. Burcham replied easements would need to be granted and/or purchased from the adjoining properties to meet DPW requirements for upgrades to the road. Mr. Walbeck questioned if the negotiations failed between the adjoining property owners. Mr. Burcham replied he would then have to meet with DPW.

Mr. Carter stated in the event negotiations fail there are guidelines for what is considered good faith efforts.

No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 298 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Phyllis Kilby appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Ms. Kilby stated the copy of testimony before the Planning Commission members was basically the same testimony given the past two times the application was before the committee, a copy attached for reference. In response to what Mr. Baynes has said, Ms. Kilby pointed out that this area is supposed to be agriculture. She is asking the committee, that in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission make agriculture the preferred use in this area by not granting bonus density because you in fact the ability to grant or not grant. She is aware that technically the Concept Plat meets bonus density obligations but she would like the committee to take into consideration the fact that in addition to this particular piece of property there will be a stub located to the Hilton property and potentially the Wells property. If bonus density is granted to this property there is no way that bonus density can be denied to the other two properties in the event of future development. This will put their agriculture operation, which is moving into the third generation, in distress with the homes near the property, the added traffic and congestion and the potential nuisance value. Take into consideration the Highlands stub road; as good common sense and good neighbor sense was used in the decision making. Ms. Kilby is not asking the Planning Commission to prevent the property from being developed but to deny bonus density because of the preferred use of agriculture in the area.

Dennis Clower, 226 East Main Street, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Clower stated he was representing the Kilby family and Kilby, Inc. He believes that the Planning Commission should not exercise discretion in favor of bonus density. If bonus density is routinely granted then the Planning Commission has no role. It is discretionary decision. He pointed out the purpose of the zoning. He stated that the applicant had the burden of proving in legal terms why the Planning Commission should grant bonus density. The conditions are barely met by the Ordinance. Clearly to Mr. Clower this is no intent to preserve the agriculture and forestry look or use of the property but instead to maximize the residential development. Per the Comprehensive Plan, the purpose is the preservation of contiguous permanent open space areas on which farming can take place. It is the purpose of the District to maintain agriculture usage by resisting encouragement of development in prime agriculture lands. This is precisely what is not happening here, with the lots being clustered up against the most dominant agriculture use in the area.

Mr. Baynes stated when you read the Comprehensive Plan yes agriculture is one of the goals but residential is also. The Comprehensive Plan would not outline goals and housing type guidelines if housing was not permit in the Rural Conservation District. This plan meets all of the goals and objectives of the Rural Conservation zone under the Comprehensive Plan. It meets or exceeds all of the requirements under the NAR. A is agriculture and R is residential, which are permitted uses. They are design to coexist. Both the Planning Commission and the County have come up with various ordinances and means to protect an existing farming operation from proposed houses. There is an existing natural buffer. The proposed developer will put in the Bufferyard A that is required. The required notation will be placed on the plat. The Right to Farm Ordinance will be complied with. He does not think that it is right for this Commission to consider what may or may not be submitted with the Lands of Hilton and Wells. It is not before you and you do not know if bonus density will be requested. This plan is consistent with other plans that have been approved by this Commission and it would be inconsistent for this board to simply deny it when others have been approved. As this project meets all of the requirements.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 299 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Ms. Kilby stated planning is what the Committee should be doing here and planning is looking at the future and trying to decide whats going to happen.

7. Mr. Burcham, Mary Slagle and Keith Baynes presented Colora Springs, Lots 2 10, Preliminary Plat, Colora Road, McCrone, Inc., Sixth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Burcham stated this was a continuation of the prior submittal for concept plan. As mentioned in that presentation theyve went through the necessary steps to assure the concept plan was feasible and have since generated the Preliminary Plat under the requirements of the Countys ordinances. Lots 2 10 are consistent with the prior concept plan. The only major difference on this plat would be the configuration of Lot 6 versus the Concept Plat. Lot 6 is a little bit larger than what was proposed on the Concept Plat, accommodating the perc testing.

Ms. Slagle stated the property and pond were gorgeous. There is a small screened in porch area with deck for the use of the homeowners. There is also a little dock that children can fish off of. The do want to keep the rural country look. They are aware that the Kilby farm touches a small portion of the Kilby farm and they intend to do everything possible to protect them from that.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was NAR permitting a maximum base density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, or bonus density eligibility of 1/3. The Concept Plat upon which this Preliminary Plat is based has not been approved. Proposed are 9 lots on 28.62 acres, for a proposed density of 1/3.18.

A boundary line survey has been done. No steep slopes. exist on-site.

A 25 buffer is required around all non-tidal wetlands and intermittent streams (expanded to 50 in the FRA) present. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland and stream impacts prior to recordation. A JD has not been done.

Aerial photographs reveal a pavilion-like structure by the edge of the pond. Since it is not depicted on the plat, as required by §4.1.22 (h) of the Subdivision Regulations, it is impossible to determine if the structure is in the buffer, or whether it is in the proposed common open space or Lot 2. Where is this structure and what

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 300 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 is its proposed disposition? Mr. Burcham replied the structure had not been field located and it is their clients intent to maintain the structure for the use of residents as part of the open space. Ms. Slagle stated they could get rid of it if it was unwanted. Mr. DiGiacomo stated their interest was primarily in weather it would be on Lot 2 or in the common open space. It would be more appropriately located in the common open space than on Lot 2. Mr. Slagle stated they would file locate it and put it in the common open space, if that is where you want it. Mr. DiGiacomo replied that is where we would prefer it.

Common open space is proposed only for the stormwater management facility. The proposed large lot comprises 60.06%, so the area this proposal satisfies the bonus density eligibility requirements set forth in §22.2.c of the Zoning Ordinance.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required, and no sidewalks are recommended in the NAR zone.

Bufferyard Standard A is required with the standard 100 BRL along the rear lot lines of proposed lots 6 10 and to buffer adjacent agricultural uses. Since Mr. Hilton has requested a stub road to his property to facilitate its development, staff recommends a modified Bufferyard A with a reduced, 50-building restriction line along the northern boundaries of proposed lots 5-6.

The adjacent operating farms notice has been provided on the plat.

The recommended future access to the lands of Wells, to the south, can be accomplished with the current, proposed configuration of Colora Springs Drive.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) was approved on 11/17/03. The PFCP was approved on 3/10/04.

Rows of street trees with a 10 planting easement are required, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of the proposed Colora springs Drive. Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements.

The FCP and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat. A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 301 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Deed restrictions for the long-term protection of the Forest Retention/Afforestation Areas (FRAs) must be recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation. The metes and bounds description of the FRA must be shown on the record plat.

The road name Colora Springs Drive has been approved. Notation has been provided regarding access to the lands of Douglas.

Access to common open space must be marked with concrete monuments.

Covenants prohibiting the subdivision of the large lot must be recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of any common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

An intermediate turnaround is required by the Road Code and should be planned in the vicinity of the common open space.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 302 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the owners expense.

Sight distance measurements must be provided for the proposed entrance.

All driveways must be paved to the ROW and so noted on the Lot Grading Plan.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

A PWA will be required for the road and storm drains.

Mr. Walbeck stated that at the Concept Plat stage it was stated the pond would be used as a SWM facility and future engineering investigation would determine what had to be done. Mr. Walbeck stated that he would have expected that would have been for Preliminary Plat. Mr. Burcham stated generally engineering design of roads and SWM are not followed through with until after Preliminary Plat approval to determine that the layout is acceptable by all of the agencies prior to the major portion of the engineering design taking place. Therefore at this time based on the investigation done with Soil Conservation their engineering staff feels that it is quite feasible to convert that into a satisfactory SWM facility and thats why they are proceeding through the Preliminary Plat stage under that scenario. Mr. Walbeck asked if the applicant could fit the recreational structure within the proposed boundaries of the open space. Mr. Burcham replied he felt they could. The open space boundary around the pond has a little bit of room for flexibility. So if they need to increase the front line of the open space that runs parallel with Colora Springs Drive closer to accommodate that structure he felt they could do that. They will field locate and supply the information to OPZ and DPW.

No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

Ms. Kilby appeared in opposition to the proposal. She stated the previous comments still applied. One of the items addressed in the testimony was their houses being very far away from this particular section of ground, which magnified the concern because they could not visually see their backfield other than when they were

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 303 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 working in it. One of the problems that they have had in this area was four wheelers running through the crops because it was an ideal place for four wheelers. Therefore this is an added concern of the houses being placed right up against their property.

8. Donald Sutton presented Leyland, Lots 5-10, Rte 213, Preliminary Plat, McCrone, Inc., Second Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Sutton advised that Lots 5-10 which was originally Lot 5 of a minor subdivision previously approved. This property is located just south and west of the Hyatt Corner intersection at Rte 213. These lots will be accessing Leyland Drive, a proposed mini road, which accesses Rte 213. They have been in contact with the SHA regarding the scenic byway issue with Rte 213. Some of the recommendations were to deal with landscaping along Rte 213 and better define the entrance area of Leyland Drive. The applicant will be working with SHA with their recommendations.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was SAR which permits a maximum base density of 1 dwelling unit per 8 acres. This parcel is shown as Lot #5 on Minor Subdivision # 2490. The Concept Plat (proposing 6 lots, a private mini-road, and a landscaped cul-de-sac bulb island on 69.9 acres, for a proposed density of 1/11.65), was approved on 11/17/02, conditioned on:

1) The name Leyland Drive being approved prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat;

2) The survey for the Halberd-leaved Greenbrier not be required since no development is proposed outside that area of the property now under cultivation; &

3) Any decision regarding any modification of the Bufferyard C requirement being deferred until the applicant has conferred with the State Highway Administration to receive further guidance on what they would like along the scenic highway.

This Preliminary Plat, consistent with the approved Concept Plat, proposes 6 lots on 69.9 acres for a proposed density of 1/11.655.

A boundary line survey has been done.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 304 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

If there are no slopes 25% or greater, then note # 7 should be removed.

On slopes between 15 and 25%, good engineering practices shall be used to ensure sediment and erosion control and slope stabilization before, during and after disturbance activities.

The 110 perennial stream buffer has been shown, but it is inconsistent with the 160 stream buffer on the approved FSD. The 25 non-tidal wetlands buffer has also been shown.

No common open space is required for subdivisions of fewer than 10 lots. However, a mini-road maintenance association must be formed to maintain the mini-road cul-de-sac and the landscaped island within the mini-road cul-de-sac. All lot owners must become members.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the SAR zone.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the MD 213 road frontages. In that location, Bufferyard Standard C may not be optimal to the maintaining of rural character. MD route 213 is a scenic highway, so the Landscape Plan must be based upon SHA guidance, in the absence of which, County regulations shall prevail.

Bufferyard Standard A is required along the southerly lot lines of proposed Lots 5, 6 & 7 to buffer adjacent agricultural uses. It must be shown on proposed Lot 7, even if the natural vegetation will suffice. Notice has been provided on the plat that an agricultural operation is being conducted on a contiguous property and that it is protected from nuisance claims provided the conditions of Article I, § 4 are being complied with.

Rows of street trees with 10 planting easements are required, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of the proposed Leyland Drive. Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 305 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) was approved 11/15/02

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) has been approved.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat, and their details must be consistent with one another.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The Leyland Drive mini-road name approved.

A mini-road maintenance association must be established prior to recordation with all lot owners becoming members.

As noted on the plat, proposed Lots 5 and 10 must be denied access onto MD 213.

Mr. Woodhull stated that A SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan, and a Mass & Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 306 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 the penalty provisions therein.)

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

The internal road is proposed as private, as such; a statement clearly outlining the responsibilities of the Mini-Road Maintenance Association in the maintenance of roads and storm drainage systems must be approved by the Planning Commission and placed on the Final Plat. The department proposes the following note: (The proposed internal roads will not be dedicated for public ownership or maintenance. The Mini-Road Maintenance Association shall retain title to the road and all maintenance responsibilities.).

The proposed Private Mini Road must meet the requirements set forth in Section 2.13 of the County Road Code.

The ditch flow from the cul-de-sac must be piped approximately 300 past the ROW of the bulb to convey run-off past the septic fields of any impacted lot.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

A PWA will be required for the private mini road and storm drains.

Mr. Mortimer asked for more details concerning plans and requirements for the road frontage and vegetation. Mr. Sutton stated in the discussion with the SHA they recommended landscaping along the scenic byways. It is not a SHA requirement. SHA is looking for visual friction, which would consist of some canopy trees along certain areas and as you get closer to the entrance achieve a tighter look with the opening to Leyland Drive. They did not want to disturb the scenic area.

Mr. Mortimer questioned the absence of the State design versus the County. Mr. DiGiacomo replied the County spent considerable energies to get that area designated as a scenic highway. Therefore they would want to approve a Landscape Plan that would have a design consistent with what SHA would envision as optimal or a scenic highway. At the TAC discussion it was uncertain weather anything had been finalized. That is why Mr. DiGiacomo included the language. In the absence of that, when they get to the Final Plat and a Landscape Plan approval is required, if there is nothing else they will go with the Countys regulations.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 307 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Mortimer asked if he could define the Countys definition of scenic. Mr. DiGiacomo replied a Bufferyard C would be required unless the State has some recommendations that would be more appropriate.

Mr. Brown asked Mr. DiGiacomo if the property could be zoned for 8 homes and 13 with bonus density is that correct? Mr. DiGiacomo replied yes.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

9. Michael Pugh and Donald Sutton presented Bracebridge, Lots 1-108, Grove Neck Road, Concept Plat, McCrone, Inc., First Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Pugh advised the proposal was on a 540 acre parcel of ground located just off of Grove Neck Road in the 1st Election District. The property is currently zoned SAR and is located in the Critical Area with a RCA designation. An eagles nest has been located on the site which is represented by a bulls eye on the plat. There are various types of protection required by the Critical Area Commission represented by rings on the plat. There area a number of environmental features on the property. The applicant is requesting that the 1 unit per 5 acre bonus density be awarded to this site.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was SAR and RCA. The SAR permits a maximum base density of 1 dwelling unit per 8 acres, or 1/5 if bonus density is granted. The RCA overlay zone permits a density of 1/20.

This Concept Plat proposes 108 lots on 540.1 acres, for a proposed bonus density of 1/5. The proposed large lot and the common open space together equal 67.44% of the total acreage; therefore, this proposal is eligible for bonus density consideration.

Thirteen (13) lots are proposed in the Critical Area (RCA) on 294.8 acres, for a proposed Critical Area density of 1/22.68.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 308 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 All lots except 108 are proposed outside the Critical Area Buffer/Expanded Buffer and the 100-year tidal floodplain. Per §241.2.d (1), any building sites within the 100-year tidal floodplain can be approved only after a Variance has been granted.

A boundary line survey must be done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes.

Dwellings or impervious surfaces shall not occur on slopes with a grade of 25% or more covering a contiguous area of 10,000 ft2 or more. Steep slopes are shown on portions of a number of proposed Lots (1, 4, 14-18, 35, 41-44, 49-50, 53-54, 58-59, 61, 108) and common open space.

On slopes between 15 and 25%, good engineering practices shall be used to ensure sediment and erosion control and slope stabilization before, during and after disturbance activities.

Slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the Preliminary Plat.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the SAR zone.

Sidewalks are not recommended.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontage of Grove Neck Road.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 309 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Rows of street trees with 10 planting easements are required, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of all internal roads.

In the interest of preserving rural character, a vegetative buffer along the northwesterly side of the proposed McGill Creek Farm Lane (to its second point of intersection with the proposed Union Circle) and long the rear/side lot lines of proposed Lots 1-6 is recommended. Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements.

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) and an Environmental Assessment were approved on 6/11/04.

The habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided. In addition to the eagles nest, the Natural Heritage Service indicates that four other sensitive species (Small Waterwort, Mudwort, Spongy Lophotocarpus, and Parkers Pipewort) are known to occur in the vicinity. Therefore, a sensitive species survey must be completed prior to Preliminary Plat review by the Planning Commission.

The forested areas contain FIDS habitat, and the nearby open waters are designated known historic waterfowl concentration areas.

The eagles nest Zone 3s critical dates must be listed on the Final/Record Plats.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

The portion of the project located in the RCA zone is exempt under §3.2B, so a note to that effect must appear on the plat.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 310 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 A 110 tidal wetland and tidal waters buffer shall be established in natural vegetation. This buffer shall be expanded to include contiguous sensitive areas featuring hydric soils, highly erodible soils on slopes greater than 15%, or areas of impact including streams, wetlands, or other aquatic environments.

No development is permitted in the tidal wetlands and tidal waters buffer, including septic systems, impervious surfaces, parking areas, roads, or structures.

No more than 15% of the surface area can be converted to impervious surface in the RCA.

No more than 20% of the forest or developed woodland may be removed.

In the critical area, no structure shall exceed 35 in height.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

All internal road names have been approved.

Consideration should be given to having more than one entrance for 108 proposed lots.

Per §7.2.12.B.9, the proposed McGill Creek Farm Lane and Gettysburg Drive require mid-block turnarounds.

A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) must be done prior to the TACs review of the Preliminary Plat.

Is Lot 108 proposed to have access via the mini-road or the existing driveway via the proposed Presidents Circle? Mr. Sutton replied via the existing driveway.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 311 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. DiGiacomo continued access to common open space between and beside lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

What are the plans for the existing residence and other existing structures? Mr. Pugh replied they will remain.

Mr. DiGiacomo asked, last year, a golf course was being considered for a portion of this property. Has that idea been abandoned or deferred? Mr. Pugh replied at this time yes.

If there are any plans for a community pier, then §s169 and 198 of the Zoning Ordinance must be adhered to. In addition, an easement will be necessary.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

A Mini-road Association for maintenance of the mini road must be established prior to recordation, with the owners of all lots accessing the mini-road becoming members.

Mr. Woodhull stated that a SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan, and a Mass & Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

The Lot Grading Plan must include the standard note addressing the limits of construction. (No clearing or grading is permitted beyond the limits of disturbance show hereon. Any expanded clearing and/or grading in the absence of an approved revised lot grading plan may be considered non-compliance with Chapter 251 of the Cecil County Code and either or both the developer and/or Builder may be subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein.)

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 312 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

It appears that the majority of this site direct discharge into tidally influenced water. Any drainage areas not doing so will require that the downstream conveyance of storm water be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the Countys SWM Ordinance.

If stormwater discharge is directed off of the site on to adjacent property owners it is the responsibility of the developer to obtain appropriate easements from the affected property owners per Section 251-13 of the Cecil County SWM Ordinance.

If a Traffic Impact Study is required for this project input should be sought from SHA in regards to the intersection of Grove Neck Road, Sandy Bottom Road, & MD 282 relative to the addition of 1080 trips.

Section 3.07.15 of the Road Code directs that Grove Neck Road must be upgraded to a Minor Collector Standard for a minimum distance of 100 either side of the point of intersection between Grove Neck Road and McGill Creek Lane.

Sight distance measurements must be provided to the DPW to establish compliance with the Cecil County Road Code.

McGill Creek Lane does not comply with the maximum distance of 1200, identified in Standard R-13 of the Road Code, between an existing County Road and another street or intermediate turnaround. The DPW strongly recommends that the Planning Commission consider that in lieu of the intermediate turnaround McGill Creek Lane be built as a Dual Lane road in compliance with Road Code Standard R-12 up to Georgetown Drive with median breaks at approximately 500 intervals. The proposed layout will require a Road Code Variance.

Any applicable Road Code Variances must be requested prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat approval.

Lots 1, 10, 11, 19, 22, 57, 63, 93, 94, 101-104, & 107 must be denied access to McGill Creek Lane. Lot 85 must be denied access to President Circle.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 313 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Lot 35 proposed must access Gettysburg Drive.

The dedication note on the Final Plat must read, 30 wide strip to be dedicated in fee simple to the Board of County Commissioners of Cecil County.

The proposed disposition of the existing structures on site must be identified on the Preliminary Plat.

There is an obvious conflict between Lot 68 and an existing loop drive.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

A PWA will be required for the streets and storm drains.

Mr. Brown asked if the dual lane from Georgetown Drive. Mr. Pugh replied to the first cul-de-sac.

Mr. Woodhull stated in lieu of a dual T turnaround it allows you better flow in and out. Especially considering that there is such a large subdivision with one entrance. With a dual entrance if there is an accident or something is going on in one lane emergency vehicles can be routed through the other lane.

Mr. Mortimer stated there was only one entrance which was in an extremely torturous path. Is there any possibility of an emergency or secondary access being constructed? Mr. Pugh replied there were options. A serious of loops could be made to work your way in and around obstacles to get towards the rear of the property. If this is about making sure that the lots and the property are accessible. Mr. Mortimer replied yes it is. Mr. Pugh replied because of the slopes and restrictions through other portions of the property they wouldnt be able to and he was not sure about the constructional practical point if they could. Mr. Mortimer stated he was not in favor of developments of this complexity with one access.

Mr. Mortimer asked if the various existing buildings where going to remain. Mr. Pugh replied yes. Is this part of the open space calculation? Mr. Pugh replied it was part of Lot 108. Mr. Burcham replied Lot 108 is a separate entity of 235.4 acres. Mr. Mortimer asked if it was part of their proposal. Mr. Pugh replied it was the last lot in the proposal. Mr. Mortimer asked if it would remain as it was. Mr. Pugh replied yes.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 314 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Mortimer questioned if the applicant was aware that the species issue needed to be addressed. Mr. Pugh replied yes.

Mr. Williams asked how the access to the 660 loop around the eagles nest would be maintained once the project was complete. How would the residents be kept out of the vicinity of the eagles nest? Mr. Burcham stated walking residents were permitted but it was a construction issue as to what the limitations were. Mr. Williams stated he would be surprised if the eagle stayed with 108 dwellings.

Mr. Woodhull stated there is a eagle nest in Perryville that is about 50 75 behind the house, located as you come in around the ball fields. The nest has been there for quite a while.

Mr. Burcham stated he believed Buds Landing also had a eagles nest about 150 of the house, which was built after the nest.

Mr. Walbeck stated this was the first time he had seen a subdivision that had tenant homes on it. What is the disposition of tenant houses in a subdivision when property is subdivided? Mr. DiGiacomo stated providing that it would meet the criteria for a guest house in the Zoning Ordinance, it could stay.

Mr. Walbeck asked it the criteria had been met. Its 100 acres for tenant house but most of the agriculture land has been consumed with development. A large quantity of the agriculture land has been consumed by development. It seems there is no need for two tenant houses. Therefore it would seem to that the two houses should be included in the 108 lots.

Mr. Sennstrom stated if the Planning Commission approves this project with bonus density, what is shown as lot 108 would become a large lot. That would preclude any further subdivision. Deed restrictions would need to be recorded. Mr. Walbeck asked if the two tenant homes would be remain on the property. Mr. Sennstrom replied correct, they could not subdivide property any more than what is shown on the plat. It would become part of proposed Lot 108. The Zoning Ordinance allows you have one tenant houses per 100 acres for agriculture operation. Mr. Walbeck replied most of the agriculture operation will become part of the development. Will there be a need for two tenant homes. Mr. Sennstrom replied that would have to be demonstrated.

Mr. Walbeck. Lets address it. Can you. Mr. Pugh replied he would like to refer to the zoning book. Mr. Walbeck suggested that the houses would accommodate help for the main house, but there is 200 acres of agriculture operation left.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 315 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Ms. Campbell stated the definition section addresses both the guess house which is defined as a dwelling in addition to the principle dwelling intended for temporary occupancy. Section 47 deals with there not being more than one principle structure on a lot. Tenant is defined as a dwelling in addition to the principle dwelling intended to house farm help. One tenant house may be erected for every 100 acres without subdivision. She believes that a tabled permissible uses allows a guest house as a permitted use on lots greater than 50 acres and Special Exception is required for lots less than 50 acres.

Mr. Pugh asked what the remaining acreage was on this parcel. Mr. Burcham replied 235 acres.

Mr. Walbeck stated that both the tenant and guest house where to be used for temporary use. The Planning Commission would need to be assured that these houses would be used for temporary use.

Mr. Pugh stated between the tenant and the guest house they would meet the 200 acres needed. Mr. Walbeck stated the 200 acres would need to consist of agriculture use.

Ms. Campbell stated that the 200 acres required for tenant and guess homes did not have to be agriculture use. Mr. Walbeck asked that definition be read again. Ms. Campbell read the definition, a welling in addition to the principle dwelling intended to house farm help one tenant house may be erected for every 100 acres. So the applicant would be allowed two based on the 100 acre limitation. It does not state that the 100 acres would have to be in agriculture, its per 100 acres.

Mr. Pugh state there were barns on the property for horses, therefore it was a good possibility that staff would be required to help with the horses. At present he does not know what the house would be used for.

Ms. Campbell stated ultimately it would have to comply with the ordinance.

Mr. Walbeck stated that the large amount of wetlands would take a considerable amount of land from the 200 acres to be used for tenant houses. Ms. Campbell replied the definition did not say that. It states per 100 acres and does not define the land as farmland or tillable. It could be wooded with cattle grazing. The definition is not that specific.

Mr. Walbeck asked if there where any more environmental issues besides the bald eagles. Mr. Pugh replied there were some other species work that requires some investigation work on that would happen between the

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 316 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Concept and Preliminary Plat.

Mr. Walbeck asked what the third ring out signified. Mr. Burcham replied it was a limitation of the time frame for when construction can occur, not while they are nesting. Mr. Pugh stated it was for the spawning issues in the water or whatever. It is a time dependent construction issue. Mr. Burcham stated houses could not be built between December and June.

Ms. Kilby asked if bonus density where not granted, how many houses would be permitted on this piece of property. 67.

Ms. Kilby stated her point was if the number of houses was downgraded from 108 to 67, how much impervious surface would be cut out? Mr. DiGiacomo replied it would very roughly be combined with the percentage of lots. The number is very rough because the specific design of the lots is unknown at this time. It is unknown what the driveway lengths footprint would be, for example.

Ms. Kilby stated basically she was assuming McGill Creek at some point empties into the bay. Reply was yes.

Ms. Kilby stated part of the health of bay depends on the amount of impervious surfaces surrounding it. Therefore it should be a consideration in the decision making.

Ms. Kilby asked if there was any king of historically impact study on the Mt. Harmond Estate. Mr. Pugh replied there must be information about Mt. Harmon historic significant in the literature. Ms. Kilby asked if there were any requirements for a historic impact study being completed, for a development of this magnitude, adjacent to the property. Mr. DiGiacomo replied no it was voluntary.

Ms. Campbell asked Mr. Pugh if the first series of buildings past the tenant houses on the existing paved driveway were barns and outbuildings. Mr. Pugh replied no there were no residents there. Mr. Burcham replied there was a small office for farm maintenance inside of the building.

Ms. Campbell asked what type of farming operations has occurred on this property in the past, if you know. Mr. Burcham replied cropped and grass cutting. Ms. Campbell asked, for hay? Mr. Burcham replied it would depend on the area being referred to.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 317 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Ms. Kilby asked, if the tenant houses where in the Critical Area. Mr. Pugh replied the main house was in the Critical Area. The tenant houses are not. Ms. Kilby stated during a conversation last week she had been informed that the guest house concept in the Critical Area was under redesign and becoming much more stringent because permanent dwelling has been labeled guest houses.

Ms. Kilby stated in looking at bonus density the applicant must aware that they are adjacent to another agriculture operation. One hundred and eight houses will have a impact, weather you realize it or not.

Mr. Palmissano, P.O. Box 426, Queenstown, MD 21658, appeared in favor of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Palmissano stated in response to the questions of the tenant houses, property of this side needs to be maintained. He tried not to impact any of the critical areas in the property. It is him opinion that this was achieved. The two house being described as guest houses are facilities for worker who live the property. At present one of the houses is being occupied by the tenant manager who maintains the property. The houses will be used in conformance with maintaining the manor house. They do not intend to have a community pier or disturb any of the water front property with the exception of the one 50 acre lot.

No one appeared in opposition to the proposal.

10. Mr. Michael Pugh and Michael Burcham presented Rhodes Mountain Estates, Section 2, Irishtown Road, Concept Plat, McCrone, Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Pugh advised this subdivision was tied with the Section 1 which would be heard directly after this plat. Referencing the overall plan box, this portion is in the lower left hand corner. The area above has received concept approval based on a cluster for a total of 60 units. After perc testing they where unsuccessful in obtain the cluster for the 60 lots. Today the applicant will be reviewing the adjustments made. Irishtown Mews and Rhodes Mountain, Section 2 have been tied together with a single entrance on Irishtown Road for the entire subdivision. From that stand point before you today is the Cam-Ron former property with some additions of lands from the original Rhodes Mountain to create a new parcel in which they are requesting a cluster for the approval of 15 lots and 60% open space under the bonus density provision of the Ordinance in connection with this particular property. The access via Spence Drive connecting to Rhodes Mountain Drive and come out to Irishtown Road.

Mr. Burcham stated the panhandle that leads back to Irishtown Road will be connected into the common open space for this part of the project and will not be used for any type of access.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 318 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Walbeck suggested the panhandle be sold or given away. Mr. Burcham stated until SWM design and calculations and outfall were determined they would be unable to make that determination.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was NAR & RR which permits a maximum base density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, or 1/3 if bonus density is granted. This Concept Plat proposes 15 lots on 45.42 acres, for a proposed density of 1/3.03 for this section.

The Irishtown Mews (25± acres of the proposed Section 2) Concept Plat was approved conditioned on:

1) A boundary line survey being completed prior to TAC review of the Preliminary Plat;

2) A JD being completed prior to TAC review of the Preliminary Plat;

3) The intersection design conforming with §7.2.12.E.1 of the Cecil County Subdivision Regulations; and

4) Consideration being given to redesigning to eliminate one or more of the panhandle lots prior to preliminary plat.

The original Rhodes Mountain Estates Concept Plat, which now would be considered Section 1, was approved on 1/22/04 (60 lots on 180.79 acres, for a proposed density of 1/3.01), conditioned on:

1) A boundary line survey being completed prior to completion of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes;

2) A JD being completed prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat;

3) Minor subdivision # 2724 being referenced; and

4) The zoning being corrected on the Lands of Wells.

The subsequent Rhodes Mountain Estates Preliminary Plat (proposing 34 lots for a proposed density of 1/5.32) was reviewed by the TAC on 5/5/04. Todays Section 1 Preliminary Plat proposes only 32 lots. That explains why this plat begins with Lot #33.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 319 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Having separate Concept Plats for each individual section of a subdivision is potentially confusing, so the sketch of the overall plan in the vicinity map is very helpful.

A boundary line survey must be done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes.

Slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the Preliminary Plat.

A 25 buffer is required around all non-tidal wetlands and intermittent streams present. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland impacts prior to recordation. A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) must be done prior to Preliminary Plat review by the Planning Commission.

9.25 acres of common open space are proposed, which represents 20.37%. 15% is required. Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

Proposed Lot 33 serves as the large lot. It is proposed to consist of 18.18 ac. (39.98%). Total proposed open space consists of 60.35% of the site; therefore, this proposal is eligible for bonus density consideration.

Taken together, the proposed density for Sections 1 and 2 is 1/4.39 (47 lots on 206.21 ac.).

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR & RR zones.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 320 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Rows of street trees are required, with 10 planting easements, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of the proposed Spence Drive. If feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the street tree buffer requirements.

Sidewalks are not recommended.

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

An FSD for parcel 153 and the add-on was approved on 1/20/04, and the Irishtown Mews FSD was approved on 5/19/03. The site is not home to any rare, threatened, and endangered species.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The road name Spence Drive has been approved.

A dry hydrant should be considered at the SWM facility along the proposed Spence Drive.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 321 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

The Lot Grading Plan must include the standard note addressing the limits of construction. (No clearing or grading is permitted beyond the limits of disturbance show hereon. Any expanded clearing and/or grading in the absence of an approved revised lot grading plan may be considered non-compliance with Chapter 251 of the Cecil County Code and either or both the developer and/or Builder may be subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein.)

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

Spence Drive does not comply with Road Code Standard R-13. It exceeds the maximum distance of 1200 allowed between a County Road and another street or intermediate turnaround. The proposed layout will require a Road Code Variance. As discussed earlier in lieu of an intermediate turnaround there maybe alternative approaches that could be considered because of the steep slops.

Discussion followed concerning road layout. Mr. Sennstrom stated the applicant request a Road Code Waiver to the Planning Commission. Mr. Pugh stated consider the waiver requested.

Any applicable Road Code Variances must be requested in writing prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat approval.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 322 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Regardless of phasing, the department will not accept the internal roads until 80% of all the lots are complete, unless the developer includes a separate, dedicated construction entrance beyond the first phase of construction.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

A PWA will be required for the streets and storm drains.

No one appeared in favor to the proposal.

Mr. Bolinski, 986 Irishtown Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Bolinski stated he owned the farm in front of the proposed Rhodes Mountain Estates. His concerns included the proposed Cam-Ron and Rhodes Mountain Estates being located adjacent to the Villages of North East. He also has a concern with the wells on Irishtown Road in relationship to the previous drought. Septic is poor in this area. At certain times of the year he gets the run off from two nearby septic systems. The storm run off flows onto his property which could increase more with the pavement work being done. There is no right to farm law in the Town of North East. There is a possibility that surrounding land could be annexed, Village of North East being a prime candidate. If this happened their property would no longer be protected from future building built. Although the already built structures are noted on the deed there will be no guarantee that the future deeds will. Concerns with the traffic on Irishtown Road, along with the possibility of the County connecting byways including Village of North East, will create informal roadways for people to take shortcuts. They will never be able to change over to chickens, hogs, cattle or dairy cattle. The right of farming law only protects existing operations. Had the moratorium been approved farms like Mr. Spences would have been saved. If the density is passed it would minimize the impact on existing farms.

11. Michael Pugh and Michael Burcham presented Rhodes Mountain Estates, Section 1, Irishtown Road, Preliminary Plat, McCrone, Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Pugh advised he would abbreviate much of his comments because they covered much of this in the last section. Therefore the comment is this particular Section 1 of Rhodes Mountain represents the revised drawings from the time the Concept Plat was approved for 60 lots. Bonus density was based on the results of the perc. The number of lots has been reduced to 32. The previous sheet showed the connection of this property with Cam-Ron Corporation.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 323 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was NAR & RR which permits a maximum base density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. Bonus density eligibility carries with it a permitted density of 1/3.

The Concept Plat, for what essentially has become Section 1, was approved on 1/22/04 (60 lots on 180.79 acres, for a proposed density of 1/3.01), conditioned on:

APPROVAL, conditioned on:

1) A boundary line survey being completed prior to completion of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes;

2) A JD being completed prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat;

3) Minor subdivision # 2724 being referenced; and

4) The zoning being corrected on the Lands of Wells.

The Preliminary Plat reviewed in May by the TAC proposed 34 lots. This Preliminary Plat submittal now proposes only 32 lots on 180.79 acres, for a proposed density of 1/5.65. However, 20 acres will be added on to Section 2. Therefore, the Section 1 density will actually be 1/5.02. While bonus density is no longer an issue for Section 1, the overall density proposed is 1/4.39 (47 lots on 206.21 ac.).

Reference should have been made to Minor Subdivision #2724, as was a condition of Concept Plat approval.

The Lands of Lynch and Wells cannot be accessed across common open space. How will they be accessed? Mr. Burcham stated in review of the deeds on those two parcels there exist today a 70 ROW that runs from the western most portion of the Wells property parallel to the north border line to Irishtown Road. Jessie Land is currently used for access to those two parcels. It is their intent after preliminary review to get those parcels access the Rhodes Mountain Drive and eliminate their access on to Jessie Lane. Mr. DiGiacomo asked across Lot 1? Mr. Burcham replied no, across the proposed open space. There will be an adjustment to the common open space or a potential add on to the adjoining properties. Currently an existing 70 ROW exist through the common open space that these lots have the right to use.

Mr. DiGiacomo asked if a boundary line survey been done? Mr. Burcham replied yes. The total acreage was 180.67 acres. It will not directly affect the proposed density shown on the plan.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 324 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. DiGiacomo continued steep slopes are depicted on portions of several proposed lots, common open space and roadways. On slopes between 15 and 25%, good engineering practices shall be used to ensure sediment and erosion control and slope stabilization before, during and after disturbance activities.

A 110 perennial stream buffer is required from all perennial streams present. This buffer has been expanded on the plat.

Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland and stream impacts prior to recordation. A JD has been done.

15% common open space is required; 32.8% is proposed.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR & RR zones.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the Irishtown Road frontage.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) has been approved.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) has been approved.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 325 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

All road names have been approved.

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

The existing pathway shown on the proposed common open space at the western edge of the property should be linked with the Elk Neck Trail greenway or other greenways if, feasible.

Consideration should be given to the installation of dry hydrants along the streams and stormwater management facilities, per comments of the North East Vol. Fire Co.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 326 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

The department recommends that Rhodes Mountain Drive be built to Dual Road Standard R-12 from Irishtown Road to Spence Drive. This recommendation is made in light of the fact that this subdivision has only one access point to an existing County road.

The department strongly recommends that the developer provide the dwellings on the Lands of Lynch and the Lands of Wells with access to Rhodes Mountain Drive and extinguish the Jesse Lane entrance to Irishtown Road. With this single entrance the Department foresees no additional road upgrades to Irishtown Road to what has already been stated. However, if the developer wants to keep the Jesse Lane entrance they must re-grade Irishtown Road from Jesse Lane to approximately the location of the proposed entrance. This is required to improve safe egress from the Lane by reducing the over-vertical (crest) that exists at the site of the proposed entrance.

Lot Grading Plans for Lots 8-11, 14-19, 26 & 27 will need to give special consideration to stormwater impacts on down-gradient lots. The Lot Grading Plan must indicate provisions for all driveway crossings of swales either through pipe culvert or a low point crossing.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

A PWA will be required for the streets and storm drains.

No one appeared in favor to the proposal.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 327 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Walbeck state the Elk Neck Trail was identified on the Villages of North East plat. The trial is not shown on this plat. Mr. Burcham replied it had been their intent to keep the Elk Neck Trail in the same division as previously approved on the concept plan for Rhodes Mountain. Mr. Walbeck stated he would like to see it identified on the map. Mr. Burcham replied that had been their intention.

Mr. Walbeck requested some sort of easement be established along the proposed trail route on the applicants properties prior to Final Plat submittal. Mr. Pugh stated a center line and width would need to be established.

Mr. Bolinski, 986 Irishtown Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal. He stated he had the same comments and concerns as voiced in the last project. He suggested that Irishtown Mews be added to Rhodes Mountain Estate in the agenda. He questioned the ROW and how much property would need to be forfeited from property owners and greenway issues.

12. Michael Pugh and Michael Burcham presented Elk Nest, Lots 1-25, Rte 272, Concept Plat McCrone, Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Pugh advised the project was located on the west side of Rte 272 and the northwest side of Hances Point Road. It is a single family dwelling project based on two parcels of land, one on the north side of West Shady Beach Road and a portion on the south side of West Shady Beach Road. The property is zoned residential with the majority of the land being located in the critical area in a LDA designation. The ultimate service of this property is projected to be well and public sewer. The construction and update of the De La Plaine Pump Station as well as the line improvements recently completed will create aid in the ability of servicing these lots. The construction of the sewer will also require a pump station on the low end of the property. West Shady Beach Road is presently private road. Their intention is to upgrade West Shady Beach Road and construct Elk Nest Drive and Elk View Court.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was SR, MB & LDA. The SR zone permits a maximum base density of 1 dwelling unit per 1 acre, or 2/1 with community facilities. The LDA zone permits a density of 3.99/1 or the density permitted in the underlying zone (2/1), whichever is more restrictive.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 328 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The MB zone permits detached dwellings provided that the dwelling is for the owner, operator, or employee of an on-site business. (§69) Therefore, the dwelling location on proposed Lot 26 must be situated entirely within the SR zone.

The Concept Plat reviewed by the TAC proposed 25 lots. This Concept Plat proposes 26 lots on 18.73 (was 18.57) acres, for a proposed density of 1.4/1. Other than the additional proposed lot and a slight change in total acreage, this plat is virtually identical to the one reviewed by the TAC.

A boundary line survey must be done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes.

Slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the Preliminary Plat.

A 25 buffer is required around all non-tidal wetlands and intermittent streams present. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland and stream impacts prior to recordation. A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) must be done prior to Preliminary Plat review by the Planning Commission.

This proposal satisfies the general open space provisions of the SR zone. 15% is required; 19.27% is proposed.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 329 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

20% landscaping of the development envelope is required in the SR zone; 25%, in the MB zone.

Sidewalks are not recommended in order to limit the amount of impervious cover.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of MD 272 and Hances Point Road.

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) and Environmental Assessment were approved on 6/4/04. There are no habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species on site.

The portion of the project located in the LDA zone is exempt under §3.2B, as noted.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 330 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 No development is permitted in the tidal wetlands and tidal waters buffer, including septic systems, impervious surfaces, parking areas, roads, or structures.

No more than 15% of the surface area can be converted to impervious surface in the LDA.

No more than 20% of the forest or developed woodland may be removed.

In the critical area, no structure shall exceed 35 in height.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The internal road names will need to be approved by the County 911 Emergency Center prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat.

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

A Mini-road Association for maintenance of the mini road must be established prior to recordation, with the owners of all lots accessing the mini-road becoming members.

What legal arrangements have been made to convert West Shady Beach Road from a private road to a County road? Mr. Pugh stated the plan was to take the right-of-way as shown and be in a position to convey it in fee simple after receiving approval of the construction drawings from DPW. They are awaiting the resolution of some issues concerning terminations and service areas.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 331 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. DiGiacomo stated it would need to be deeded to the Board of County Commissioners prior to Final Plat review. Discussion followed concerning deeding of the road.

Mr. Pugh asked if deeding the ROW to the County, therefore establishing the Countys ownership of the ROW and securing it with a DPW Agreement would be acceptable. Mr. DiGiacomo replied yes.

Mr. Burcham stated at the time of dedication all of the properties along the water front would have fee simple access to a County road. Discussion continued on the deeding of the road.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the Master Water and Sewer Plan shows this as an S-3 area. It must be changed to S-1.

The Record Plats shall contain a statement signed by the Health Department approving authority; to the effect that use of the community sewerage system is in conformance with the Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan. The Record Plats shall also contain a statement, signed by the owner, to the effect that sewer facilities will be available to all lots/homes offered for sale.

Mr. Woodhull stated that a SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan, Sanitary Sewer Plan, and a Mass & Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for the Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

The Lot Grading Plan must include the standard note addressing the limits of construction. (No clearing or grading is permitted beyond the limits of disturbance show hereon. Any expanded clearing and/or grading in the absence of an approved revised lot grading plan may be considered non-compliance with Chapter 251 of the Cecil County Code and either or both the developer and/or Builder may be subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein.)

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 332 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 If stormwater discharge is directed off of the site on to adjacent property owners it is the responsibility of the Developer to obtain appropriate easements from the affected property owners per Section 251-13 of the Cecil County SWM Ordinance.

Careful consideration of the existing stormwater drainage along Hances Point Road must be given in developing the Lot Grading Plans for Lots 1-6. This also applies to the lots located in the area of the existing smaller culvert under West Shady Beach Road.

Since West Shady Beach Road is to be deeded to the County, the department will require details as to how this will be accomplished relative to the remaining private rights of way. This will entail bring the existing road up to Minor Road standard per the Road Code including the requirement that the road must be terminated in a cul-de-sac bulb.

Section 3.07.15 of the Road Code directs that Hances Point Road must be upgraded to a Minor Collector Standard for a minimum distance of 100 either side of the point of intersection between Hances Point Road and the Shady Beach Road West.

Sight distance measurements must be provided to the DPW to establish compliance with the Cecil County Road Code.

The department is currently conducting a traffic count study of Hances Point Road.

Section 2.13 of the Road Code must be adhered to for the construction of the private mini road. These requirements include a statement clearly outlining the responsibilities of the Mini-Road Maintenance Association in the maintenance of roads and storm drainage systems must be approved by the Planning Commission and placed on the Final Plat. The department proposes the following note: (The proposed internal roads will not be dedicated for public ownership or maintenance. The Mini-Road Maintenance Association shall retain title to the road and all maintenance responsibilities.) This only applies to Elk View Court.

All driveways must be paved to the ROW and so noted on the Lot Grading Plan.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the Owners expense.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 333 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Any applicable Road Code Variances must be requested prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat approval.

The sizing and routing of the sanitary sewer lines for this subdivision must follow those recommendations set forth in Alternative #5 of the Sewage Collection Alternatives for Carpenter Point and Hances Point Study Areas for West Shady Beach Road. This includes providing a pump station to be built adjacent to Lot 7 at the southwestern end of West Shady Beach Road; running gravity line from this development along the southern section of West Shady Beach Road to the pump station; and providing house connection for all dwellings adjacent to this new section of gravity main. The gravity main required from De La Plaine extending toward Hances Point Road must be maximized in length to allow as short a run of force main as is possible.

The pump station must be sized for build out flows in the future design.

The developer will be responsible for obtaining all easements and ROW required to successfully routing the sanitary sewer lines. It should be noted that any lots existing or proposed connected to the sanitary sewer will be subject to the benefit assessment anticipated for the so called Baldwin Avenue Sewer Project in addition to the normal connection fees.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

A PWA will be required for the streets and storm drains as well as for sanitary sewer.

Mr. Mortimer asked if the sewage would be supplied by North East and the water would be supplied by wells, with no future intentions of hooking up to North East water. Mr. Pugh replied the project was not in the North East water service district.

Mr. Mortimer asked if trees put along Shady Beach or Hances Point Road. Mr. DiGiacomo replied it would be a requirement for Bufferyard Standard C. It could be met by the existing vegetation. Mr. Mortimer asked if the intent was to have some vegetation to buffer the road from the house. Mr. DiGiacomo replied yes.

No one appeared in favor to the proposal.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 334 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Dean Rice, P.O. Box 412, North East, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Rice spoke on the prior conditions of West Shady Beach Road. He suggested that an entrance be built to aid in a safer departure from West Shady Beach Road on to Hances Point Road. The site distance if very poor in this area because of the speed on the motorist traveling on Hances Point Road.

Patty Lemmerman, P.O. Box 64, North East, appeared neither in favor or opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Ms. Lemmerman stated the residents where grateful for the public sewers and the roads. Theyre looking forward to the Forest Conservation District delineation and the wetland delineation. There are four stormwater crossing under West Shady Beach Road. They have concerns about stormwater flow in the area. Although the engineering has not been completed, she mentioned it. There is erosion in the creek when the stormwater is discharged as well as the silk in the river increasing over the past few years. Current residents have capacity and quality issues with their wells. The residents would prefer since the road has no outlet, that West Shady Beach Road remain private after the T, therefore giving them the control of the road. They are aware that some accommodations would be required in order to maintain the proposed pumping station, but they are more than willing to continue the upkeep of this road. They have been doing so for the past 50 years. The ownership of the strip/right-of-way has been determined.

Mr. Walbeck asked which strip she was referring to. Mr. Mortimer stated perpendicular to their houses. Ms. Lemmerman stated it goes along the water on both sides. It is not included on the deeds as is shown on the plans but it is unclear who it belongs to. Mr. Pugh stated they did not know either.

Mr. Pugh stated he would like to request a Variance to the cul-de-sac bulb. Mr. Burcham stated DPW has requested that the new ROW end in a cul-de-sac bulb. If it is the residents choice to maintain the remainder of this bulb in a private situation it would be best left alone with a T intersection, rather than trying to create a T cul-de-sac here. Discussion followed concerning the cul-de-sac.

Mr. Walbeck stated it was after 4:00pm and the procedures state no more applications would be heard unless 2/3 of the members agree. It was unanimously carried to continue with the Planning Commission meeting.

13. Doug Kopeck and Jim Quillen presented Glennas Heights, Lots 1-28, Johnson Road, Concept Plat, Campbell & Nolan Associates, Inc., Eighth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Kopeck advised the project consist of 25 lots and three parcels, located on the south side of Johnson Road. With bonus density on 70.26 acres of NAR zoned land. The site is divided by the BGE ROW.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 335 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Mortimer questioned if the lot was spit did it count as one. Ms. Campbell replied yes it has been done before and there is no reason why the commission couldnt. Mr. DiGiacomo stated the parcels had been deeded since April 15, 1976.

Mr. Kopeck stated the applicants where requesting 25 lots on 70 acres. They are proposing to cluster the lots. Previously 28 lots had been requested. The difference being the road entry off of Johnson Road has been adjusted to meet sight distance requirements with a design speed of 40 mph. The posted speed is 35mph. A proposed septic are for Lot 25. There is an existing house on the property located on the west side of the pond which will remain. The boundary line survey verified there where no other structures on the property. A Cecil County round-about will be built on Cobble Drive entrance.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was NAR which permits a maximum base density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. Bonus density eligibility carries with it a permitted density of 1/3.

A similar Concept Plat was disapproved on 5/20/04. Consequently, per §4.0.12 of the Cecil County Subdivision Regulations, this submission is being treated as a new submission, rather than as a revised Concept Plat.

Ordinarily, Concept Plats must first be reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) prior to being reviewed by the Planning Commission. In this case, the TAC reviewed a substantially similar Concept Plat proposing 28 lots on 4/7/04. It contained a level of detail that exceeded that required for Concept Plats by the Subdivision Regulations. Consistent with established precedent, the Planning Commission may review this Concept Plat today, as the substantive value to the Planning Commission of an additional TAC review would be negligible.

This Concept Plat proposes only 25 lots on 70.26 acres, invoking the minor subdivision potential of only 1 of the 3 deed parcels. Therefore, four of the proposed lots are minor subdivision lots, and the density would be calculated as follows:

Total site area is 70.26 ac.

8 potential minor sub lots -4.00 ac.

Remaining site area 66.26 ac.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 336 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

1 unit/3 acres: 66.26 /3 = 22 lots (density of 1/3.113)

Add minor subs = 4 lots

TOTAL PROPOSED LOTS = 26

Without invoking the minor subdivision potential of one of the individual deed parcels, only 14 lots could be realized without the granting of bonus density or 23 lots with bonus density.

As submitted, only 25 total lots are being proposed by the applicant. Therefore, should the Planning Commission approve this Concept Plats proposed density and layout, and then the number of lots would be established at 25, not 26.

Note #18 indicates that a boundary line survey has been completed.

The acreage of the proposed large Lot 24 is 15.31 ac., and the common open space is 27.01 ac., for a total of 42.32 ac., or 60.23%.

The larger polygon next to Parcel A, SRA 21/273, is still not referenced. The color graphics provided a good explanation.

Slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the Preliminary Plat.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 337 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 All perennial streams shown on the USGS Quad map, and their buffers, must be clearly delineated on the Preliminary Plat.

A 25 buffer is required around all non-tidal wetlands and intermittent streams present. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland and stream impacts prior to recordation. A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) must be done prior to Preliminary Plat review by the Planning Commission.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone.

No sidewalks are recommended in the NAR zone.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of Johnson Road. Sight distance issues may possibly require modification of that requirement.

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. The habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 338 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

Cobble Drive has been approved. The mini road name must still be approved by the County 911 Emergency Center prior to Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat. All proposed road names are required on Concept Plats, per §4.0.13 (h).

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

Documentation of a formal agreement between the developer and the utility to cross the transmission corridor must be received prior to Final Plat approval. What steps have been taken in that regard? Mr. Kopeck replied no because they first wanted to receive approval and then decide what to cross with.

Covenants prohibiting the subdivision of the large lot must be recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

A mini-road maintenance association must be established prior to recordation, with the owners of all lots accessing the mini-road becoming members

Mr. Woodhull stated the title block reference needed to be changed from Harford County to Cecil County. A SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan, and a Mass & Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 339 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

The Lot Grading Plan must include the standard note addressing the limits of construction. (No clearing or grading is permitted beyond the limits of disturbance show hereon. Any expanded clearing and/or grading in the absence of an approved revised lot grading plan may be considered non-compliance with Chapter 251 of the Cecil County Code and either or both the developer and/or Builder may be subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein.)

The stream you propose to discharge the pond to a tributary of the Octoraro Creek, which has a Stream Segment Use Designation of IV-P (Recreational Trout Waters). The Engineer is cautioned that Chapter 3, Section 3.1.1 of the 2000 Maryland Stormwater Design Manual, Volume I states The use of stormwater ponds on coldwater streams capable of supporting trout (Use III and IV) may be prohibited. Stormwater ponds located in Use III and IV watersheds should be designed to significantly reduce and/or eliminate thermal impacts. Refer to Chapter 4, Section 4.1 of the 2000 Maryland Stormwater Design Manual, Volume I.

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

Sight distance measurements must be provided to the DPW to establish compliance with the Cecil County Road Code. Have you marked Johnson Road at the proposed entrance? Mr. Kopeck replied no. Mr. Woodhull asked him to mark it.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the Owners expense.

Johnson Road is approximately 18 wide with no shoulders and roadside drainage is spotty with some poor conditions in and around the proposed entrance.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 340 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Section 3.07.15 of the Road Code nominally directs that Johnson Road be upgraded to a Minor Collector Standard for a distance of 100 either side of the point of intersection between Johnson Road and Cobble Drive.

However, the department anticipates that the addition of some 230 trips per day will require substantial off-site roadwork beyond the limits set by Section 3.07. 15. Existing wetlands may complicate this off-site work.

Our preliminary intention is the developer address improvements to Johnson Road extending 900 west and 1,300 east of the proposed entrance. The improvements will require repair of areas of failed sub grade identified by the department, installation and or replacement of cross culverts, re-establishment of adequate 1 roadside drainage, and overlay of Johnson Road at a minimum 1 /2 at the edges effecting a 3% cross slope for the entire 2,200.

If the Planning Commission approves the proposed entrance the Department will require substantial Geo-tech investigation of the suitability of the sub-grade, along the proposed roadway, to support a County road. The area of this investigation runs from the property line between Lots 22 and 23 to the intersection with Johnson Road.

Any private mini-road proposed must meet the requirements spelled out in Section 2.13 of the Road Code. These requirements include placing a statement, on the approved Final Plat that clearly outlines the responsibilities of the Mini-Road Maintenance Association in the maintenance of roads and storm drainage systems. (The proposed internal roads will not be dedicated for public ownership or maintenance. The Mini-Road Maintenance Association shall retain title to the road and all maintenance responsibilities.)

The Private Mini-Road must be terminated in a cul-de-sac in accordance with Road Code Standard R-15.

The right of crossing of the Susquehanna Transmission Company (BGE property) property must be established prior to Final Plat submittal.

Any applicable Road Code Variance must be requested prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat approval.

All driveways must be paved at least to the right of way and this must be so indicated on the Lot Grading Plan.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 341 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

A PWA will be required for internal streets and storm drains.

Mr. Mortimer noted the project was previously disapproved because of the access over the open space for the utilities. Mr. Kopeck stated there were two issues. Sight distance and if would be contiguous because of the right-of-way issue. They cannot go to the BG&E people until they know where and how they will cross. Mr. Mortimer stated therefore anything that is decided will be contiguous upon.

Mr. Sennstrom stated there were four conditions that the disapproval was based on: (1) sight distance, concern of where the entrance is in relation to the curb of the road; (2) bonus density is not appropriate in review of the two different parcels. No effort has been made show that the density for this particular case would be in the best interest of the County and the site distance; (3) the layout was not compatible to the geography of the environment and site distance; and (4) concern of the two parcels separated by the five acres.

Mr. Sennstrom stated as long as the entire area is being encumbered by the subdivision is included on the Concept Plat then it is considered all one development, regardless of how many deed parcels exist. That is consistent with what the Planning Commission has seen in the past.

Discussion followed concerning sight distance and wetlands.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

14. Tim Whittie and Kevin Geraghty presented Ridgely Forest, Phase 1, Lots 1-59, Rte 7, Preliminary Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Whittie advised the plan consist of three parcels totaling 196.86 acres. The proposed improvements consist of 364 individual lots with associated roads, storm drains, public water and sewer. There are three access points into the subdivision. They are currently working with SHA. SWM will be designed and constructed in accordance to MDE and CCDPW standards. JD has been approved.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 342 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Geraghty stated there were deficiencies shown in this plan that have been discussed with OPZ. The topography was correct in both the concept and preliminary plans submitted to TAC. When the engineering firm drew these plans up there was an overlay that disrupted some of the topography. If the PC is approve it as a condition, he will go back and make sure the topos are reestablished. This development is in the area considered as development/growth area of Cecil County. Half of the allowable density has been met.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was DR which permits a maximum base density of 1 dwelling unit per 1 acre or 4/1 with community facilities. This project, with some minor variations, was reviewed by the TAC for the Town of North East in January 2004.

The Concept Plat (proposing 364 lots on 196.86 acres, for a proposed density of 1.849/1) was approved on 4/19/04, conditioned on:

1) The boundary line survey being completed prior to Preliminary Plat review by the TAC;

2) The TIS being completed prior to Preliminary Plat review by the TAC;

3) A JD being completed prior to Preliminary Plat review by the Planning Commission; and

4) At least three areas of active open space with tot lots being included in the design.

This Preliminary Plat, consistent with the approved Concept Plat, proposes 364 lots on 196.86 acres.

Note # 12 indicates that a boundary line survey has been done.

The proposed phasing of the project raised some concerns, as expressed at TAC review. Some, such as the timing of construction of SWM facilities appears to have been addressed. Others, such as possible temporary access issues, as well as inconvenience to Phase IV residents of the proposed Howland Drive, remain.

As stated at TAC review, some proposed lots, such as 299 & 353, do not appear to meet the minimum width requirement of the DR zone. Such proposed lots will require Variances.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 343 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Steep slopes have been shown. On slopes between 15 and 25%, good engineering practices shall be used to ensure sediment and erosion control and slope stabilization before, during and after disturbance activities. Topographic information is incomplete, as the contour lines have significant gaps.

A 25 buffer is required around all non-tidal wetlands (expended to 50 in FRAs) and intermittent streams present. Permits are required from the Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland and stream impacts prior to recordation. A JD must be done prior to preliminary plat review by the Planning Commission. At TAC review, John Roop of the COE stated that the JD was issued on 12/22/03. A copy is needed for the OPZ file.

15% common open space is required; 44.3% is proposed. The sensitive areas thresholds have been provided. All proposed common open space must be identified as common open space.

20% landscaping of the development envelope is required in the DR zone.

Sidewalks are recommended on both sides of all internal streets.

The TIS has been submitted and is currently under review. It cites the need for a number of improvements, including the signalization of the MD 7/Mechanics Valley/Cemetery Roads intersection. TAC review revealed the need for addition study of, and recommendations for Mechanics Valley Road.

Such recommendations must be received and agreed to prior to the Final Plat review for any Phase of the project.

The developer must contribute to the Countys portion of all improvements.

Fire hydrant/standpipe locations must be selected in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Public Works and the North East Volunteer Fire Company.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 344 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the MD 7 road frontage.

An FSD was approved on 7/7/03, and a revised FSD was approved on 4/16/04. There are no rare, threatened, and endangered species habitats on site.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) has been approved.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The proposed road names have been approved.

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

The specific community facilities providers have been identified on the plat.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 345 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The Master Water & Sewer Plans must be amended to include this project site in its entirety.

An Area Table, as required by §4.1.22 (r), has not been included on the plat. Area Tables are useful, as they help identify problems, such as proposed Lot 299s smaller dimensions yielding a larger sq. footage than lot 298, for example.

Mr. Woodhull stated a SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan, Sanitary Sewer Plan, and a Mass & Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

The Lot Grading Plan must include the standard note addressing the limits of construction. (No clearing or grading is permitted beyond the limits of disturbance show hereon. Any expanded clearing and/or grading in the absence of an approved revised lot grading plan may be considered non-compliance with Chapter 251 of the Cecil County Code and either or both the developer and/or Builder may be subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein.)

The sanitary sewer submittal must reflect the proposed Town of North East water lines and all proposed fire hydrant locations.

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 346 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The department still has concerns with the location of the discharge from the SWM pond adjacent to Lots 174-176 and its impact on the existing lots on Oak Drive. Mr. Geraghty stated there was an easement provided.

Stormwater conveyance located outside of the Countys ROW must be located in easements of sufficient width to allow for maintenance of the conveyance.

The pond located in Phase VI must be constructed in Phase V.

Consideration of providing a looped road connection in Phase I is strongly recommended by the department. As shown Ponfield Road from Daly Court to Howland Drive will not be started until Phase V. Howland Drive to Blue Ridge Way and Blue Ridge Way to Ponfield Road will not be started until Phase III.

The cul-de-sac bulbs do not meet the Countys Road Code Standard for radius. Section 1.06 of the Road Code, requires 75 radii vs. the 50 proposed. However, a variance request has been granted to allow the use of the smaller bulb due to the relatively short lengths, the location of fire hydrants, and responding to the intentions of the Countys Comprehensive Plan designation of this site as being Development District, therefore the lots should be maximized in the Development District by reducing the size of the cul-de-sac bulb.

All driveways must be paved to the ROW and this must be so indicated on the Lot Grading Plan.

All lots must front on the least major roads wherever possible. Denied access must be shown on the Final Plat.

Any lots that must front on a Collector Road must have a driveway turnaround. This requirement must be reflected in a note on the Lot Grading Plan.

The TIS must be amended to include a Link Analysis of Mechanics Valley Road from MD Route 7 to MD Route 40. This analysis must address how the existing physical condition of this section of road effects its ability to carry the additional loading from this development. This analysis must address whether AASHTO guidelines for Local Roads of the classification of Mechanics Valley Road are met or how the developer intends to upgrade it to those guidelines.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 347 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

A sanitary sewer allocation request must be submitted.

The department has reviewed the developers preliminary analysis of the existing sanitary sewer lines running back to Mauldin Avenue.

If the Planning Commission approves the concept plat, the department will require a concept master sanitary sewer plan for the entire development prior to Preliminary Plat submittal for any section of the development. The department will require that gravity sewer be maximized where feasible and pump stations will be minimized.

This project will be subject to the Benefit Assessment for the North East Sanitary Sub-district as well as Connection fees.

A sanitary sewer stub should be included with the stub road to the Lands of Rasnake.

If the Planning Commission requires sidewalks, the Final Plats should include a note indicating that sidewalks maintenance will be the responsibility of the adjacent property owner.

The department recommends that the Town require PWA for the water line. PWAs will be required by the CCDPW for the sanitary sewer and the roads & storm drains.

If the Planning Commission requires TOT Lots or other amenities be bonded with the PWAs, they should be separate PWA, they must result from a construction plan that we will review.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required by the CCDPW for the SWM facilities.

Mr. Geraghty addressed an issued about TOT lots. Three were requested, four have been provided. Mr. Walbeck commented the location of the TOT lots.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 348 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

15. Tim Whittie presented Mendenhall Square, Telegraph Road (Rte 273) and Blue Ball Road, Preliminary Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Ninth Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Whittie advised zoning was NAR and BG. There are two access points. Each access point will have 240 decel lane and 100 excel lane. The roads within the subdivision will 22 wide with payment with a 50 ROW. The project meets both the density and the open space requirements. SWM will be in accordance with MDE and CCDPW. Lot 17-20 and 32 will be considered Phase 2 and will not be part of this proposal. Lot 29 will come in later, pending perc results. JD has been issued.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was NAR which permits a base density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres or bonus density of 1/3.

The Concept Plat (31 lots on 94.2 acres, for a proposed density of 1/3.039, plus 4 minor subdivision lots) was approved on 7/21/03, conditioned on:

1) A boundary line survey being complete prior to the TACs review of the Preliminary Plat;

2) A JD being completed prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat;

3) All proposed lots other than 34 & 35 having access off the internal roads;

4) The proposed Blackborne Drive entrance aligning directly with Blue Ball Village Drive;

5) A TIS with signal warrant analysis for the Blue Ball Road/MD 273 intersection being complete prior to the TAC review of the Preliminary Plat;

6) Lot 34s Bufferyard C requirement along Blue Ball Road and the street tree requirement along Blackborne Drive being waived in favor of a rear Bufferyard B and a row of pines along the side lot lines;

7) A setback modification being granted for the existing building on proposed Lot 34;

8) The Bufferyard C requirement along MD 273 being waived and a Bufferyard C being provided between the BG zone and the NAR zone; and

9) Dry hydrants or a drafting tank being discussed with the Rising Sun Fire Company and a report being made to the Planning Commission with the Preliminary Plat.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 349 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Of the 35 total lots proposed in the approved Concept Plat, this Phase 1 Preliminary Plat proposes 30 lots plus 49.64 acres of common open space. Proposed lot 35 continues to serve as the large lot to satisfy bonus density eligibility. It is generally consistent with the approved Concept Plat.

Note # 19 indicates that a boundary line survey has been done. At the May 2004 TAC meeting, staff commented that documentation of the Webb survey was required for the file. It was received this morning.

Any future development of the BG-zoned remaining lands must proceed through the site plan process, per §s 290 or 291. The proposed development must be consistent with §32 and all other applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. The issuance of any building permit(s) will be contingent upon site plan approval.

As stated at TAC review, the TIS erroneously states (p. 30) that the key intersections and road section will continue to operate at satisfactory levels of service under future conditions. The Comp. Plans recommended minimum levels of service in the Rural Conservation District are B in the off-peak hours and C in the peak hours. Two Blue Ball Road approaches to the Rte. 273 intersection are projected to operate at LOSs of C and D, and C and E, respectively.

Staff received a recommendation late Friday afternoon (6/18/04) for an additional northbound lane. One NB lane would be a dedicated left turn lane and the remaining land would be for through and right turn traffic. That improvement to achieve acceptable levels of service is currently under review.

Well locations have now been proposed for all lots.

No steep slopes have been depicted. The steep slopes graphic been included in the legend should be deleted.

Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland and stream impacts prior to recordation. Per OPZ has an indication that a JD was issued on 3/5/04, per John Roop. OPZ will need documentation.

There are no habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species on site.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 350 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

Covenants prohibiting the subdivision of the large lot must be recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone.

Bufferyard Standard A has not been shown to buffer adjacent agricultural uses on the lands of Russell because of the bordering common open space (as well as the natural vegetation). However, for subdivisions proposed on property contiguous to operating farms, notice shall be provided on the plat that an agricultural operation is being conducted on a contiguous property and said agricultural operation is protected from nuisance claims provided the conditions of Article I, § 4 are being complied with.

Rows of street trees are with 10 planting easements required, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of all internal roads. Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) has been approved.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) has been approved, but no FRAs have been depicted on the plat, as required.

The FCP and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat. A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The road names have been approved.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 351 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 A report on discussions with the Community Fire Co. of Rising Sun regarding dry hydrants or a drafting tank was a condition of Concept Plat approval. What is there to report? Mr. Whittie stated a 35,000 gallon drafting tank is shown on the drawing based on discussions with the DPW.

Consideration should be given to future pedestrian access to the BG portion of the parcel.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation. All lot owners must become members.

The Lot Grading Plan must include the standard note addressing the limits of construction. (No clearing or grading is permitted beyond the limits of disturbance show hereon. Any expanded clearing and/or grading in the absence of an approved revised lot grading plan may be considered non-compliance with Chapter 251 of the Cecil County Code and either or both the developer and/or Builder may be subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein.)

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the Countys SWM Ordinance.

The design of the SWM facilities discharge must ensure that they will be conveyed to the intermittent stream. If it is directed off of the site on to adjacent property owners it is the responsibility of the developer to obtain appropriate easements from the affected property owners per Section 251-13 of the Cecil County SWM Ordinance.

During TAC an issue was brought to the attention of DPWs. In this regard the developer must address the conveyance issue raised by Mr. Schmel of Lot 9, Blue Ball Village. Mr. Schmel has expressed willingness to provide the required easements and access to his property to affect the required work. An agreement, signed by Mr. Schmel, allowing this work on his property will be required.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 352 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Section 3.07.15 of the Road Code directs that Blue Ball Road must be upgraded to a Minor Collector Standard for a minimum distance of 100 either side of the point of intersection between Blue Ball Road and the proposed entrances. The road has been paved by the County, however, DPW will be looking at possible shoulder work.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the Owners expense. Utility poles near the proposed entrances will need to be relocated.

Lots 1 and 33 must be denied access to Mendenhall Road West along their frontage and Lots 28 and 29 must be denied access to Blue Ball Village West Drive to avoid conflict with proposed boulevard entrance. When the entrance is design, the dual road concept of 14 wide lane should be used as to oppose to the standard County road.

All driveways must be paved to the ROW.

An Inspection of Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

A Public Works Agreement will be required for the roads and storm drains. The drawing shows a 30,000 gallon drafting tank. Mr. Whittie stated whatever was requested in the minutes.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 353 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

GENERAL DISCUSSION:

1. Mr. Brown request that an amendment be made to the bylaws allowing the Planning Commission to start at 10:00 am if there were 10 items or more on the morning agenda with a ½ hour lunch break. Mr. Walbeck stated that a motion was need.

Motion made by Brown, seconded by Murray and unanimously carried to approve the amendment to the Planning Commission Subdivision Bylaws, stating that more than 10 items on the Subdivision Agenda or at the call of the Chair the starting time be moved to 10:00am with a ½ hour lunch.

2. Ms. Murray made a motion to bring up the issue of the issue of density in the NAR and SAR zoning districts. Her motion is to leave densities as 1/5 in the NAR and 1/8 in the SAR.

Mr. Walbeck stated you are going to make me get up and walk out so that you wont have a quorum.

Ms. Murray, well we didnt get up and walk out if that is the way you want to do it.

Mr. Mortimer stated that ultimately it would be a Commissioners decision.

Ms. Murray replied yes.

Mr. Walbeck stated next Monday, next Tuesday.

Mr. William stated this would amend their recommendation to the Commissioners. Why not let the commissioners look at the issues.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 354 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Ms. Murray stated, well I just fell that it was done at a time when the Chair was sure he would get the proper vote, instead of having everybody here at the time. All of us that went through all the study meetings and discussions, I just didnt think that was fare. Thats why I decided I would like to make the motion.

Mr. Mortimer stated, I said it out loud. I believe that there was some shiftiness going on. The fact is it is the Commissioners call. I mean I made my vote every time I was here and it was favor of not changing it. So I am clear on the record. If we want to change the recommendation Im ok. If not Commissioners are going to have to decide one way or another.

Ms. Murray stated, well it stands with you then Carl.

Mr. Brown stated, I second it.

Mr. Walbeck stated, well, walk out and there wont be a quorum.

Mr. Brown stated, you both have to walk out to answer your question.

Mr. Mortimer stated, because our recommendation was on record and it was changed in a way that you know what the outcome is going to be. Were short votes.

Mr. Brown stated, and really any way we are not tying their hands. Its still up to the Commissioners.

Mr. Walbeck stated, its been advertised that they are going to hear the recommendations that have been made by the Planning Commission. That will be next Tuesday night. So what is it that you are trying to do?

Ms. Murray stated, we are trying to straighten out the record. I would like to

Mr. Mortimer stated, the recommendation was not to change it.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 355 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Murray stated, everyone says the Planning Commission voted to change the density. Well I guess in a way

Mr. Mortimer stated, and that we voted to endorse it. Which isnt the case.

Ms. Murray stated, I just feel like weve let down the agriculture community and I think they made very good points about their land is their insurance, their health benefits, their education fund and I think that we area tying their hands with changing this and not allowing them to live their lives that theyve worked so hard to pay for. And then now were going to change in the middle of the stream and say were sorry.

Mr. Walbeck stated, well if you want the motion to stand Im leaving.

Ms. Murray stated, remember we didnt walk out Carl.

Mr. Walbeck stated, Humm.

Ms. Murray stated, we didnt walk out.

Mr. Williams stated, Im not going to walk out anymore.

Mr. Walbeck stated, no but youre doing the same thing that your saying we did.

Mr. Brown stated, right so theres nothing wrong with that.

Mr. Mortimer stated, now if the full commission was here youve

Mr. Murray stated, were you right or am I wrong?

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 356 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Walbeck stated, youre right but I dont have to stay.

Ms. Murray stated, well I want to put it in the minutes though.

Mr. Mortimer stated, does this mean we have to wait another 60 days?

Mr. Brown stated, no because its already been looked at both ways from the State. Is that correct?

Mr. Sennstrom replied, yes.

Mr. Brown stated, so we have to wait 60 days.

Mr. Mortimer stated, well you know what my vote is.

Mr. Brown asked, are you staying.

Mr. Mortimer asked, are you staying.

Mr. Williams replied, Im staying. Theres no point in running from this.. Lets just get this over with and move on other business that is going to help the County out.

Ms. Murray stated, vice-president you can take over.

Mr. Brown asked Mr. Walbeck if he was refusing.

Mr. Brown called for a vote.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 357 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Motion made by Murray, seconded by Brown and carried to approve for the rural density to stay at 1/5 and 1/3 in the NAR zone and 1/8 and1/5 in the SAR zone.

Brown, Mortimer and Murray in favor

William opposed

Walbeck absent

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 358 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

ITEM B DECISIONS

1. Candlelight Ridge, Phase 1, Red Toad Road, Final Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fifth Election District

WITHDRAWN

2. West Creek Village Apartments, Fletchwood Road, Preliminary Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fourth Election District

Motion made by Murray, seconded by Brown and unanimously carried to approve with conditions.

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) All internal road names being approved by the Countys 911 Emergency Management Agency prior to Final Plat review;

4) The Cornus Court/Marsh Lane intersections with West Creek Village Drive being redesigned to achieve at least the required 125 centerline-to-centerline separation;

5) Approval of the waiver of the stream buffer expansion in the Development District;

6) Sidewalks being installed on both sides of all internal roads and along Fletchwood Road;

7) All required Variances being obtained prior to Final Plat review;

8) Verification of water and sewer allocation being received for each phase and/or section prior to the Planning Commissions review its respective Final Plat;

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 359 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 9) The Final Plat(s) for Section II being drawn precisely to scale and including detailed area tables;

10) Easements being provided in the town house areas to facilitate access to the rears of those town houses; and

11) The specifics of active recreation amenities being included with the Final Plat submissions and those improvements being included in Public Works Agreement.

3. Eagle Aire, Rte 272, Preliminary Plat, Will Whiteman Land Surveying Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Murray and unanimously carried to approve with conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) The existing dwelling on Lot 6 having an EagleAire Way address; and

4) A Landscape Plan with additional plantings being required in lieu of the Bufferyard Standards C requirement which is waived if necessary.

4. Hopewell Ridge, Craigtown Road, Final Plat, Larson Engineering, Inc., Seventh Election District

Motion made by Brown, seconded by Mortimer and unanimously carried to approve with conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) Easements for access and stormwater conveyance across the AT&T right of way being formalized between the developer and AT&T prior to recordation;

4) The Record Plat referencing Minor Subdivision # 3483;

5) The adjacent agricultural operation note being placed on the Record Plat;

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 360 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 6) Covenants prohibiting the subdivision of the large lot being recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation;

7) Covenants requiring a Bufferyard Standard C along the road frontages of Lot 18, if and when the farming operation is discontinued, being recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation;

8) A Landscape Agreement being executed prior to recordation;

9) Deed restrictions for the long-term protection of the Forest Retention/ Afforestation Areas (FRAs) being recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation, with the metes and bounds description of the Forest Retention Area being shown on the record plat;

10) A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space and landscaped island, must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation; and

11) A 10 street tree planting easement being shown on the Record Plat.

5. Marley Farms, Section D, Lots 51-56, Childs Road, Preliminary Plat, McCrone Inc., Third Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Williams and unanimously carried to approve with conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) The Forrest Conservation Plan and Landscape Plan being approved prior to Final Plat review, and their details matching those on the Final Plat; and

4) Either a JD being provided or a Forest Retention area being provided to Office of Planning & Zoning prior to Final Plat submission.

6. Colora Springs, Lots 2 10, Concept Plat, Colora Road, McCrone, Inc., Sixth Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Murray and carried to approve with conditioned on:

1) A boundary line survey being completed prior to completion of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes;

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 361 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 2) A JD being completed prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat;

3) A modified Bufferyard A being required along the northern boundaries of proposed Lots 5-6, in the form of a planted Bufferyard A (per Appendix B) with a reduced, 50-building restriction line;

4) Future access to the lands of Hilton to the north and Wells to the south being included in the design; and

5) Common open space being permitted, except that any common open space shall not count toward the fulfilling of the bonus density eligibility requirement.

Brown, Mortimer and Murray in favor

Williams opposed.

7. Colora Springs, Lots 2 10, Preliminary Plat, Colora Road, McCrone, Inc., Sixth Election District

Motion made by Brown, seconded by Murray and unanimously carried to approve with conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) The Forest Conservation Plan and Landscape Plan being approved prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Final Plat; and

4) The Final Plats containing details of the pavilion and that the pavilion be located in the area of common open space.

8. Leyland, Rte 213, Preliminary Plat, McCrone, Inc., Second Election District

Motion made by Murray, seconded by Williams and unanimously carried to approve with conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 362 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 3) Any discrepancy in perennial stream buffer width being resolved on the Forest Conservation Plan and the Landscape Plan; and

4) Note # 7 being removed from the plat unless there are slopes 25% or greater on site.

9. Bracebridge, Lots 1-108, Grove Neck Road, Concept Plat, McCrone, Inc., First Election District

Motion made by Murray, seconded by Brown for approval with conditions. Motion disapproved.

Brown and Murray in favor

Mortimer, Walbeck and Williams opposed

Motion made by Williams, seconded by Mortimer and carried to disapprove based on one access point, environmental concerns associated with bonus density and bonus density not keeping with the rural character of the region and disposition of tenant housing and definition of tenant in relation to this site.

Mortimer, Walbeck and Williams in favor

Brown and Murray opposed.

10. Rhodes Mountain Estates, Sec 2, Irishtown Road, Concept Plat, McCrone, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Brown, seconded by Mortimer and unanimously carried to approve with conditioned on:

1) A boundary line survey being completed prior to TAC review of the Preliminary Plat;

2) A JD being completed prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat; and

3) A waiver being granted from the Subdivision Regulations regarding the mid block turn around.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 363 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

11. Rhodes Mountain Estates, Sec 1, Irishtown Road, Preliminary Plat, McCrone, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Brown, seconded by Mortimer and unanimously carried to approve with conditions on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) Minor Subdivision 2724 being referenced on the plat;

4) The Forest Conservation Plan and Landscape Plan being approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat; and

5) Routing of the Elk Neck Trail being delineated on the Final Plat as it was on the adjacent property.

12. Elk Nest, Lots 1-26, Rte 272, Concept Plat ,McCrone, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Murray, seconded by Brown and carried to approve with conditioned on:

1) The Jurisdiction Determination being completed prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat;

2) A boundary line survey being completed in the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes; and

3) Study to determine appropriate determination the County owned portion of West Shady Beach Road agreeable to the Planning Commission/Roads Departments.

Brown, Mortimer and Murray in favor

William opposed.

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 364 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

13. Glennas Heights, Lots 1-28, Johnson Road, Concept Plat, Campbell & Nolan Associates, Inc., Eighth Election District

Motion made by Brown to table project. Motion was withdrawn.

Motion made by Murray, seconded by Mortimer and unanimously carried to approve with conditioned on:

1) The JD being completed prior to Preliminary Plat review by the Planning Commission;

2) The mini road name being approved prior to Preliminary Plat review by the Planning Commission;

3) A sensitive species survey being completed prior to Preliminary Plat review by the TAC;

4) The acreages of all parcels and deed parcels being included on the plat prior to Preliminary Plat review by the TAC;

5) All streams and buffers being clearly delineated on the Preliminary Plat; and

6) The Final Plat reflecting that this proposal is located in Cecil County.

14. Ridgely Forest, Rte 7, Preliminary Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Murray seconded by Brown and unanimously carried to approve with conditioned on: (1) Health Department requirements being met; (2) DPW requirements being met; (3) The Master Water & Sewer Plans being amended to include this project in its entirety (4) Documentation of water allocation being received from the Town of North east prior to Final Plat review; (5) Sewer capacity being confirmed by the DPW prior to Final Plat review; (6) The TIS recommendations being agreed to prior to Final Plat review; (7) An area table has being included on the plat prior to Final Plat review; (8) All lot dimensions conforming to minimum requirements; (9) Revised plat with topo information being submitted to the Office of Planning and Zoning prior to the submission of a Final Plat; and (10) Sidewalks being included on both sides of all internal roads.

15. Mendenhall Square, Telegraph Road (Rte 273) and Blue Ball Road, Preliminary Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Ninth Election District

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 365 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Brown and unanimously carried to approve with conditions on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) Department of Public requirements being met;

3) The TIS recommendations being agreed to by the County and State Highway Administration;

4) The Forest Conservation Plan and Landscape Plan being approved prior to Final Plat review;

5) The Forest Retention Areas being depicted on the plat, and the details of the FCP, Landscape Plan, and Final Plat matching up with one another;

6) The inclusion of a 30,000 gallon drafting tank in the final design; and

7) The pedestrian access being designed into the plat from the residential to the commercial portion of the property.

There were no further comments.

Meeting adjourned at 6:03 p.m.

NEXT MEETING: July 19, 2004 at 12:00 p.m. in the County Administration Building

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa A. Jones

Administrative Assistant

June 21, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 366 July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m.

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Subdivisions)

PRESENT: Brown, Campbell, Carter, DiGiacomo, Kilby, Smyzer (for Moore), Mortimer, Murray, Prickett, Sennstrom, Walbeck, Williams, Woodhall, and Jones

ABSENT: Farrell, Moore

Mr. Walbeck stated today was the last day of his tenured on the Planning Commission, as his term would expire at the end of July. He thanked the County Commissions for allowing him to serve for 11 years in addition to the Planning Commission Members for electing him as Chairman of the Planning Commission over the past 8 years. It has been one of the most satisfying activities that he has every participated in. Mr. Walbeck went on to thank the directors and staff of the OPZ and DPW, as well as the Health Department and Counsel, all of whom have been very helpful to both him and the Planning Commission. He has enjoyed working with the Planning Commission, although they may have sometimes disagreed, they were never disagreeable to one another, which is the way it should be. One word of advise to the Planning Commission members, always make your decision on what is best for this wonderful place called Cecil County.

MINUTES: Motion made by Brown seconded by Prickett, and unanimously carried to approve the June 21, 2004 minutes as mailed.

1. The Reserve at Elk River, Section 1, Oldfield Point Road, Final Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fifth Election District was WITHDRAWN.

2. Tim Granger and Christopher Diebolt presented Prelude (Located in Village of Bayview), Old Bayview Road, Minor Subdivision Concept Plat, American Engineering & Surveying, Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Granger state that because the property was zoned VR, the Minor Subdivision was required to be reviewed by both TAC and PC. The

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 367 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 project consists of two parcels. Water allocation was granted by the Town of North East on 9/15/03. SHA has granted the permit for the proposed entrance onto Rte 274. The homes will be served by public sewer.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was VR (Village Residential). The purpose of which is to provide for the protection of existing villages by allowing limited development consistent with the character of these villages.

The VR zone permits a maximum base density of 1 dwelling unit per one (1) acre or four (4) dwelling units per one (1) acre with community facilities.

This Minor Subdivision Concept Plat is being reviewed by the Planning Commission, consistent with §28.2.a of the Zoning Ordinance, which stipulates that all subdivisions in the VR zone must be reviewed by the TAC and the Planning Commission.

If a minor subdivision is ineligible for administrative review and approval, then it must be reviewed by the TAC and the Planning Commission, thus following the major subdivision review and approval process. §4.0.1 of the Cecil County Subdivision Regulations allows for the elimination of the Concept Plat if a proposed subdivision following the major subdivision review and approval process consists of fewer than 10 lots and fewer than 25 acres. In addition, §2.0 allows for a combined Preliminary-Final Plat if there are between one (1) and five (5) lots.

In this case, however, a Concept and then a Preliminary-Final Plat would be in order, so as to allow adequate time to secure a Road Frontage Variance, to achieve FSD, FCP, and Landscape Plan approvals, and to obtain documentation of water allocation and sewer capacity in an orderly fashion prior to final approval.

This proposal consists of parcels 49 and 138, both original parcels of record, and it proposes 4 lots on 1.6113 acres, for a proposed density of 2.48/1.

A boundary line survey must be done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 368 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Proposed road frontages are not adequate. A Variance for the road frontage of proposed Lot 3 must be obtained prior to Preliminary-Final Plat review by the Planning Commission.

A fee simple road widening dedication will be required on Old Bayview Road. Therefore, the notation on the plat must be changed.

Any slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the Preliminary Plat.

A 110 perennial stream buffer is required from any perennial streams present. This buffer shall be expanded to include contiguous areas of hydric soils, highly erodible soils, and soils on slopes greater than 15%, to a maximum distance of 160.

A 25 buffer is required around any non-tidal wetlands and intermittent streams present. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland and stream impacts prior to recordation. A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) must be done prior to Preliminary Plat review by the Planning Commission.

The habitats of any rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided.

§28.3 of the Zoning Ordinance stipulates that there be flexibility in lot, yard, open space and setback requirements and to encourage innovative and creative design in order to meet the objectives of this district. It goes on to say that such requirements in the Village District may be varied for each in each individual project by the Planning Commission. In establishing these requirements the Planning Commission shall consider such factors as the proposed intensity of the project, the existing character of the village, and all other County, State, and federal requirements.

With respect to lot and yard requirements, this proposal is generally consistent with the Schedule of Zone Regulations for the VR district, set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 369 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 With respect to open space, this proposal requires no common open space because fewer than 10 lots are proposed.

With respect to the proposed intensity of the project being consistent with the existing character of the village, the proposed density is generally consistent with that of the existing village.

With respect to the existing character of the village, this proposal is generally consistent with that of the existing village.

Sidewalks are not recommended in this case.

Landscaping in the VR zone is required to provide a minimum of 20% landscaping that must be visually harmonious and compatible consistent with the existing character of the village.

Bufferyard Standard C is recommended along the MD Rte 274 road frontages; street trees with 10 planting easements are recommended along Old Bayview Road, consistent with §186.1.

In areas with community facilities, no street trees shall be planted within 20 feet of sewer laterals and cleanouts.

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) has not been approved (or even submitted).

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 370 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

Written verification of water allocation and sewer capacity must be received prior to Preliminary-Final Plat review by the Planning Commission.

Mr. Woodhull stated it should be noted for the record that it is the departments understanding that the Town of North East will own the water distribution system in this development. The CCDPW recommends that the water distribution system including fire hydrant locations be designed to meet or exceed the Countys standards. DPW also recommend that the Town request that the serving fire company review fire hydrant spacing and locations.

The water lines must be reflected on the sanitary sewer plans and as-builts.

A SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan, Sanitary Sewer Plan and a Mass & Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 371 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Sight distance measurements are required for the driveway on Lot 2. The location of the driveway must be marked in the field.

All driveways must be paved at least in the County ROW and so noted on the Lot Grading Plan.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the owners expense.

The existing driveway to the Lands of Edwards crosses Lot 2 in the northeast corner. What is proposed to address this? Mr. Granger stated, I guess we will bring it to their attention and I guess move it somewhere.

The ROW dedication note on the Final Plat must read, 30 wide strip to be dedicated in fee simple to the Board of County Commissioners of Cecil County.

The preparation of the grading plans for these lots must satisfactorily address the slopes on site and how adverse impacts from runoff will be prevented.

The proposed private force main must terminate in a terminal manhole located at or near the lot owners side of the new ROW boundary and continue on as a gravity line to the main. The gravity line and the manhole will be County maintained and the force main from the manhole back to the dwellings will be private. This must be made abundantly clear to all lot owners, including a note on the Final Plat.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 372 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

A PWA will be required for the sanitary sewer connections.

Mr. Mortimer asked for addition information on the road frontage distance on the two effected lots. Did you say it was 97 or 93? Mr. Grainger replied it was 93 which was 7 short of the 100 minimum.

Mr. Walbeck stated the property owner to the north of Lot 2 was concerned with his existing driveway. Mr. Grainger stated he had not spoken with him. Mr. Diebolt stated he could not speak on behalf of the future owner of the lot.

Mr. Walbeck suggested that because the property owner had used the driveway for a number of years, there was a great probably his rights would continue.

No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

Grace Edwards, 315 Old Bayview Road, North East, appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. She addressed items addressed at the TAC meeting. The site distance measurement required for the driveway on Lot 2 and was not marked in the field. Their existing driveway crosses Lot 2 in the northeast corner and has not been addressed. Several calls have been made to American Engineering but there has been no response. The 100 road frontages along Old Bayview Road and Rte 274 will require a Variance. In her opinion the density and character of the proposed homes were not consistent with the existing homes. If the project is approved the Edwards would like to see a line of trees planted on the property line adjacent to the proposed property.

William Edwards, 315 Old Bayview Road, North East, appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. He stated the project was to close to his property. He expressed his concern that the property could become Section 8 rental property. He questioned the location of the surveying markers. Mr. Edwards submitted a petition in opposition to the project.

Owen Thorne, 20 Hillwood Road, appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. He stated in behalf of the neighbors of the proposed development, the Edwards had touch on many of the points he had with the exception of a few. The character of the proposed development is not in keeping with the surrounding community in both size and use. Attempts to contact the developer have been repeatedly ignored, which does not show willingness of the developer to solve the issues raised. He requested that a contingency be set in place requiring the property be used as first proposed, therefore prohibiting later use as Section 8 housing.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 373 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

David Carter, 325 Old Bayview Road, appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. He stated the deciding factor for him purchasing his current home was the appearance of the community and decent houses on nice size parcels, which is not what is being proposed. The proposed homes are much smaller and much closer to the property lines. He expressed his concern about the upcoming downzoning in relation to this project. He also voiced a concern with the watershed and runoff.

3. Barry Montgomery and Michael Burcham presented Chesapeake Club Condominium, Section 1, Phase 11, Units 29 & 33, Shady Beach Road, Final Plat, McCrone, Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Montgomery advised he was seeking final approval for two lots. Lot 33 will be raffled off by the Boys and Girls Club next month. The infrastructure has reached its capacity and it is expected to be in the ground and up and running as early as spring of 2005. Water annexation from the Town of North East has always been an ongoing issue. An ordinance was recently adopted allowing properties to access public water without annexation. It was the intent that the property be served by two entrances, Mechanic Valley Road and Rte 40. After many meetings with Ms. Futty no agreement has been met to gain access from Route 40. Therefore the property will only have one entrance on Mechanics Valley Road. There have been various changes associated with the name change.

Mr. Burcham stated the basic changes were to increase the proposed lot sizes. A boulevard entrance was proposed, with the intention of adding additional avenues for fire and police protection.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was RM. This Final Condominium Plat is for two condominium units, or two dwelling units. The Cecil County Subdivision Regulations define Condominium as follows:

(a) The use (the interior and associated exterior areas designated for private use in the development plan) is owned by the occupant.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 374 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 (b) The unit may be any permitted dwelling type.

The original Chesapeake Club Concept Plat was approved 5/19/87.

The Section One Preliminary Plat was approved March 1991.

1) Health Department requirements were met;

2) DPW requirements were met;

3) Town of North East requirements were met; and

4) SHA requirements were met.

The approved Preliminary Plat/Site Plan was very specific, with actual construction drawings. A revised Preliminary Plat that included Units 25 & 26 was approved on 6/17/97.

In this case, the Final Plat as built drawings are consistent with the approved, revised Concept and Preliminary Plats.

Street trees and landscaping must be consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat/Site Plan, but no street trees shall be planted within 20 feet of sewer laterals and cleanouts.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 375 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The original Preliminary Plat/Site Plan was approved conditioned on the Final Plat approval requiring the establishment of appropriate condominium instruments. The owners of these units must become members of the appropriate condominium association, per Note # 12. Note #10 on Sheet 2 states that the owners of these units must become members of the road maintenance association (Chesapeake Club Road Association) unless and until such time as the roads may be conveyed to the Cecil County or other agency or authority.

Are the condominium documents for Section One still current? Mr. Montgomery replied, nodded his head yes. Mr. DiGiacomo asked since the owners of these units must become members of the condominium association, will any modifications to the condo documents be required in order for them to become members? Mr. Montgomery replied yes. The condominium documents must be amended to include Lots 29 & 23.

Mr. Woodhull questioned whether the two easements running back to the condominiums was a private access road. Is it intended to be transferred to County ownership? Mr. Burcham replied no. Mr. Montgomery replied as far as he knew no.

Mr. Woodhull asked if the Condo Association or the lot owners owned the easements. Mr. Montgomery replied he had titled it to the road barrier. Mr. Burcham replied the ROW was shown on the Phase 8 plan to be conveyed to the Road Association.

Mr. Woodhull questioned who would provide the maintenance for the secondary road. Mr. Montgomery replied it is not clear at present because in the past the road association provided any and all maintenance and the condominium, which was part of the HOA, took care of the roads and grass. With the County taking care of all of the roads, with the exception of this part, he was not sure but would guess the units using it would be responsible.

Mr. Woodhull replied the plat who will provide the maintenance/repair. It should also reflect in the deeds the lot agreement acquired. All of DPWs requirements have been addressed.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

4. David Dodge and Donald Sutton presented The Mews at Northeast Creek, Lots 1-170, Mechanics Valley Road, Concept Plat, McCrone, Inc., Fifth Election District

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 376 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Dodge advised the project had previous been know as the Futty property and Valley Vista Estates. It has always been the intent for public water and sewer.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was SR which permits a maximum base density of 1 dwelling unit per one (1) acre or two (2) dwelling units per one (1) acre. with community facilities. This Concept Plat proposes 170 lots on 216.805 acres, for a proposed density of 1/1.275.

Concept Plats for this property were previously reviewed by the TAC on 4/19/04, when it proposed 216 lots; on 12/15/03, when it proposed only 209 lots; and on 9/5/01 when it was proposed to be annexed into the Town of North East. Those proposed projects were reviewed under the names Valley Vista Estates and Winnfield.

Note #15 indicates that a boundary line survey has already been completed.

Slopes greater than 25% must be shown again on the Preliminary Plat. Steep slopes have been depicted.

A 25 buffer is required around all non-tidal wetlands and intermittent streams present. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland impacts prior to recordation. A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) must be done prior to Preliminary Pat review by the Planning Commission.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 377 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 57.8% common open space is proposed. 15% is required. Consideration should be given to exploring possible greenway and hiking trail linkages, especially in the open space along the Northeast Creek. Such linkages could include the East Coast Greenway and the Mason Dixon Trail.

The Comprehensive Plan identifies a greenway along the Little Northeast Creek. In accordance with §s 178.2 and 182 of the Zoning Ordinance, land proposed as open space along the Little Northeast Creek should be set aside as an access easement or fee simple dedication if a safe way to the north of the CSX line is feasible.

Access to the common open space to the north of the CSX rail line is problematic. That is a Class 1 main line. Pedestrian crossings would not be safe and are not permitted.

Tract 3 is shown as reserved for future development. Should Tracts 2 or 3 be developed and sold off, then that could affect the density, common open space, forest conservation, and/or other calculations.

Protective fencing is recommended around the stormwater management areas, especially those near designated recreation areas. Such protective fencing should be included in the Public Works Agreement.

With respect to those recreation areas, if playground equipment is proposed, then it, too, should be included in the Public Works Agreement.

A notation on the plat indicates that the AT&T easement will be relocated, but it does not say where.

20% landscaping of the development envelope is required in the SR zone.

Sidewalks are recommended on at least one side of all internal roads, the names of which all have been approved.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 378 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. DiGiacomo asked how many parking spaces were proposed for each lot. Are they proposed to be off-street? Mr. Sutton replied off street and two spaces.

Mr. DiGiacomo asked who will own and maintain the 16 proposed open space parking spaces opposite proposed Lot 45. Mr. Sutton replied Home Owners Association.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the frontages on Mechanics Valley Road and the Pulaski Highway. Note #19 indicates that a waiver of the Bufferyard C requirement is being requested. This relates to sight distance issues.

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) was approved 12/5/03. The site is not home to any rare, threatened, or endangered species.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 379 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 shown on the Record Plat.

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space and common facilities must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

The Record Plats shall contain a statement signed by the Health Department approving authority; to the effect that use of the community water supply and community sewerage system is in conformance with the Master Water and Sewer Plan. The Record Plats shall also contain a statement, signed by the owner, to the effect that such facilities will be available to all lots offered for sale.

Verification of sewer capacity must be obtained from the Cecil County Department of Public Works prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission.

Verification of water allocation must be obtained from the Town of North East prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission.

The TIS has been updated to reflect the reduced number of proposed lots and the boulevard-style entranceway. The original TIS revealed that the proposed 216 lot development would create a level of service (LOS) at the US 40/Mechanics Valley Road intersection below what the Comprehensive Plan deems acceptable for this area. In addition, the TIS recommended that the developer pursue the construction of an additional southbound lane along Mechanics Valley Road. This additional lane would allow for on exclusive left turn lane and one shared thru and right turn lane.

The updated TIS, dated June 2004, concluded that:

· The key intersections and road section will continue to operate at acceptable LOS;

· The Mechanics Valley Road link appears not to be overloaded from a traffic volume standpoint, but that edge marking of 10.5 travel lanes would benefit nighttime visibility and tend to calm traffic; and

· The intersection of Mechanics Valley and Bouchelle Roads could be improved with enhanced signage, a new guardrail, and possibly new intersection lighting.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 380 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Staff recommends that access onto US 40 be obtained. That would enhance the layout from both the urban design (including pedestrian access to future transit service) and emergency access management standpoints. A future access through the lands of Futty to US 40 has been shown, beyond the cul-de-sac on the proposed Vista Creek Court.

Fire hydrant/standpipe locations should be shown on the Preliminary Plat, and they should consistent with DPW regulations and recommendations by the North East Volunteer Fire Company.

What is the structure depicted on proposed lots 119 & 128? Mr. Sutton stated it was an existing building that will be removed.

Mr. Woodhull stated 168 lots are indicated on the plat verses the 170 seen at TAC. The numbers were Lot 160 to 163. He assumed that Lots 161 and 162 were removed to make way for the cul-de-sac. Mr. Sutton replied it must have been a numbering sequence problem. There are 170 lots proposed. Mr. Woodhull replied, Im not sure were you will get the other two lots from. It will need to be clarified. Is it intended to be 170? Mr. Sutton replied yes.

It should be noted for the record that it is the departments understanding that the Town of North East will own the water distribution system in this development. The CCDPW recommends that the water distribution system including fire hydrant locations be designed to meet or exceed the Countys standards. We also recommend that the Town request that the serving fire company review fire hydrant spacing and locations.

The water lines must be reflected on the sanitary sewer plans and as-builts.

A SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan, Sanitary Sewer Plan and a Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

The Lot Grading Plan must include the standard note addressing the limits of construction. (No clearing or grading is permitted beyond the limits of disturbance show hereon. Any expanded clearing and/or grading in the absence of an approved revised Lot Grading Plan may be considered non-compliance with Chapter 251 of the Cecil County Code and either or both the developer and/or builder may be subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein.)

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 381 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

Sight distance measurements must be provided to the DPW to establish compliance with the Cecil County Road Code.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the owners expense.

Any applicable Road Code Variance must be requested prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat approval.

The phasing of this development will significantly impact the competency of the roadways in completed sections because of the potential for large amounts of construction traffic accessing later sections. Subsequently, a phasing plan must be submitted for use in developing a plan for when internal road sections will be accepted by the County and the magnitude of maintenance bonds that will be required as well as the time frame over which they will be held.

All driveways must be paved at least to the right of way and this must be so indicated on the Lot Grading Plan.

Lot frontage dimensions dictate that closed section road is used. Modified curb and gutter may be used internally, but standard 7 curb will be required for the entrance(s) from at least the PCs.

Lots 90, 99, 119 & 124 must be denied access to Valley Vista Drive and Lots 37, 46, 59, 129 & 130 must be denied access to South Falls Drive.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 382 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 All lots must front Minor Roads wherever possible. Where substantiated as necessary, lots may front Major Collector Roads; however, additional pavement cross section or other measures such as driveway turnarounds where required and must be shown as a requirement on the Lot Grading Plan.

Significant road improvements will be necessary to Mechanics Valley Road and possibly the intersection with U.S. Route 40. Improvements may include acceleration and deceleration lanes, a bypass lane on Mechanics Valley Road, and/or vertical alignment corrections south of the entrance on Mechanics Valley Road, specifically knoll about 385 south of entrance, and/or full upgrade of Mechanics Valley Road.

If the Planning Commission requires sidewalks, the Final Plats should include a note indicating that sidewalks maintenance will be required of the adjacent property owner, as required by the Cecil County Road Code. There are no sidewalks currently along Mechanics Valley Road.

The Route 40 pump station has no more capacity and sewer allocation cannot be made until it is upgraded. However, Mechanics Valley LLC has executed an agreement with the Board of County Commissioners and will be providing an upgrade to this pump station, which will provide build-out capacity for the corridor. The agreement projects completion of the new station by February 2006 if not sooner.

The department recommends that the Town require a PWA for the water line.

The County will require PWAs for the internal streets & storm drains and sanitary sewer work. An I&M Agreement will be required for all SWM facilities.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated in addition to his previous comments concerning the AT&T easement, documentation of all plans and any agreements there to must be received prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission.

Mr. Sutton added there were 170 lots shown on the plat. There are two Lot 166s and 167s. It was incorrectly numbered.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 383 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Brown asked if the entrance through the Futty property was a dead deal. Mr. Sutton replied yes. Mr. Brown questioned additional entrances from Valley Vista to Creek Court or extending the dual lane down to Branch Court. Mr. Sutton replied no.

Mr. Walbeck stated the Planning Commission had asked them to review the possibility and what had they determine. Mr. Sutton replied they made the road up to South Fall Drive dual. MDE only allows for one crossing.

Mr. Walbeck questioned the applicants intent with regards to AT&T easement. Mr. Sutton stated AT&T would work with them in realigning it with the road system per previous conversations.

Mr. Walbeck questioned a statement made by Mr. DiGiacomo referencing the greenway along Little Elk Neck Creek and the land being set aside as an access easement for fee simple dedication as a safe way to the north of CSX. Why does the CSX line enter into it since it is not on this property? Mr. DiGiacomo replied if use of the greenway was going to be encouraged we would want to discourage crossing on the eastern side of the property. It is not only unsafe but not permitted. You do not want to create a greenway that would encourage the crossing of that same unsafe rail line to the west. Discussion continued.

Mr. Mortimer asked who would be financially responsible for upgrading and widening Mechanics Valley Road. Mr. Sutton replied the developer would be.

Mr. Walbeck asked for clarification of the distance of the third lane. Mr. Woodhull stated his understanding was the third lane would extend from Rte 40 to Builders Supply. A third lane has been requested to be placed at the southern end of Mechanics Valley, near the intersection, but not to the entrance of the development.

Ms. Kilby stated with the aftermath of the rain and flooding, she had a SWM concern. This project is adjacent to the North East Creek, feeding into the Town of North East, and some very heavy duty SWM should be required. These types of projects, with the watershed, will continue to acerbate the problem.

Mr. Williams asked what the definition of the corridor was, in relationship to a comment made concerning the capacity of the new pump station and build out of the corridor. Mr. Carter replied it was the area that currently runs to the Rte 272 intersections pump station and continues down to the Old YMCA Bldg.

Mr. Williams stated in echoing OPZ concerns of access to the open space. What are the current options for safely getting people into this area, Track 2? Mr. Sutton stated the area would remain Forest Conservation

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 384 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Area. There will be no community or recreational use in this area.

Ms. Kilby stated it was labeled Common Open Space. Mr. Sutton stated correct, for maintenance by the HOA. Mr. Kilby questioned if that, in its self indicated that it should be community use. Mr. Sutton replied no. It can be noted in the HOA documentation, not for public use.

Mr. Walbeck asked if there was an access for Track 2. Mr. Sutton replied no. There is an existing crossing which is shown on the railroad map, although there is no plan to be used by this community. It is not required for the density or open space requirements.

No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

Faye Weaver, 521 Bouchelle Road, appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. She stated her concerns of water, overcrowding of schools and additional strain on public services. This County road was intended for farmland and single family homes, not a development. She is the owner of the farm across the road from the proposed development. It has been actively farmed, in her family, since 1943. Nothing has changed there is still only one access into the property and no access from Route 40. The current traffic from the hot mix and stone quarry is horrendous. The approval of this project would greatly affect the safety of everyone that accesses this road.

Lynn Campbell, 752 Mechanics Valley Road, appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. She stated because of short notice people where unable to attend for various reasons. There are multiple issues concerning this project, such as the runoff into the North East Creek, which ultimately dumps into the Chesapeake Bay. She concurred with Commissioner Kilbys concerns about the runoff. Other concerns included the rural area and wildlife habitat; the close proximity to the railroad tracks; four wheelers crossing the railroad tracks; as well as the traffic on Mechanics Valley Road and the intersection of Mechanics Valley Road and Route 40. In closing she stated it was her belief that this piece of land was not suitable for development because of extraneous circumstances.

5. Michael Pugh and Donald Sutton presented Bracebridge, Lots 1-108, Grove Neck Road, Concept Plat, McCrone, Inc., First Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Pugh reviewed the reasons for the Planning Commissions previous disapproval, while noting the changes made to the current proposed plat.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 385 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was SAR & RCA. The SAR zone permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per eight (8) acres or one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres if bonus density is granted. The RCA overlay zone permits a density of one (1) dwelling unit per 20 acres.

Thirteen (13) lots are proposed in the Critical Area (RCA) on 294.8 acres, for a proposed Critical Area density of 1/22.68.

All lots except 108 are proposed outside the Critical Area Buffer/Expanded Buffer and the 100-yr. tidal floodplain. Per §241.2.d (1), any building sites within the 100-year tidal floodplain can be approved only after a Variance has been granted.

A virtually identical Concept Plat was disapproved by the Planning Commission last month. The revision date has been included in the title block, per §4.0.13 (d).

The only significant change is that the proposed McGill Creek Farm Lane has been widened to include a boulevard treatment with center dividing islands from the entrance on Grove Neck Road back to the 2nd intersection with the proposed Presidents Circle.

A boundary line survey must be done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 386 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 On slopes between 15 and 25%, good engineering practices shall be used to ensure sediment and erosion control and slope stabilization before, during and after disturbance activities.

Slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the Preliminary Plat.

A 25 buffer is required around all non-tidal wetlands and intermittent streams present. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland and stream impacts prior to recordation. A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) must be done prior to Preliminary Plat review by the Planning Commission.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the SAR zone.

Sidewalks are not recommended.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontage of Grove Neck Road.

Rows of street trees with 10 planting easements are required, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of all internal roads.

In the interest of preserving rural character, a vegetative buffer along the westerly side of the proposed McGill Creek Farm Lane (to its second point of intersection with the proposed Union Circle) and long the rear/side lot lines of proposed Lots 1-6 is recommended. Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements.

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 387 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) and an Environmental Assessment were approved on 6/11/04.

Mr. DiGiacomo asked if the documentation received from Ben Brockway was the Sensitive Species Survey. Mr. Sutton replied basically. The letter stated that Mr. Brockway had been onsite and surveyed and reviewed the sensitive species.

The forested areas contain FIDS habitat, and the nearby open waters are designated known historic waterfowl concentration areas.

Bald Eagles Nest Zone 3s critical dates must be listed on the Final/Record Plats.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

The portion of the project located in the RCA zone is exempt under §3.2B of Cecil County Forest Conservation Regulations, so a note to that effect must appear on the plat.

No development is permitted in the tidal wetlands and tidal waters buffer, including septic systems, impervious surfaces, parking areas, roads, or structures.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 388 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 No more than 15% of the surface area can be converted to impervious surface in the RCA.

No more than 20% of the forest or developed woodland may be removed.

In the critical area, no structure shall exceed 35 in height.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

All internal road names have been approved.

Per §7.2.12.B.9, the proposed McGill Creek Farm Lane and Gettysburg Drive require mid-block turnarounds.

A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) must be done prior to the TACs review of the Preliminary Plat. An additional entrance would enhance the design and safety for 108 proposed lots.

Mr. DiGiacomo asked if Lot 108 was proposed to have access via the mini-road or the existing driveway via the proposed Presidents Circle. Mr. Sutton replied the existing driveway.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated access to common open space between and beside lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

Mr. DiGiacomo asked what the plans for the existing residence and other existing structures where? Mr. Sutton and Mr. Pugh replied to remain.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated last year, a golf course was being considered for a portion of this property. Has that idea been abandoned or deferred or abandoned? Mr. Pugh and Sutton replied yes.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 389 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. DiGiacomo stated if there were any plans for a community pier, then §s169 and 198 of the Zoning Ordinance must be adhered to. In addition, an easement will be necessary.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

A Mini-road Association for maintenance of the mini road must be established prior to recordation, with the owners of all lots accessing the mini-road becoming members.

As sworn testimony was presented at last months Planning Commission to the effect that the tenant dwellings were not, in fact, used to house agricultural workers, as defined and conditioned in §12, what will be their disposition? Mr. Pugh stated it would be incumbent upon the owner to conform to the code.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated for subdivisions proposed on property contiguous to operating farms, notice shall be provided on the plat that an agricultural operation is being conducted on a contiguous property and said agricultural operation is protected from nuisance claims provided the conditions of Article I, § 4 are being complied with.

Mr. Woodhull stated that a SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan and a Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

The Lot Grading Plan must include the standard note addressing the limits of construction. (No clearing or grading is permitted beyond the limits of disturbance show hereon. Any expanded clearing and/or grading in the absence of an approved revised lot grading plan may be considered non-compliance with Chapter 251 of the Cecil County Code and either or both the developer and/or Builder may be subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein.)

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 390 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

If a Traffic Impact Study is required for this project input should be sought from SHA in regards to the intersection of Grove Neck Road, Sandy Bottom Road, & MD Route 282 relative to the addition of 1080 trips.

Sight distance measurements must be provided to the DPW to establish compliance with the Cecil County Road Code.

The department will allow the use of Road Code Standard R-12, Dual Lane Road, for the full length of McGill Creek Farm Lane in lieu of an intermediate turnaround. It is the departments position that the use of Standard R-12 in this instance more adequately addresses the concerns that created the requirement for intermediate turnarounds (R-13) in the first place.

However, Gettysburg drive is in noncompliance with Road Code Standard R-13. Therefore an intermediate turnaround is required or a Road Code Variance must be requested.

Any applicable Road Code Variances must be requested prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat approval.

Regardless of phasing, the department will not accept McGill Creek Farm Lane until 80% of all the lots are completed, unless the developer includes a separate, dedicated construction entrance beyond the first phase of construction or a maintenance bond of 50% of the construction cost is established.

Lots 1, 10, 11, 19, 20, 21, 22, 57, 63, 93, 94,101-104 & 107 must be denied access to McGill Creek Farm Lane.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 391 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Lot 72 must be denied access to Bald Eagle Perch, and therefore must access the private mini-road first.

The Private Mini-road proposed must comply with Section 2.13 of the Road Code including a statement clearly outlining the responsibilities of the homeowners in the maintenance of the road and drainage. This statement must be approved by the Planning Commission and placed on the Final Plat.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

A PWA will be required for the streets and storm drains.

Mr. Williams stated that he appreciated the alternate design, but what precludes you from clustering under a lower density. Mr. Pugh replied it would be a matter of preference, no saying that they couldnt cluster them. Clustering would cause the lost of a number of lots versus the applicant created large lots. Mr. Williams stated going with bonus density would maintain the rural character, versus clustering and spreading the lots all over the site.

Mr. Williams requested a copy of the Natural Resource Plan/Report from the applicants. He questioned a comment from TAC, covered in the report, that all stormwater would be directed off site into tunnel flushed areas. Mr. Carter stated that there would be a number of quality and structural possibilities for the on site SWM.

Mr. Williams if the golf course had been tabled or abandoned. Mr. Pugh replied it had been withdrawn.

Mr. Mortimer asked what the staffs position, in relation to the safety and emergency aspect, was on the double lane road. Mr. Woodhull replied with the extent of the dual lane there is a much better approach to staging and/or egress/ingress for emergency vehicles than an intermediate turnaround would provide.

Mr. Williams stated he had a similar question. While he agrees that the dual lane was an improvement over the previously proposed plan, he still has concerns that a single access point may not be adequate. A prime example was last weeks storm with wires down, trees down and flooding, emergency vehicles where unable to gain access because of single access points.

No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 392 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Carol Sheaffer, 477 Mount Harmon Road in Earleville, appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. She is a resident of Mount Harmon Plantation, member and serves on the Board of Directors for the Friends of Mount Harmon. Mount Harmon Plantation is of historic significance. The museum serves people from all over the East Coast. It is a rare jewel in southern rural Cecil County. It is also a wildlife haven for many species including deer, wild turkey and bald eagle surrounded by tidal wetlands which also buffers Bracebridge. McGill Creek harbors a very rare species of a plant know as the American Lotus. It is felt that run off and increased activity from the Bracebridge project would threatened the very nature of this very sensitive area and would negatively impact the community. This proposal is not consistent with present land use in the Sassafras neck region and is not in keeping with the rural character of their community.

Jim Mullin, 1676 Glee Road, appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. He asked since the property is still actively listed for sale when was the applicant listed to go to closing? Mr. Pugh replied he did not have the answer. It is a contingent contract and he did not know when all of the contingencies would be resolved. Mr. Mullin asked if there was a kick out clause present in the contract, should a purchaser come forward prior to the closing, the contract then becoming null and void. Mr. Pugh replied he was not familiar with the terms of the contract and therefore was unable to answer the question. Mr. Mullin presented a several maps to the Commission. He addressed bonus density in relation to the surrounding areas.

6. Donald Sutton, Mary Slagle and David Willis, Sr. presented Antego, Lots 12-15, Deaver Road, Revised Preliminary Plat, McCrone, Inc., Third Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Sutton advised that Lots 13 and 14 were withdrawn from the Preliminary Plat, that was approved by the Planning Commission, based on Health Department requirements. These requirements have been met, but in doing so the lot lines were adjusted for Lots 12 and 15. This will conclude the subdivision.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was SR, which permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per one (1) acre in the absence of community facilities.

The Concept Plat (44 lots on 138.1 acres, for a proposed density of 1/3.138) was approved on 12/15/03, conditioned on:

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 393 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 1) A boundary line survey being conducted prior to the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes;

2) A JD being completed prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat;

3) All SWM areas being relocated outside stream buffers, and

4) All intermittent stream buffers being shown.

The Preliminary Plat, proposing 33 lots on 138.15 acres at a density of 1/4.186 was approved on 5/20/04, conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) The Bufferyard C requirement being waived where deemed necessary by DPW to enhance safe sight distance;

4) Dry hydrants being installed where feasible;

5) All misspellings and date errors being corrected prior to Final Plat review;

6) Recommended sidewalk requirement being waived;

7) Forest Retention Areas being clearly shown on the Final Plat, and

8) Lots 13 & 14 being removed.

This submittal revises the configuration of proposed lots 12-15 on the approved Preliminary Plat. Therefore, this is a revised Preliminary Plat, as noted in the title block.

This revised Preliminary Plat is generally consistent with the approved Concept and Preliminary Plats.

The boundary line survey has been done.

All previous Antego Preliminary Plat comments stand.

The JD has been completed.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 394 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) was approved on 12/9/03.

The PFCP has been approved. However, the configuration of the lots as shown does not match the lot configuration shown on the approved PFCP, so a revised PFCP is still under review. A septic tank shown in the FRA of proposed Lot 14 is not permitted and must be revised.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat (§6.3.B(1)(a), Cecil County Forest Conservation Regulations).

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

Mr. Woodhull stated that a SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan and a Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat approval.

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

A PWA will be required for internal streets and storm drains.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 395 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

7. Donald Sutton and David Willis, Jr. presented David S. Willis, Jr., Lots 1-4, Blue Ball Road, Preliminary Plat, McCrone, Inc., Ninth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Sutton advised the first four lots of the Lands of David S. Willis, Jr. would share a joint access easement, as shown on the Concept Plat approved by the Planning Commission. Afforestation areas have been shown between Lots 1 and 2 and some landscape buffers along Blue Ball Road.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was NAR, which permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per (5) acres. The Concept Plat (16 lots on 161.1 acres, for a proposed density of 1/10.068), was approved on 5/20/04, conditioned on:

1) A boundary line survey being done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes; and

2) A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) being done prior to preliminary plat review by the Planning Commission.

This Preliminary Plat submission is generally consistent with the approved Concept Plat.

Has the boundary line survey been done? Mr. Sutton replied yes.

The vicinity sketch must correctly include the area of only the four proposed lots as the site.

Slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the Preliminary Plat. Steep slopes in this vicinity shown on the FSD are not shown on this plat.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 396 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

On slopes between 15 and 25%, good engineering practices shall be used to ensure sediment and erosion control and slope stabilization before, during and after disturbance activities.

The common open space requirement must be satisfied in future sections (15% is required; 16.01% was proposed on the approved Concept Plat).

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone.

No sidewalks are required in the NAR zone.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of Blue Ball Road.

Bufferyard Standard A is required along the lot lines of proposed Lots 1 & 2 to buffer adjacent agricultural uses. The contiguous agricultural operations notice has been provided.

Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard requirements.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) has been approved. There are no habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species on site.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) was approved this morning.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 397 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

A Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

Access to common open space between and beside lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

The Rising Sun Volunteer Fire Company has requested a drafting tank or a dry hydrant.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

Mr. Sutton asked, since open space is not required at this time for these four lots, should a notation be placed in the deeds stating that they will become members of the HOA once it is created. Mr. DiGiacomo stated there should be a notation on the Final/Record Plat stating that the owners of these lots will be required to become members of the HOA at the point of which the number of lots triggers the requirements for Common Open Space. Because the open space is not being created the applicants are not required to create a HOA until such time that the open space is set aside.

Mr. Woodhull stated a SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan, and a Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat approval.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 398 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 If stormwater discharge is directed off of the site on to adjacent property owners it is the responsibility of the developer to obtain appropriate easements from the affected property owners per Section 251-13 of the Cecil County SWM Ordinance.

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the owners expense.

The requirements of Section 3.07.15 of the Road Code will be extended in this case to address Blue Ball Road from 100 north of the northern entrance to 100 south of the southern entrance, to mitigate the impact of these two entrances. This requirement will be held until the remainder of the development is activated.

The department will require a common entrance at least 25 wide and 60 long with the Lot 1 & 4 drives entering at least 50 from the edge of Blue Ball Road. The perpetual maintenance of this area by the four (4) owners must be reflected in the deeds. The required sight triangles must also be included in this same area. Substantial bank regrading will be required.

All driveways must be paved at least to the right of way and this must be so indicated on the Lot Grading Plan.

A PWA is required for the Roads and Storm Drains.

An I&M Agreement is required for SWM facilities.

No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

Robert Shallcross, 538 Pearl Street, Rising Sun, appeared in both favor and opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. His intent had been to request the Planning Commission to delay the approval of this project, but a meeting has since been scheduled for tomorrow between David Willis, Jr. and Mr. Shallcross to resolve their differences. He verified that only four lots were being considered. How would this effect the remainder of the property? Mr. Walbeck replied these four lots

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 399 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 were approved under the original Concept Plat. The developer may come in at any time and request approval for the remaining lots. Mr. Shallcross stated that he was anticipating that his issues could be resolved. If there are any problems he would be back.

8. Will Whiteman presented The Sanctuary, (Long Creek Ranch, LLC) Elk Forest Road, Concept Plat, Will Whiteman Land Surveying, Inc., Second Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Whiteman advised this project consist of two parcels of land. There was a previously approved concept plan which did not work out for the owners at that time. Therefore, the applicant has returned seeking approval for a proposed 19 lots on Parcel 403. In order to maintain the proposed density of 1/5 the applicant has proposed the addition of 51.04 acres from Parcel 622 to Parcel 403. This will leave a remainder of 28.04 acres reserved by owner for future development or agriculture or forestry.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was NAR which permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres. Bonus density eligibility carries with it a permitted density of 1/3. This Concept Plat proposes 19 lots on 95.002 acres, for a proposed density of 1/5.

A similar Concept Plat for this property was approved on 11/21/94. Per §4.0.9 of the Cecil County Subdivision Regulations, since a Preliminary Plat was not subsequently approved within two (2) years of that date, the 11/21/94 Concept Plat approval no longer has any status.

This proposal was reviewed by the TAC earlier this month under the name Long Creek Ranch.

A boundary line survey must be done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 400 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the Preliminary Plat.

A 25 buffer is required around all non-tidal wetlands present. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland and stream impacts prior to recordation. A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) must be done prior to Preliminary Plat review by the Planning Commission.

The habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided.

15% common open space is required, 69% is proposed.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone.

No sidewalks are recommended.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of Elk Forest Road.

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) was approved for lack of response from the Natural Heritage Service within the required 30 days (Unless the Natural Heritage Service responds within 30 days the FSD is

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 401 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 approved by default, which is what happened in this case). Sensitive species issues shall be addressed in conjunction with the preparation of the PFCP.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat. The details of the PFCP and the Preliminary Plat must match up.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

No road names were provided on the Concept Plat submitted for TAC review. They must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat.

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 402 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 the Cecil County Code and either or both the developer and/or builder may be subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein.)

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

The 30 wide strip to be dedicated in fee simple to the Board of County Commissioners of Cecil County must be provided along the entire developments frontage on Elk Forest Road.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the owners expense.

All driveways must be paved at least to the right of way and so noted on the Lot Grading Plan.

Sight distance measurements must be submitted for all entrances to the DPW to establish compliance with the Cecil County Road Code.

Any applicable Road Code Variances must be requested prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat approval.

What is the proposed disposition of the Fawn Drive ROW shown running through the property? Mr. Whiteman explained from past to current disposition of the ROW. His suggestion has been to extinguish the ROW.

Section 3.07.15 of the Road Code directs that Elk Forest Road must be upgraded for a distance of 100 either side of the point of intersection between Elk Forest Road and the proposed roads.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 403 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Traffic counts taken on Elk Forest Road indicate approximately 1,223 vehicles per day west of McKeown Road. This development is expected to generate an ADT of 190 trip ends per day. When added to the existing volume this development will account for approximately 13% of the new volume on Elk Forest Road.

The department has not had sufficient time to fully investigate the condition of Elk Forest Road to determine what upgrades may be required.

A PWA is required for the roads and storm drains.

An I&M Agreement is required for all SWM facilities.

Mr. Mortimer asked if two entrances were being proposed on to Elk Forest Road, One off of Blue Heron and one off of Whitetail. Mr. Whiteman replied yes. Mr. Mortimer stated the entrance off of Whitetail seems to be very close to the curb. Mr. Whiteman replied the plat was based on a 200 scale. It is 35 mph speed limit and the preliminary work has shown at least a 350 of sight distance. Mr. Woodhull stated that with the curvature and the open field there is pretty good sight distance.

Mr. Brown asked if there was any intent to remove one point of Fawn Drive. Mr. Whiteman replied yes. Discussion continued.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

9. Will Whiteman presented Manks Pond, Oldfield Point Road, Concept Plat, Will Whiteman Land Surveying, Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Whiteman advised the project was on the west side of Oldfield Point Road. Four lots have already been approved, Minor Subdivision #3295. Thirty-seven lots have been proposed for the remaining lands. Mr. Whiteman explained the minor changes that had been made.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 404 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was SR, which permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per one (1) acre. With community facilities, a density of 2/1 would be permitted. This Concept Plat proposes 37 lots on 76.991 acres, for a proposed density of 1/2.08.

A similar Concept Plat for this property was approved on 7/16/01. Per §4.0.9 of the Cecil County Subdivision Regulations, since a Preliminary Plat was not subsequently approved within two (2) years of that date, the 7/16/01 Concept Plat approval no longer has any status.

A boundary line survey must in conjunction with the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes.

Slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the Preliminary Plat.

A 25 buffer is required around all non-tidal wetlands present. Non-tidal wetlands are depicted on portions of proposed lots 37, 40, 41, & in areas of common open space. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland impacts prior to recordation. A JD has been received.

The habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided.

This proposal satisfies the common open space provisions of the SR zone. 11.549 acres of common open space is required; 33.4292 acres are proposed.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 405 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 At a minimum, 15% of the required open space shall not consist of perennial or intermittent stream buffers, nontidal wetlands or buffers, steep slopes, or habitats of rare, threatened and endangered species. No more than 40% of the common open space required shall consist of those areas designated as nontidal or tidal wetlands. These percentages must be verified on the Preliminary Plat submitted for TAC review.

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

20% landscaping of the development envelope is required in the SR zone.

Sidewalks are recommended on at least one side of all internal roads.

A proposed stub road has been extended to Forest Knoll, to the south, consistent with the approved Forest Knoll Concept Plat.

The internal road names will need to be approved by the County 911 Emergency Center prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat. EMS concerns regarding designations, such as drive or road, have been addressed.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of Oldfield Point Road.

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) has been approved.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 406 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space, Cul-de-sac and mid-block turn-around islands must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

A mini-road maintenance association must also be established prior to recordation, with the owners of lots 33 & 37-41 becoming members.

Mr. Woodhull stated a SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan and a Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 407 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the Countys SWM Ordinance.

Section 3.07.15 of the Road Code directs that Oldfield Point Road must be upgraded for a distance of 100 either side of the point of intersection between Oldfield Point Road and Mank Drive.

Since the time we last saw activity on this project Oldfield Point Road has degraded and may not be suitable for the additional 41 lots until the improvements of this road are completed. The Department is just beginning this improvement project. The timeliness of this project is dependent on the time it takes to obtain the required ROWs.

All driveways must be paved at least to the right of way and so noted on the Lot Grading Plan.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the owners expense.

Lot 33 must be denied access to Meadowlark Spur.

A PWA will be required for internal streets and storm drains.

An I&M Agreement is required for all SWM facilities.

Mr. Mortimer questioned were Meadowlark Spur ended at the property line and would it connect to something else. Mr. Whiteman stated that the notation was made per the request of OPZ. Any homes in the vicinity would have to connect to Meadowlark Spur. Mr. Mortimer questioned if this would allow for two multiple entrances for homes to the South. Mr. Whiteman replied yes.

Mr. Mortimer questioned the existing building on Lot 33. Mr. Whiteman replied they were being utilized as a lot.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 408 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Walbeck commented that road names and a north arrow should be added to the site map.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

10. James Keefer presented The Reserve at Elk River, Section 2, Lots 38, 43-48, Oldfield Point Road, Preliminary Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Keefer advised that the Preliminary Plat had been approved for Section 1. The lots before the Planning Commission where not included in Section 1 because of wet weather delaying the perc testing.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was NAR. The Concept Plat was approved on 2/24/03, at a density of 1/3.15 in the NAR portion, and a density of 1/2.76 in the SR portion, conditioned on:

1) It being demonstrated that this design meets the conditions of §200.7 of the Zoning Ordinance, or the design be modified to avoid disturbance to steep slopes in the Critical Area, or a Variance being obtained, prior to the submission of a Preliminary Plat for TAC review;

2) A boundary line survey being completed prior to the TACs review of the Preliminary Plat; and

3) A waiver being granted for both the proposed Rosewood Drive and Winslow Drive will require a waiver of §7.2.12.B.9 of the Subdivision Regulations.

The Preliminary Plat for Section 1, Lots 1-37, 39-42, & 49-60 was approved on 10/20/03, conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) A Final Plat checkprint, containing the FRA boundaries, being approved prior to the review of the Final Plat by the Planning Commission;

4) The FCP and Landscape Plan being approved prior to the review of the Final Plat by the Planning Commission;

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 409 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 5) The details of the FCP and the Final Plat matching up;

6) The trail system being designed to an adjustable barrier to prohibit motor vehicle access to this environmentally sensitive area, except for periodic stormwater management maintenance and possible emergency service response;

7) Sidewalks not being required;

8) The percentage of tree removal being shown on the Final Plat; and

9) A Title Search to determine ownership of the road stub adjacent to proposed Lot 35 being performed, prior to Final Plat review.

In the NAR-zoned portion, this Section 2 Preliminary Plat now proposes 7 lots, in addition to Section 1s 33 lots (30 new) on 129.73 acres, for a proposed aggregate density of 1/3.243. Per the conditions of approval for St. Johns Manor West, 3 lots and 2.5 acres from St. Johns Manor West are included in this density calculation, as shown in Note #10. The proposed NAR density is consistent with the approved Concept Plat density of 1/3.15.

There are no Section 2 lots proposed in either the SR-zoned portion or the Critical Area portion of this development.

To recapitulate, the NAR density must be calculated by adding 3 lots and 2.5 acres (from St. Johns Manor West).

A boundary line survey has been done.

Slopes greater than 25% have been shown.

Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for any non-tidal wetland or stream impacts prior to recordation. The JD was completed on 6/24/03.

The combined Sections 1 & 2 Preliminary Plats satisfy the 60% open space requirement for bonus density eligibility in the NAR zone.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 410 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone.

No sidewalks are recommended.

Rows of street trees with 10 planting easements are required, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of all internal roads in both zones. Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the street tree requirements.

A Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) was previously approved on 2/11/02, and revised FSDs were approved on 2/13/03 and 8/15/03.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) was approved on 9/8/03. No FRAs are proposed to be located on these lots. A note to that effect must appear on the plat.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan were both approved on 6/1/04.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

Access to common open space beside lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space and landscaped islands and/or eyebrows must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 411 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

The Lot Grading Plan must include the standard note addressing the limits of construction. (No clearing or grading is permitted beyond the limits of disturbance show hereon. Any expanded clearing and/or grading in the absence of an approved revised lot grading plan may be considered non-compliance with Chapter 251 of the Cecil County Code and either or both the developer and/or Builder may be subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein.)

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

All Section 1 comments shall address Section 2 also.

No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

Robert Boutin, 69 Duck Hallow Lane, Elkton, appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. He stated in light of the recent flooding, erosion and proposed development along the area, that encompasses the Oldfield Point and Racine School Road, it is his opinion that TIS for the area is long overdue. It was brought to his attention that a study has not been done despite increased development and traffic congestion. Development in this area has put undue stress on the existing infrastructure as a whole. Oldfield Point Road is a dead end road in all aspects except for its continued scrutiny by those who only see it for its real estate value. Because of the fact that the recent developments in the area did not meet the criteria for a TIS there accumulative effect should.

Mr. Walbeck asked what the trigger was for TIS. Mr. DiGiacomo stated technically it is currently 100 lots. The standard developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and used by the SHA is 50. We are moving to that standard.

Mr. Walbeck asked what the total lots in the development were. Mr. DiGiacomo replied 60.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 412 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 11. The Reserve at Elk River, Section 2, Oldfield Point Road, Final Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fifth Election District

WITHDRAWN

12. David Dodge and James Keefer presented Bayhead Shore Estates, Carpenters Point Road, Concept Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Dodge advised the subdivision had formerly been known as Riverside Recreational Resort and Ponderosa Pines Campground. Approximately 40% of the acreage is located in the Critical Area. The project consists of 91 single family dwellings on 43 acres. Water will be provided by Carpenters Point Water Company and public sewer will be provided by CCDPW.

Mr. Keefer asked that the recommendation to connect Carpenters Point Loop, to the northwest into Carpenters Point Road through area Lot 1, not be a condition of the approval of the Concept Plat. The area is wooded and a lot of the area being in the Critical Area. Another issue was the proposed lots in the SR zone and how much land is actually in the SR zone. The applicants are currently in the process of doing a boundary survey to verify the amount of land in the SR zone.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was MH, MB, SR & LDA.

The MH zone permits a maximum density of up to 4/1 with community facilities. This Concept Plat proposes 87 dwelling units on 33.98 MH-zoned acres, for a proposed density of 2.56/1.

There are also 1.73 SR-zoned acres. The SR zone permits a maximum density of up to 2/1 with community facilities, or 4/1 if a PUD. Four (4) dwelling unit are proposed on 1.73 acres, for a proposed SR density of 2.31/1, which is not permitted. One fewer dwelling unit would yield a density of 1.73/1, which is permitted.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 413 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The four (4) proposed SR lots are actually a resubdivision of six (6) lots (#115-#120) in the Carpenters Point subdivision. It is recommended that the title block include the fact that this Concept Plat proposal is, in addition, a revision to the Carpenters Point subdivision.

However, the SR density issue may be moot, as the SR area of the project has apparently been under represented on the plat, contributing to an understatement of the actual SR acreage. That must be resolved on the Preliminary Plat.

There are 5.66 MB-zoned acres, though the MB area of the project may have been over- represented on the plat, contributing to an overstatement of its acreage. That must also be resolved on the Preliminary Plat submitted for TAC review.

30.74 of the 41.368 acres of this site are located within the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area, designated LDA. The LDA overlay zone permits a maximum density of 3.99/1.

A boundary line survey must be done in conjunction with the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes.

Minor Subdivision # 2602 must be referenced on the Preliminary Plat.

In order for lots to be created on a private road, a Variance must first be obtained from the Board of Appeals. Since Carpenter Point Loop is a private road, proposed Lots 62-76 are affected. In addition, the developer must work with DPW to determine the legal and technical logistics of intersecting the proposed Riverside Lane with Carpenter Point Loop.

The Comprehensive Plan and §7.2.12.F.4 (b) of the Subdivision Regulations call for lot access via interior subdivision roads.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 414 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the Preliminary Plat.

The Natural Heritage letter indicates that the site does not contain any FIDS habitat and is not home to any rare, threatened, or endangered species.

15% common open space is required. Areas of common open space must be labeled on the plat submitted for review by the Planning Commission, which has been completed.

At a minimum, 15% of the required open space shall not consist of perennial or intermittent stream buffers, nontidal wetlands or buffers, steep slopes, or habitats of rare, threatened and endangered species. No more than 40% of the common open space required shall consist of those areas designated as nontidal or tidal wetlands. Those threshold calculations must be included on the Preliminary Plat.

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

20% landscaping of the development envelope is required.

Sidewalks are recommended on one side of all internal roads.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of Carpenters Point Road.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 415 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Rows of street trees with 10 planting easements are required, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of all internal roads. Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements. In areas with community facilities, no street trees shall be planted within 20 feet of sewer laterals and cleanouts.

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) and conceptual environmental assessment have been approved, conditioned upon the SR and MB zoning boundary lines being accurately depicted. The Environmental Assessment is required for that area in the LDA zone, which is exempt from the Forest Conservation Regulations per §3.2.B.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

All road names have been approved.

A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) must be done prior to the TACs review of the Preliminary Plat.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 416 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The Master Water & Sewer Plan includes this area as W1 and S2.

The Master Water and Sewer Plan must be amended to change this site to S1 prior to Final Plat review.

Verification of water allocation and sewer capacity must be received prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Final Plat.

As there is no public water currently available at Carpenters Point. Who is the intended provider? Mr. Dodge replied Carpenters Point Water Company.

The Record Plats shall contain a statement signed by the Health Department approving authority; to the effect that use of the community water supply and community sewerage system is in conformance with the Master Water and Sewer Plan. The Record Plats shall also contain a statement, signed by the owner, to the effect that such facilities will be available to all lots/houses offered for sale.

In the critical area, no structure shall exceed 35 in height.

None of the dwellings are proposed within the 100-yr. floodplain.

This is a buffer exempt parcel. A note to that effect must appear on the Preliminary Plat.

The topo and soils information has been included, per §4.0.13 (n).

No more than 15% of the surface area can be converted to impervious surface in the LDA.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 417 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 No more than 20% of the forest or developed woodland may be removed. The area inside the Critical Area is exempt, per §3.2.B, as must be noted on the plat.

Has any consideration been given to having Carpenter Point Loop connect to Carpenter Point Road to the north of proposed Lot 1? Mr. Keefer replied yes consideration has been given.

Mr. Woodhull stated the CCDPW assumes that the water supply for this development will be provided by Carpenters Point Water Company. Therefore we recommend that the Planning Commission condition any approval on the water system being designed and built to County Standards. The water lines must be reflected on the sanitary sewer plans and as-builts.

If stormwater discharge is directed off of the site on to adjacent property it is the responsibility of the Developer to obtain appropriate easements from the affected property owners per Section 251-13 of the Cecil County SWM Ordinance.

The department has concerns about this routing and any possible impacts on adjoining properties.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 418 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

The department strongly recommends that a TIS be required for this development. Traffic counts taken on Carpenters Point Road indicate approximately 1700 to 1800 vehicles per day south of Mountain Hill Road, which is increased to 2800 on holiday weekends. This development is expected to generate an ADT of 910 trip ends per day, which when add to the current traffic load, this development will account for approximately 30% of the new volume.

The requirements of Section 3.07.15 of the Road Code will be extended in this case and the Developer can anticipate requirements for off-site road improvements on Carpenters Point Road from this site to Mountain Hill Road. At this juncture we anticipate the applicant will be required to upgrade the road to Minor Collector Standard

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the owners expense.

Sight distance measurements will be required at all driveway entrances for Lots 1-32 as well as at the Riverside Lane/Carpenters Point Road intersection. These locations must be marked in the field.

The access to Lots 62-65 must be built to Minor road Standard R-6, which will require a cul-de-sac. However, the department recommends that the Planning Commission make the extension of this roadway out to Carpenters Point road in the vicinity of Lot 1 a condition of approval.

Carpenters Point Loop will become County ROW when the sewer main is run along it. For now the County only proposes to stone the surface.

The 50 wide ROW shown for the northern end of Carpenters Point Loop does not agree with the Plat recorded as RRC book 1, folio 35 referenced on this plat or with the Easement Survey conducted for the County in association with the Carpenters Point Sanitary Sewer project. They both indicate a 40 wide ROW.

Special consideration must be given to the type of road proposed for this section of Carpenters Point Loop. The department will recommend that the northern end of Carpenters Point Loop be paved to a width of 14 and made a one-way street, while the remainder of the loop will be a Minor/ Major Road combination.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 419 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Depending on phasing, the department will not accept the internal roads until 80% of all the lots are complete, unless the developer includes a separate, dedicated construction entrance beyond the first phase of construction or provide a Maintenance bond of 50% of the roadway construction costs.

Fee simple ROW along Carpenters Point Road and/or 30 Road Widening and Utility Easement along the west side of Carpenters Point Road exist for much of this section. These are recorded in Land Records and available for the applicant and his engineer.

All driveways must be paved at least to the right of way and this must be so indicated on the Lot Grading Plan. The Lot grading Plan must also reflect each driveways location and configuration.

Any applicable Road Code Variance must be requested prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat approval.

All sewer service must be provided along the county road frontage of each lot.

The department strongly recommends that Lots 1-12 use gravity sewer flow north and be brought through to Carpenters Point Loop to tie into the County main.

Likewise Lots 13-20 would gravity flow to the County pump station proposed at the southwest corner of this development.

A Benefit Assessment as well as Connection Fees will apply for these lots and must be so noted on the plat. Revise Note #12 to read clearly.

A PWA is required for the Roads and Storm Drains.

A PWA will also be required for the Sanitary Sewer.

An I&M Agreement is required for SWM facilities.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 420 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Walbeck questioned the reasoning for the northern end of Carpenters Point Loop being one way. Mr. Woodhull replied currently Carpenters Point Loop is a narrow two way gavel road. He then pointed out the area that would be one way. Discussion followed.

Mr. Williams voiced a concern based on TAC comments and a comment made by MDE stating that Carpenters Point Water Company was just about reached its maximum and this project would require an additional 18,000 to 20,000 gallons a day. Do you have any information? Mr. Dodge replied he had just received additional information and had not had time to run the numbers yet. He noted that the owner of Carpenters Point Water Company is present and could answer any questions.

Mr. Charlie Bowman stated that although the allocations were close they did have the water supply available. One new well had been added but there were no appropriations on the well to date. He has been in contact with MDE and the water appropriations would be improved to allow for further development in Carpenters Point. Due to the fact that public sewage was available there were a lot of vacant lots at Carpenters Point that will require allocations.

Mr. Charlie Bowman, Carpenters Point Water Company, was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. He added that his company had been supplying the campground with water for a long time. He stated that in the last 4½ years alone CPWC had supplied the campground with 8.3 million gallons of water. The beach portion of the property was supplied with 905,000 gallons over the past 4½ years. He estimated water usage total of 32 gallons a minute for the entire campground.

Mr. Williams asked if roof tops where considered impervious surfaces. Mr. DiGiacomo replied yes. Mr. Williams asked if it was possible to add only 15% of impervious surface with 58 proposed lots on 30 acres of LDA. Mr. DiGiacomo replied it would have to be determined at the Preliminary Plat review. Mr. Williams expressed his concern of over half of the lots being placed in Critical Area.

Mr. Walbeck asked what types of structures were allowable in the MH zone. Mr. DiGiacomo stated single family dwellings, single or double wide manufactured homes, tenant houses and guess houses. Other types of structures would require a Special Exception or permitted with conditions.

Mr. Walbeck questioned a comment that Parcel 18 was connected to Cherry Lane. Mr. Keefer replied the tax map showed the connection but their records did not. Note #15 on the plat addresses this issue. They are in the processing of doing a boundary survey

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 421 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Mortimer asked why after suggesting a number of times to connect the upper loop with Carpenters Point Road, had they not done so? Mr. Keefer stated for three reasons. One being the six existing lots could be built today in their present. Two, in order to gain access they would have to go through the Critical Area, which would warrant additional forest removal and impervious surface. Mr. Mortimer questioned why with 91 homes the developer had a problem with a couple 100 of road? Mr. Keefer stated they will not serve the 91 homes. Mr. Mortimer stated the question was relative to safety and accessibility of the complex. The impervious surface thing doesnt wash.

Mr. Walbeck stated if the Carpenters Point Loop was extended to the point that DPW recommended, the probability is that all the homes would be accessed from Carpenters Point Road and not thought the existing Carpenters Point Road that lead down through the Carpenters Point settlement. Therefore it seems advantageous to have added the outlet to Carpenters Point Road. Discussion continued.

Beverly Sanders, 1433 Carpenters Point Road, Perryville, MD, appeared in favor of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. She spoke on several issues impacting this project. She requested clarification of whether or not the widening of the road would go through her property, in addition corrections being made of her property location on the applicants plat. Attempts have been made to contact the developer in relation to the purchase of Parcel 18 by Bayshore Estates with no response. Her deeded beach rights, as well as other neighbors, have not been properly addressed. There is a concern with the water quality (corrosion, lead, etc.) in this area. It was recommended that the developer contact the Sand Cove Civic Group, which controls the accesses to the beaches, park lands and green lands off of the streets, roads, lanes, etc., in relation to the proposed 91 homes. There is a concern with protecting the existing landowners in the Riverside Beach area rights in maintaining access to roads, in particular Water Roads beach right and park land which does not belong to the Sand Cove Community. Ms Sanders would like to receive responses concerning all of the issues noted above.

Diane Carabetta, 1611 Carpenters Point Road, Perryville, MD, appeared in favor of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. She was very much in favor of the development and felt that the value of the surrounding homes would be affected in a positive way. If it felt that the existing community would be best served by having a major exit from the proposed development on to the western side of Carpenters Point Road. She questioned if Circuit Court Case 94081E had been determined. She would like to know what impact Lots 6265 and 1-8 would have the Well Head Protection. Lots 10-16 and 54-57 are greater than 80 in elevation. Given the current height of the water tower at 90, the maximum water pressure, not including line losses and house elevation, would be approximately 17 lbs per square inch which is below the States minimum of 25 psi. There was also a concern with the SWM. The Planning Commission viewed a picture, related to the SWM issue on Ms. Carabettas digital camera. Ms. Carabetta also expressed a concern with the delineation of impervious surface. She would also like to review more details concerning the Critical Area regulations. In addition she would have liked to have seen no sidewalks, in order to decrease impervious surface, but was satisfied with sidewalks on one side. At the building set back Lots 41, 44, 45, 58, 60 and 87 appear to be under the minimum width requirements. It didnt appear on the deed that Ponderosa Pines could access Water Road. The new Lots 62-65 have a right. She mentioned the road widening through Ms. Sanders property.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 422 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Charles Bowman, 25 Laurel Road, Perryville, MD stated he was in favor of the development. A campground should have never been allowed in a residential area. This project will benefit the entire community. All issues have been addressed here today.

William Bernhard, 1430 Carpenters Point Road, Perryville, MD, appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. He stated that upon arrival he was given a number letters both in opposition and raising a number of concerns. Copies of the letters will be attached to the hard copy of the minutes.

Mr. Bernhards noted that he had a concern with the large number of driveways accessing unto Carpenters Point Road. It would be of great help if the driveways currently facing Carpenters Point Road, particularly on the water side, accessed the new roadway. He supports continuing the loop road and coming out onto the other side. It is his opinion that the plan is incomplete because of the inability to determine what was planned on the adjacent properties and the waterfront marina pool area. He would like to see the completed plan in its entirely before fully supporting the project. The idea of 91 homes is good, but no more.

Ed Frailey, 1475 Carpenters Point Road, Perryville, MD, appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. He stated to the Planning Commission his location and concerns to the entrance of the proposed homes. The electricity goes out at the drop of a leaf every time there is a storm. The traffic on the roads is terrible. Mr. Frailey was informed by the developer that the proposed 2½ story houses would block his view of the water, which he has had for 40 years. The water pressure is low. The current water pressure is approximately 17 to 18 lbs.

Jessica Hurt, 308 Carpenters Point Road, appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. She stated her property was not correctly shown on the plat. She does not want to see this huge development on her doorstep. She would prefer fewer homes on a large area. Ninety-one homes and its traffic will be horrendous. Ms. Hurt also expressed a concern with the wildlife being driven from their homes. She spoke of erosion problems and the previous storm.

Berry Green, 1485 Carpenters Point Road, appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. He stated if the campground disappears there would be an increased loss of trees; needed barrier for storms; worsen water erosion, etc. He would like the Planning Commission to consider these issues before rendering a decision.

13. Tim Granger presented Bay View Woods, Old Bayview Road, Concept Plat, American Engineering & Surveying, Inc., Fifth Election District

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 423 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Granger advised this project had been before the June 2004 TAC meeting. A boundary survey has not been completed. Water allocation has been granted by the Town of North East.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was DR which permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per one (1) acre. With community facilities, a density of 4/1 is permitted. This Concept Plat proposes 36 lots, a roadway, and common open space on 12.27 acres, for a proposed density of 2.934/1.

A boundary line survey must be done for the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes.

Any slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the Preliminary Plat.

15% is common open space required; 27.22% is proposed.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 424 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 At a minimum, 15% of the required open space shall not consist of perennial or intermittent stream buffers, nontidal wetlands or buffers, steep slopes, or habitats of rare, threatened and endangered species. No more than 40% of the common open space required shall consist of those areas designated as nontidal or tidal wetlands. Those thresholds must be calculated and included on the Preliminary Plat.

20% landscaping of the development envelope is required in the DR zone.

Sidewalks are recommended on both sides of all internal roads.

Access to proposed Lots 1-7 is recommended from the proposed Bay View Woods Loop in order to reduce the potential for vehicle conflicts. Consideration should be given to having proposed Lots 1-7 fronting on Bay View Woods Lane, as the result of configuration would enhance sense of neighborhood could have a traffic calming effect.

Rows of street trees with 10 planting easements are required, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of proposed Bayview Wood Loop and Bayview Woods Lane. Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements. In areas with community facilities, no street trees shall be planted within 20 feet of sewer laterals and cleanouts.

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the MD DNR.

An FSD for this site has been approved for a previous proposal known as Lands of Dan Banks Co., Inc. The wetlands locations shown on the FSD do not match those shown on the plat.

The details of the PFCP and the Preliminary Plat must match up.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 425 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The Record Plats shall contain a statement signed by the Health Department approving authority; to the effect that use of the community water supply and community sewerage system is in conformance with the Master Water and Sewer Plan. The Record Plats shall also contain a statement, signed by the owner, to the effect that such facilities will be available to all lots offered for sale.

Written verification of water allocation and sewer capacity must be received prior to Final Plat review.

The proposed road names have been approved.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

Mr. Woodhull stated that a SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan, Sanitary Sewer Plan, and a Mass & Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

The existing sediment trap on the Lands of Aston Woods drains across this property. The existing and future impacts of this flow must be considered in the SWM Plan and redirected accordingly. CCDPW understands that the water for this site will be provided by the Town of North East. The department recommends those

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 426 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 plans be designed in accordance with the Cecil County standards and that the water plans be included on the Sanitary Sewer Plans and the as-builts.

Bay View Woods Lane, as shown, extends to and provides access for the adjacent lands of Barry Montgomery. Connectivity between this parcel and Montgomery Oaks, through the remaining lands of Montgomery, appears substantially feasible and should be strongly encouraged. If the Planning Commission endorses the connectivity concept Bay View Woods Lane must be ended in a Tee Turnaround. Otherwise it should be terminated in a cul-de-sac.

All driveways must be paved to the ROW. The Lot Grading Plan must reflect this as a note, as well as the location and configuration of each driveway.

Any applicable Road Code Variances must be requested prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat approval.

Sight distance measurements must be provided to the DPW to establish compliance with the Cecil County Road Code. It should be noted that the safe stopping distances in AASHTO tacitly assumes a straight road section. This must be taken into consideration when evaluating these distances. The sight distance to the south along Old Bayview Road is limited and great care must be taken in locating the access to this site. The proposed entrance should be marked in the field and a site meeting with the engineer, Gary Page, and Mark Woodhull is recommended and sight distance easements may be required on the adjacent lots immediately south of the proposed entrance.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the owners expense.

The applicant must provide as-built information of the connecting sewer (rim and invert elevations, pipe sizes and types) and engineering calculations to demonstrate total and available capacity from Manhole #493 to Manhole #476 of the Stoney Run Interceptor (North East Sanitary Sewer Extension A).

A PWA will be required for internal streets, storm drains, sanitary sewers, and any private utility improvements.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 427 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

Mr. Williams stated that Note #2 stated there would be no disturbance to the intermittent stream buffer, but there was a SWM area just to the west of Lot 7. How can SWM be accomplished with damage being caused to Lot 7? Mr. Grainger replied the open space/SWM would probably be just open space.

Mr. Walbeck asked if there would be any recreational amenities, Tot lots. Mr. Grainger replied that he had spoken to the developers but because of liability issues they where hesitant to put something like that together. Mr. Walbeck suggested HOA.

Mr. Mortimer questioned the price range for the proposed homes. Mr. Grainger replied he did not know.

Mr. Brown asked Mr. DiGiacomo why the driveways were proposed on the back of the houses. Mr. DiGiacomo replied the driveways were depicted where they should be, whether it turns out to be the back or front of the house. If the driveways were on the back of the houses and the fronts of proposed Lots 1-7 were across from proposed Lots, Lots 9-16, then the two fronts would create a better sense for the neighborhood and could therefore help to calm traffic.

Mr. Brown questioned a staggered design, allowing some house to front and some that would not. Mr. DiGiacomo replied that it was a good suggestion, but the Planning Regulations did not address staggered setbacks. It is mentioned in the DR zone of the Ordinance, which this is not.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

14. ______presented The Villages at Cherry Hill, Singerly Road (Rte 213), Leeds Road and Black Snake Road, Concept Plat, Glackin Thomas Panzak, Inc., Third Election District

WITHDRAWN

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

15. Andrew Wishart presented Racine Property, Washington Schoolhouse Road, Preliminary Plat, Wilson Deegan & Associates, Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Wishart advised the property consisted of 181.71 acres. There are two proposed access roads, Washington School House Road and Theodore Road. There are 54 proposed lots, which includes one large lot. A written Road Code Variance has been submitted for Farm Knoll Court.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was NAR which permits a base density of 1 dwelling unit per five (5) acres, or bonus density of 1/3.

The Concept Plat (60 lots on 180.77 acres, at a density of 1/3.01) was approved on 8/19/02, conditioned on:

1) The calculations and LOS projections being revised (to take the athletic fields on Bard Cameron Road into account) the prior to the submission of the Preliminary Plat for TAC review;

2) A boundary line survey being done prior to submission of the Preliminary Plat;

3) Discrepancies in the depictions of wetland and wooded areas being rectified prior to the submission of the Preliminary Plat for TAC review;

4) General and Legend Notes being corrected prior to the submission of the Preliminary Plat for TAC review;

5) Proposed Road names being approved prior to the submission of the Preliminary Plat for Planning Commission review;

6) A Jurisdictional Determination being done prior to Preliminary Plat review by the Planning Commission; and

7) An area table being included in the Preliminary Plat submitted for TAC review.

This Preliminary Plat proposes 54 lots on 181.71acres, and is generally consistent with the approved Concept Plat. Unless this Preliminary Plat is approved beforehand, the Concept Plat approval is set to expire on 8/19/04.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 429 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The Area Table has been included (a condition of Concept Plat approval).

A boundary line survey has been done.

All road names have now been approved.

Although the open space acreages have been reduced, this proposal still qualifies for bonus density eligibility. The proposed large lot, now Lot 36 (was Lot 40), is 50.44 (was 50.5597) acres, but the proposed aggregate common open space appears to exceed the acreage required. The problem is that the figures used are still inconsistent with one another.

For example:

· the General Notes cite a total project acreage of 181.7134, while the Area Summary table cites 181.710;

· the General Notes cite a total open space acreage of 111.867, while the Area Summary table cites 111.791; and

· sheet 3 cites proposed Lot 36s acreage as 50.44, while the Area Summary table cites it as 50.449.

While such discrepancies are minor, they tend to undermine any presumption of data accuracy, and they will, therefore, prevent the Final/Record Plat from being approved.

All common open space areas have been labeled as common open space on all sheets.

The JD has been completed. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland impacts prior to recordation.

Steep slopes have been depicted.

There are no habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 430 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone.

Rows of street trees with 10 planting easements are required, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of all internal roads. The 10 planting easement must be shown and/or noted on the Final Plat. No sidewalks are recommended.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of Theodore and Washington School House Roads.

Bufferyard Standard A is required to be planted along the lot lines of proposed lots 45-47 to buffer adjacent agricultural uses, as shown. The appropriate 100 setbacks have been shown.

Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) has been approved (6/5/02).

The PFCP has been approved, but the Preliminary Plat does not show FRAs. Thus, it is impossible to check for consistency of the details of the FRA boundary on the PFCP against those that should be on the plat.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 431 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 shown on the Record Plat.

The BRL has now been shown on the stub to Washington Schoolhouse Road.

The TIS, dated October 2001 and received on 3/26/02, revealed that local roadways would operate at acceptable LOSs (A,B,C) for Rural Conservation Areas, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan, and recommended several improvements, such as striping the edge of Theodore Road.

Per a condition of the 8/19/02 Concept Plat approval, the TIS calculations and LOS projections had to be revised to take the athletic fields on Bard Cameron Road into account the prior to the submission of the Preliminary Plat for TAC review. Those revisions have been received. They show that all intersections will continue to operate at acceptable LOS.

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments. The identity of the utility associated with the easement must be provided on the Final plat, and documentation of any required formal agreement between the developer and the utility to cross the utility easement must be received prior to Final Plat approval.

Covenants prohibiting the subdivision of the large lot must be recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation. As noted during the Concept Plat reviews, proposed Lot 37 must be denied access to Washington Schoolhouse Road. A note to that effect must appear on the Final Plat.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 432 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 the Cecil County Code and either or both the developer and/or Builder may be subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein.)

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

Access easements for the SWM facilities may need to be widened on the final design.

All driveways must be paved at least to the right of way and so noted on the Lot Grading Plan.

A Road Code Variance request has been made however it must be revised to substantiate the need for a variance.

Drainage improvements will be required both entrances and adequate conveyance must be established at each intersection.

Sight distance measurements must be submitted to the DPW for both entrances in order to establish compliance with the Cecil County Road Code.

Access should be denied to Washington School House Road for Lot 37 and both WSHR and Theodore Road for Lot 36 except for existing entrances.

The potential for inclusion of Dry Hydrants should be discussed with the serving Fire Company. This is all predicated on whether the SWM facilities designed are wet ponds of sufficient volume to support dry hydrants.

It should be noted that the department has obtained traffic counts, in April 2004, on Theodore Road at Stony Run. These counts indicate an ADT of approximately 2270 over a seven-day average with a single day high of 3284. This compares with the ADT expressed in the Revised July 2003 TIS for this road. The departments belief that the Theodore Road corridor, as it stands, will not continue to adequately support existing traffic demands without improvements is reflected in that in the current CIP, substantial road improvements for Theodore Road are projected for design in FY2005 and build in FY2006. However, the actual construction date will depend largely on the Countys timely success in ROW acquisition. With the

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 433 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 proposed 600 ADT increase generated by this development added to the loading on Theodore Road, DPW recommends that approval of this proposed project include off site improvements to Theodore Road along the frontage of the property to full Minor Collector Road status.

A PWA will be required for internal streets and storm drains.

An I&M Agreement is required for all SWM facilities.

Mr. Williams questioned water problems in the area. These residents will be severed by private wells, correct? Mr. Woodhull replied yes. Mr. Williams asked if there was any information from MDE concerning the water situation, or could verify that wells are going dry in the area. Mr. DiGiacomo replied no nothing that was presented at TAC.

Mr. Mortimer questioned the status of Theodore Road. Mr. Woodhull replied that along the entire frontage of Theodore Road, from Washington School House Road to Farmstead Drive, would be required to be upgraded to full minor collector.

Mr. Mortimer questioned the other developments on Theodore Road. Mr. Mortimer stated they will have some offsite requirements.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

16. Candlelight Ridge, Phase 1, Red Toad Road, Final Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fifth Election District

WITHDRAWN

17. Will Whiteman presented Bayview Station, Phase 1, Theodore Road, Preliminary Plat (Mini-Road Subdivision, Will Whiteman Land Surveying, Inc., Fifth Election District

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 434 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Whiteman advised this project was split by Theodore Road, with 13.244 acres on the north side of the road and 10.529 acres on the south side of the road. The north side is proposed to be developed by virtue of a mini road, six lots on the north side of the road and one lot on the south side of the road.

Mr. Brown read the Health Department notes, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was SR which permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per one (1) acre.

The Concept Plat was approved at a density of 1/3.37 on 9/15/03, conditioned on:

1) The Pleasantview Drive road name being approved by the County 911 Emergency Center prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat;

2) A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) being completed prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat;

3) A Boundary Line Survey being done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes;

4) The Bufferyard A and 100 setback being shown on the Preliminary Plat along the rear lots lines of proposed Lots 4, 5 and 6;

5) The details of the PFCP and the Preliminary Plat matching up;

6) All well locations for all proposed lots being shown on the Preliminary Plat;

7) The proposed Lot 7 dwelling location being shifted because of the conflict with a black oak specimen tree; and

8) The developer and the Department of Public Works reconciling a mutually agreeable entrance location for Lots 1-6.

This Preliminary Plat proposes 7 lots on 23.62 acres (for a proposed density of 1/3.37), and is consistent with the approved Concept Plat.

A boundary line survey has been done.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 435 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The perennial stream buffer has been expanded to 160.

The JD has been done. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland impacts prior to recordation. The OPZ has received the letter for the JD but will need a copy of the map.

No open space is required for only 7 lots, although creating common open space in which to locate any stormwater management areas may be desirable. If so, then a Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must also be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

Easements for access across the AT&T easement must be formalized between the developer and AT&T.

20% landscaping of the development envelope is required in the SR zone.

Sidewalks are typically recommended on one side of internal subdivision roads in the SR zone. As a rule, however, sidewalks are usually not recommended for mini-roads. In addition, given the adjacent NAR properties, no sidewalks are recommended in this case.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages on Theodore Rd.

Bufferyard Standard A, including the 100 setback, is required and has been shown along the rear lots lines of proposed Lots 4, 5 and 6.

The Forest Stand Delineation was approved on 5/15/03.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 436 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The PFCP has not been submitted. It is impossible to determine if its details and those of the Preliminary Plat match up.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The road name Pleasantview Drive has been approved.

Proposed Lots 1 & 6 must be denied direct access onto Theodore Road, and proposed Lots 1-6 must all access Theodore Road via only the proposed mini-road. The notes dealing with the lot access will suffice.

A Mini-Road Maintenance Association for maintenance of the proposed mini-road must be established prior to recordation, with the owners of proposed Lots 1-6 becoming members.

Mr. Woodhull stated that a SWM Plan; Street and Storm Drain Plan; and a Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as-built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon.).

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance. This analysis must pay special attention to the adequacy of existing conveyance systems along and across Ron Biggers Road and Theodore Road to handle all discharges from the SWM Facility.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 437 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 hydrants.

In the current CIP, substantial road improvements for Theodore Road are projected for design in FY2005 and build in FY2006. This reflects DPWs belief that the Theodore Road corridor, as it stands, will not continue to adequately support existing traffic demands without those improvements. However, current fiscal challenges are expected to further delay those improvements.

The department recommends that approval of this project include off-site improvements to Theodore Road to full Minor Collector Road status, from the proposed entrance approximately 300 east to and including the crest of the road adjacent to Parcel 137. This includes the reduction of said crest to create a safer traffic condition for the proposed entrance.

Properly designed, the department can accept the proposed entrance location. However, the design must resolve all traffic movement conflicts that the Department has envisioned. The concept presented in the field and in discussions between the Applicant and the department has set the ground rules for what is expected in this regard.

At a minimum a de-acceleration lane with taper will be required along the entire Theodore Road frontage regardless of the Road Code Warrants.

The roadside embankment must be graded in such a manner as to allow drivers on either of the private mini roads to see traffic each other at their respective entrances.

Acceleration and right turn lanes may be required.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the owners expense.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 438 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Significant design consideration must be given to the issue of driveway pipe locations, for Lots 2 & 3, and their impact on the storm water conveyance. Therefore the driveway entrances and associated drain pipe for these two lots must be installed at the same time as the mini-road is constructed. The driveway locations must be located on the Final Plat.

The driveway access to Lot 7 must be kept to the western edge of the property to lessen potential conflicts with other access points on Theodore Road. As such Lot 7 must be denied access to Theodore Road except for the western most 75 of frontage.

A PWA is required for the proposed road and storm drains.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement is required for SWM facilities.

Mr. Whiteman requested a meeting with the engineer and DPW on site. Mr. Woodhull agreed.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 439 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

ITEM B DECISIONS

1. The Reserve at Elk River, Section 1, Oldfield Point Road, Final Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fifth Election District

WITHDRAWN

2. Prelude (Located in Village of Bayview), Subdivision Concept Plat, American Engineering & Surveying, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Mortimer seconded by Williams and unanimously carried to disapprove with the recommendation that the plat be resubmitted once the FSD has been approved.

3. Chesapeake Club Condominium, Section 1, Phase 11, Units 29 & 33, Shady Beach Road, Final Plat, McCrone, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Williams, seconded by Brown and unanimously carried to approve with conditions: (1) Health Department requirements being met; (2) Department of Public Works requirements being met; (3) A note being included on the Record Plat that the owners of these units must become members of the condominium association; (4) Appropriate condominium/road maintenance association documents/instruments being current for the inclusion of the owners of units 29 & 33 as members; and (5) The clarification as to the ownership of maintenance responsibilities for the access road being specified on the Record Plat.

4. The Mews at Northeast Creek, Lots 1-170, Mechanics Valley Road, Concept Plat, McCrone, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Murray to approve. Motion dies for lack of second.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 440 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Motion made by Williams, seconded by Prickett and carried to disapprove based on (1) unresolved traffic issues; (2) Potential negative impacts to water quality; (3) and only one access point.

Brown, Mortimer, Prickett and Williams in favor

Murray opposed.

5. Bracebridge, Lots 1-108, Grove Neck Road, Concept Plat, McCrone, Inc., First Election District

Motion made by Murray, seconded by Brown and carried to approve with conditions: (1) A boundary line survey being done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes; (2) A sensitive species survey being done prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat; (3) A JD being done prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat; (4) A note being placed on the plat to the effect that the Critical Area portion of the property is exempt from the Forest Conservation Regulations, per §3.2B; (5) A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) being completed prior to the TACs review of the Preliminary Plat; (6) A mid-block turnaround being required on Gettysburg Drive (outside of the Critical Area in so far as possible) and a mid-block turnaround being waved on McGill Creek Farm Lane; and (7) Water quality issues being met.

Brown, Mortimer and Murray in favor

Prickett and Williams opposed.

6. Antego, Lots 12-15, Deaver Road, Revised Preliminary Plat, McCrone, Inc., Third Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Murray and unanimously carried to approve with conditions: (1) Health Department requirements being met; (2) DPW requirements being met; (3) All details for the Final Plat and the FCP matching up; and (4) The septic tank being shown outside the FRA on proposed Lot 14.

7. David S. Willis, Jr., Lots 1-4, Blue Ball Road, Preliminary Plat, McCrone, Inc., Ninth Election District

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 441 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Brown and unanimously carried to approve with conditions: (1) Health department requirements being met; (2) DPW requirements being met; and (3) The site location in the vicinity sketch being accurately delineated on the Final Plat.

8. The Sanctuary, (Long Creek Ranch, LLC) Elk Forest Road, Concept Plat, Will Whiteman Land Surveying, Inc., Second Election District

Motion made by Prickett, seconded by Mortimer and unanimously carried to approve with conditions: (1) A boundary line survey being completed in conjunction with the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes; (2) A JD being completed prior to Preliminary Plat review by the Planning Commission; (3) All road names being approved prior to Preliminary Plat review by the Planning Commission; and (4) The details of the PFCP and the Preliminary Plat matching up.

9. Manks Pond, Oldfield Point Road, Concept Plat, Will Whiteman Land Surveying, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Brown, seconded by Murray and unanimously carried to approve with conditions: (1) Road names being approved by the County 911 Emergency Center prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat; (2) A JD being done prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat; (3) A boundary line survey being completed in conjunction with the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes.

10. The Reserve at Elk River, Section 2, Lots 38, 43-48, Oldfield Point Road, Preliminary Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Brown and unanimously carried to approve with conditions: (1) Health Department requirements being met; (2) DPW requirements being met; (3) A note to the effect that no FRAs are proposed to be located on these lots appearing on the plat; (4) The FCP and Landscape Plan being approved prior to the review of the Final Plat by the Planning Commission; (5) The details of the FCP, Landscape Plan and the Final Plat matching up; (6) Sidewalks not being required; and (7) The 10 street tree planting easement being depicted and/or noted on the plat.

11. The Reserve at Elk River, Section 2, Oldfield Point Road, Final Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fifth Election District

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 442 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 WITHDRAWN

12. Bayhead Shore Estates, Carpenters Point Road, Concept Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Brown, seconded by Murray and unanimously carried to approve with conditions: (1) A JD being completed prior to Preliminary Plat review by the Planning Commission; (2) A boundary line survey being completed in conjunction with the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes; (3) The respective zoning acreages being resolved prior to the TACs review of the Preliminary Plat; (4) A TIS being completed prior to the TACs review of the Preliminary Plat; (5) The TIS including an assessment of the safety advisability of having lots directly accessing Carpenter Point Road; (6) The TIS including an assessment of the safety advisability of having the northern section of Carpenters Point Loop, from the intersection with the proposed Riverside Lane east to Carpenters Point Road, function as a one-way street; (7) Having Carpenter Point Loop connecting with Carpenter Point Road; (8) Variances being obtained for any lots proposed on any private roads; and (9)All legal arrangements for connecting the private roads to County roads being outlined at the Preliminary Plats presentation to the TAC and Planning Commission.

Brown, Mortimer and Murray in favor

Prickett and Williams opposed.

13. Bayview Woods, Old Bayview Road, Concept Plat, American Engineering & Surveying, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Prickett and unanimously carried to approve with conditions: (1) A boundary line survey being done in conjunction with the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes; (2) A JD being completed prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat; (3) The details of the PFCP and the Preliminary Plat matching up and; (4) Adequate consideration being given to the including of TOT lots and/or active recreational amenities as part of the common open space.

14. The Villages at Cherry Hill, Singerly Road (Rte 213), Leeds Road and Black Snake Road, Concept Plat, Glackin Thomas Panzak, Inc., Third Election District

WITHDRAWN

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 443 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

15. Racine Property, Washington Schoolhouse Road, Preliminary Plat, Wilson Deegan & Associates, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Brown, seconded by Murray and unanimously carried to approve with conditions: (1) Health Department requirements being met; (2) DPW requirements being met; (3) A Final Plat check print being approved prior to submission of the Final Plat for Planning Commission review; (4) All acreage discrepancies being resolved on the Final Plat; (5) The FRAs being depicted on the Final Plat; (6) A note to the effect that proposed Lot 37 must be denied access to Washington Schoolhouse Road being included on the Final Plat; (7) A note to that effect that proposed Lot 36 cannot be further subdivided appearing on the Final Plat; (8) The FCP and Landscape Plan being approved prior to Final Plat review; (9) All details of the FCP and Landscape Plan matching those of the Final Plat; (10) Documentation of any required formal agreement between the developer and the utility to cross the utility easement being received prior to Final Plat approval; (11) Consistent with §186.1, the 10 street tree planting easement being depicted and/or noted on the Final Plat; and (12) A mid-block turnaround be included on the Final Plat design for Farmstead Drive.

16. Candlelight Ridge, Phase 1, Red Toad Road, Final Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fifth Election District

WITHDRAWN

17. Bayview Station, Phase 1, Theodore Road, Preliminary Plat (Mini-Road Subdivision, Will Whiteman Land Surveying, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Prickett and unanimously carried to approve with conditions (1) Health Department requirements being met; (2) DPW requirements being met; (3) The details of the PFCP and the Preliminary Plat matching up; and (4) the maps accompanying the JD letter being supplied to the OPZ for inclusion into the project file; (5) The proposed dwelling location for Lot 7 be moved because of the content specimen tree; and (6) No sidewalks being required.

There were no further comments.

Meeting adjourned at 4:33 p.m.

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 444 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 NEXT MEETING: August 16, 2004 at TBD in the County Administration Building

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa A. Jones

Administrative Assistant

July 19, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 445 August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m.

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Subdivisions)

PRESENT: Brown, Campbell, Carter, DiGiacomo, Kilby, Moore, Mortimer, Prickett, Sennstrom, Smith, Williams, Woodhull, and Jones

ABSENT: Farrell and Murray

MINUTES: Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Prickett, and unanimously carried to approve the July 19, 2004 minutes as mailed.

1. Will Whiteman and Hank Passi presented EagleAire, Rte 272, Final Plat, Will Whiteman Land Surveying Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Whiteman stated the project was a mini-road subdivision consisting of six lots. Lot 6 will be created around an existing dwelling. All conditions and comments from the Preliminary Plat stage of this project have been addressed. The applicant had previously requested a waiver or variance affording them the option of adding plantings, had the SWM area required such. After conversations with the engineer and DPW it was decided that the easement was not necessary. Therefore a 30 wide Bufferyard C, which is shown crossing Lots 1-3, has been added to the plan.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was SR, which permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per one (1) acre without community facilities.

The Concept Plat was approved on 10/20/03 for 6 lots at a density of 1/2.822, conditioned on:

1) A boundary line survey being completed prior to TAC review of the Preliminary Plat;

2) A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) being completed prior to Preliminary Plat review by the Planning Commission; and

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 446 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 3) No sidewalks being required.

The Preliminary Plat was approved on 6/21/04, conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) The existing dwelling on Lot 6 having an EagleAire Way address;

4) A Landscape Plan with additional plantings required in lieu of the Bufferyard Standard C requirement, which is waived, if necessary.

This Final Plat is consistent with the approved Concept and Preliminary Plats.

The boundary line survey has been done.

The existing dwelling currently has a Turkey Point Road address. Upon approval, Lot 6 must have an EagleAire Way address.

A 25 intermittent stream buffer is required, except in FRAs, where it is expanded to 50, as depicted.

No common open space is required for only 6 lots.

20% landscaping of the development envelope is required in the SR zone.

The Bufferyard C requirement was modified as part of the Preliminary Plat approval.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 447 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

There are no habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species on site.

The FSD, PFCP, FCP and Landscape Plan have been approved.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The mini-road name EagleAire Way has been approved. A Mini-Road Maintenance Association must be established prior to recordation with all lot owners becoming members.

As noted on the plat, proposed Lots 1 and 3 must be denied access onto MD 272.

Mr. Woodhull stated the SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan, and Grading Plan are substantially complete. Only a few administrative issues remain outstanding.

Mr. Williams read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

2. Will Whiteman presented Paradise Streams, Red Toad Road, Final Plat, Will Whiteman Land Surveying Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Whiteman advised this project consisted of seven lots on 19.30 acres of land. All issues have been addressed at the Preliminary Plat stage.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 448 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was NAR w/MEB overlay. The NAR zone permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres. The Concept Plat was approved by the Planning Commission at a density of 1/5.103 on 4/19/04, conditioned on:

1) A sensitive species survey being completed prior to Preliminary Plat approval;

2) A boundary line survey being done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes;

3) Setback modifications being granted for Lots 5, 6, and 7; and

4) The diameter of the bulb on the cul-de-sac being modified to 60.

The Preliminary Plat was approved on 5/20/04, conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met; and

3) The rough leaved asters location and associated buffer appearing on the Final Plat.

This Final Plat is consistent with the approved Concept and Preliminary Plats.

A boundary line has been done.

Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for any non-tidal wetland and stream impacts prior to recordation.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 449 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 No common open space is required for fewer than 10 lots.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of Red Toad Road.

Rows of street trees with 10 planting easements are required, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of the proposed Regal Regency Court.

Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) was approved on 1/13/04.

The PFCP has been approved.

The FCP and Landscape Plan have been approved.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The road name has been approved.

Mr. Woodhull stated the SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan, and Grading Plan were substantially complete. Only a few administrative issues remained outstanding.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 450 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The 40 ROW depicted is acceptable to the DPW and a letter firming this will be sent out this week.

It should be indicated on the plat that the 20 wide utility easement shown for Lots 6 and 7 is private.

Mr. Williams read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

Ms. Kilby stated the plat layout showed the development as being adjacent to Parcel 93, York Building Products, however the smaller tax map showed Parcel 93 as being adjacent to Parcel 31. Where is Parcel 31? Mr. Whiteman replied it was probably Parcel 31 instead of Parcel 93. Ms. Kilby clarified that Parcel 31 was York Building Products.

Mr. Mortimer asked if the nontidal wetlands where unusable. Mr. Whiteman replied pretty much. It is all in forest retention. The owner of Lot 5 will own a lot of nontidal wetlands.

Ms. Kilby asked if the nontidal wetlands would be part of Lot 5. Mr. Whiteman replied yes. Ms. Kilby questioned who would monitor the area for sheds, etc. Mr. Whiteman stated it would be the responsibility of OPZ and would also be noted in the deed. The majority of the lot was nontidal wetland. The forest retention area will have signs and fence post on the property.

Ms. Kilby asked if there were any restrictions for the percentage of nontidal wetlands usage. Mr. Whiteman replied he believed there were restrictions for open space but not for nontidal wetlands. Mr. Sennstrom replied there was no limitation in the NAR or SAR, unlike other residential zones.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

3. William Carroll presented Harrison, John R. (Lands of), Welders Lane, One Year Extension of Concept Plat, William A. Carroll, First Election District

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 451 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Carroll advised the project had received concept approval in August 2002 under a different surveyor. A Preliminary Plat was reviewed by TAC in July 2004. The applicant is requesting an extension to the Concept Plat approval.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was SAR and RCA (Critical Area).

The Concept Plat was approved on 8/19/02, conditioned on:

1) The name Creek Lane being approved prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat;

2) The Title Block being modified to reflect the revision to adjacent subdivisions; and

3) A sensitive species survey being done prior to the TAC review of the Preliminary Plat.

§4.0.9 of the Subdivision Regulations provides that Concept Plats shall be valid for two years from date of approval. Therefore, unless an extension is granted, the Concept Plat approval shall expire on 8/19/04.

§4.0.10 of the Cecil County Subdivision Regulations stipulates, The Planning Commission may, at their regular monthly meeting, grant an extension of the density approval of the Concept Plat for one (1) year upon application of the developer. In connection with such request, the Commission shall consider the following: a) Change in the zoning classification of the property. b) Change in the Zoning Ordinance. c) Change in the Subdivision Regulations. d) Change in the Comprehensive Plan. e) Change in the Critical Area designation of the property. f) Change in the Critical Area program. g) Change in the Forest Conservation Regulations.

There have been no such changes.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 452 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Woodhull stated a SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan and a Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, and Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

The cul-de-sac bulb on Creek Lane is in noncompliance with Standard R-14 of the Road Code. This Standard requires a 75 radius for the cul-de-sac bulb as apposed to the 50 shown.

Remove the line between the Rights of Way for Welders and Creek Lanes. All driveways must be paved at least to the right of way and so noted on the Lot Grading Plan.

A down stream conveyance of stormwater must be analysis as in accordance with Section 251-985 of the Cecil County SWM Ordinance.

A PWA is required for the Road and storm drains.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for any SWM facilities.

Mr. Williams read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 453 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Ms. Prickett questioned the lot numbering duplication of Lots 1, 2, etc. Mr. Carroll replied due to pervious divisions of the property into four tracks of land.

Ms. Prickett asked how many lots where requesting approval. Mr. Carroll replied four with nine new lots.

Mr. Mortimer questioned the lots being continuous. Mr. Carroll replied the subdivisions were separate.

Mr. Mortimer questioned the reasons for the request for an extension. Mr. Carroll replied pervious surveyor and personal issues.

Mr. Brown asked when the applicant would come back before the Planning Commission. Mr. Carroll replied the FSD expires on 10/15/04, therefore next month.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

4. Robert Webb presented Beulah Land, MD Rte 272 & Wheatley Road, Preliminary/Final Re-subdivision of Lot 44A & Add-on, C. Robert Webb, Ninth Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Webb advised that the proposal included one additional building lot and a setback modification from 100 to 50. The 50 setback being consistent with all of the other lots in Beulah Land.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was RR. In response to an inquiry from Mr. Wilson, based upon an extensive review all Beulah Land files, the Office of Planning and Zoning in July 2003 determined that the Beulah Land subdivision had the potential for one additional lot.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 454 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The applicant was advised at that time that the creation of an additional lot would require a resubdivision plats being reviewed by the TAC and the Planning Commission. This proposal was reviewed by the TAC earlier this month.

A boundary line survey has been done. An access permit has been issued by SHA.

Common open space is not an issue in this case.

Per Article VI, Schedule of zone regulations, the minimum front setback along arterial roads in the RR zone is 100. The applicant is requesting a modification of the minimum setback requirement.

This Proposal is exempt from the Forest Conservation Regulations per §s 3.2K and 3.2N. The 3.2K exemption has been noted on the plat.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the RR zone.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontage of North East Road (MD 272).

Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard requirements.

The Landscape Plan has been approved.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

A note must appear on the Record Plat to the effect that because the full Beulah Land subdivision potential is exhausted with the recordation of this lot, there can be no further subdivision.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 455 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The owner(s) of the new lot must become members of the Homeowners Association with $50 for this recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

Mr. Woodhull stated a SWM Plan has been technically approved and only administrative issues remain outstanding. All other DPW requirements had been satisfied.

Mr. Williams read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. Williams questioned Lot 44Cs proposed driveway. It looks like it is going through the septic and drain field. Is this ok with the Health Department? Mr. Moore replied there was no problem.

Ms. Kilby stated she had received an email from a neighbor inquiring if the proposed use of this property would be for an assistant living facility and if so would it require a special exception. Mr. Webb replied he was not familiar and the owner was not present. They were only requesting a building lot approval at this time.

Mr. Brown asked if the special exception would require a different meeting. Mr. DiGiacomo replied up to eight residents in the RR would not require a special exception. Between 9 and 15 residents, 15 being the maximum, would require a special exception.

Ms. Kilby asked if Beulah Land had previously SWM drainage issues. No one was familiar any problems.

No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

Linda Hunt, 44 Wheatley Road, appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. She stated she had lived at her present residence for 18 years. The development has had a lot of septic trouble. Three adjacent properties to Ms. Hunt have failed. Other various surrounding septic have required work. Therefore she is worried by an additional septic. Another concern was water runoff. A picture (Exhibit A) was submitted by Ms. Hunt showing the area where the new septic would be located. What is the definition of an assistant living facility and would it attach the septic system issue even more.

David Landers, 21 Roberts Way, appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Landers stated he had to replace his septic system approximately one year ago. He questioned how it had perc in the beginning. He verified what Ms. Hunt had stated in reference to Exhibit

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 456 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 A. His concerns are with the drainage system and septic system.

Mr. Mortimer asked if the residents comments would be considered. Mr. Brown asked Mr. Carter, DPW, to address some of the issues. Mr. Carter addressed the SWM issues. Mr. Moore addressed the septic issues.

5. Robert Webb, Thomas and Jane Garvin presented Thomas & Jane Garvin, New Bridge Road, Preliminary/Final Plat, C. Robert Webb, Eight Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Webb advised they were proposing one new lot for a family member. It is a single dwelling with onsite water and sewage. There will be a 30 wide bufferyard on the north side of New Bridge Road. SWM exemption has been granted.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was NAR which permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres. Bonus density eligibility carries with it a permitted density of 1/3. This Preliminary/Final Plat proposes one (1) new lot plus remaining lands on 46.1947 acres, for a proposed density of 1/23.1.

A boundary line survey has been done.

§4.0.1 of the Cecil County Subdivision Regulations allows for the elimination of the Concept Plat if a proposed subdivision following the major subdivision review and approval process consists of fewer than 10 lots and fewer than 25 acres. In addition, §2.0 allows for a combined Preliminary/Final Plat if there are between 1 and 5 lots.

No steep slopes depicted on the site.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 457 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 A 110 perennial stream buffer is required from any perennial streams present. This buffer shall be expanded to include contiguous areas of hydric soils, highly erodible soils, and soils on slopes greater than 15% -- to a maximum distance of 160.

The habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided.

No common open space is required for fewer than 10 lots.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone.

No sidewalks are recommended.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontage of New Bridge Road. Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard requirements.

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

The plat notes that this project is exempt from the Forest Conservation Regulations per §3.2K. Mr. DiGiacomo asked if this lot proposed for an immediate family member. Ms. Garvin replied yes.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the Landscape Plan has been approved. A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The road widening and utility easement statement adequately addresses the road widening easement required per §7.2.12.A, but not the fee simple dedication required on the proposed lot.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 458 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Woodhull stated a SWM Exemption had been approved for this site based on the disturbance of less than 5,000 square feet in constructing this dwelling. Any disturbance in excess of this limit will require a SWM plan submittal.

All other DPW requirements had been satisfied.

Mr. Williams read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

6. Tim Whittie and Mr. Downs presented The Reserve at Elk River, Section 1, Lots 1-37, 39-42, & 49-60, Oldfield Point Road, Final Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Whittie advised Phase 1, Lots 1-37 and 39-42, preliminary was approved in September of 2003. Road, storm drains, SWM, sediment control plan have technically approved. All bonds on DPW agreements have been submitted for approval. The JD was submitted. The TIS was approved The FCP and LSP have been approved. The landscape agreement was submitted on 8/16/04. The landscape bond is in the OPZ. The well appropriation permit has been approved. A well variance has been requested.

Mr. Smith recused himself, as he is an adjacent property owner.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was NAR, SR, LDA (Critical Area).

The Concept Plat was approved on 2/24/03, at a density of 1/3.15 in the NAR portion, and a density of 1/2.76 in the SR portion, conditioned on:

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 459 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 2) A boundary line survey being completed prior to the TACs review of the Preliminary Plat; and

3) A waiver being granted for both the proposed Rosewood Drive and Winslow Drive will require a waiver of §7.2.12.B.9 of the Subdivision Regulations.

The Preliminary Plat for Section 1, Lots 1-37, 39-42, & 49-60 was approved on 10/20/03, conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) A Final Plat checkprint, containing the FRA boundaries, being approved prior to the review of the Final Plat by the Planning Commission;

4) The FCP and Landscape Plan being approved prior to the review of the Final Plat by the Planning Commission;

5) The details of the FCP and the Final Plat matching up;

7) Sidewalks not being required;

8) The percentage of tree removal being shown on the Final Plat; and

9) A Title Search to determine ownership of the road stub adjacent to proposed Lot 35 being performed, prior to Final Plat review.

Per condition #3 of Preliminary Plat approval and a Final Plat checkprint was submitted for review.

This Section 1 Final Plat is generally consistent with the approved Concept and Preliminary Plats.

The NAR zoned portion, this Section 1 Final Plat now proposes 33 lots (30 new) on 129.73 acres, for a proposed density of 1/3.931. Per the conditions of approval for St. Johns Manor West, 3 lots and 2.5 acres from St. Johns Manor West are included in this density calculation, as shown in Note 10. The proposed NAR density is consistent with the approved Concept and Preliminary Plats density of 1/3.15.

The SR zoned portion, this Section 1 Final Plat now proposes 23 lots on 64.3 acres, for a proposed density of 1/2.795. That calculation is based upon the subtraction of 23.87 acres, increased from 23.53 acres of

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 460 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 previously reserved land because of the survey that was conducted. The proposed SR density is consistent with the approved Concept and Preliminary Plats density of 1/2.76.

No development is proposed, or can be permitted, on the reserved 23.87 acres that were used for the St. Johns Vista subdivision density calculation, upon which that Final Plat was approved on 9/19/89.

To recapitulate, the NAR density must be calculated by adding 3 lots and 2.5 acres (from St. Johns Manor West), and the SR density must be calculated by subtracting at least 23.53 acres (reserved as part of St. Johns Vista, Lots 1-22).

A portion of the SR zoned portion; approximately 68 acres, lies within the LDA classification or overlay zone of the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area District, which has an impervious cover limitation of 15%.

The boundary line survey, done in conjunction with the preparation of the Preliminary Plat, resulted in the elimination of the isolated rectangle of land near the western end of this property.

On the Record Plat, all references to the Critical Area must include the specific LDA designation.

That information was included on the plat. As noted on the plat, for proposed lots one acre or less in size (1, 3-5, 7, 9-10, 12-15, 17 & 20-22) the impervious cover limitation is 25% (§200.8.a). The 15% impervious cover threshold applies to the entire portion of the subdivision within the Critical Area and those proposed lots greater than one acre in size.

An environmental assessment associated with a prior proposal was previously reviewed, and no rare, threatened, or endangered species inhabit the site, though the forested areas contain FIDS habitat

The Critical Area Buffer, and all expansions thereof, and the location of the mulched path have been shown. The location of the expanded buffer in conjunction with the previously-approved location of the mulched path together provided a specific access route to the shore that would not adversely affect this sensitive environment.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 461 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 pointed out, however, that a Variance would be required for any development in the Critical Area on slopes greater than 15%, and that the Commissions staff would not support a variance for development on lots in the Critical Area where disturbance to steep slopes is proposed.

§200.7 of the Zoning Ordinance stipulates that Development on slopes greater than fifteen (15) percent shall be prohibited unless such development is demonstrated to be the only effective way to maintain or improve slope stability.

In correspondence dated 7/18/03, the consultant analyzed the fragmented slope areas and justifications for respective impacts. Staff found the analysis reasonable, and, therefore, no variance was required.

No development is permitted in the tidal wetlands and tidal waters buffers, including septic systems, impervious surfaces, parking areas, roads, or structures.

No more than 20% of the forest or developed woodland may be removed. When less than 15% of the site is in forest cover, at least 15% of the gross site area shall be afforested.

During the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat, the question of precisely how much forest cover was proposed to be removed and/or reforested. As a result, one of the conditions of Preliminary Plat approval was that this percentage was to be included as a note on the Final Plat. It has not, but must appear on the Record Plat.

In the critical area, no structure shall exceed 35 in height.

Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for any non-tidal wetland impacts prior to recordation. Areas of wetlands and/or buffers are depicted on proposed Lot 8. The JD was completed on 6/24/03.

This proposal continues to satisfy the 60% open space requirement for bonus density eligibility in the NAR zone. In the SR zone, the sensitive areas in common open space calculations were included on the Preliminary Plat. Common open space must be so labeled.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 462 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone. Twenty percent (20%) landscaping is required in the SR zone.

Sidewalks are usually recommended along one side of all internal roads in the SR zone. However, a significant portion of the proposed Rosewood Drive is located in the Critical Area where we seek to minimize impervious cover, and the NAR portion of the project will not have sidewalks. Therefore, the Preliminary Plat approval carried with it, no requirement for sidewalks, in the interest of minimizing adverse impacts to this sensitive area and for the sake of design consistency.

A Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) was previously approved on 2/11/02, and a revised FSD was approved on 2/13/03. The PFCP was approved on 9/8/03. The FCP and Landscape Plan were approved on 6/1/04. A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The portion of the site within the Critical Area is exempt under §3.2B of the Cecil County Forest Conservation Regulations, as noted on the plat.

Access to common open space between and beside lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

It has been determined that the .474 acres labeled Holt Farm Lane remains in the ownership of the Holt family. In a communication received on 7/12/04, it is proposed that the Holt family will retain ownership. A note to that effect should appear on the record Plat, so that Holt Farm Lane is never assumed to be an approved, buildable lot.

Mr. Woodhull stated the Final Plat submittal, as originally submitted for DPWs review, had serious omissions of critical information. The drainage and utility easements on several lots were not reflected on the Final Plat. The requirement to indicate these easements on the Final Plat is for creating their legal standing when recorded as well as to identify encumbrances on effected lots to potential buyers and owners. These

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 463 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 easements provide protection to stormwater conveyances required to meet the approved SWM Plan. The Department received a revised Final Plat on Wednesday, 8-11-04, identifying the previously omitted easements, however we have not had sufficient time to verify that they do indeed encompass the adequate areas required to provide for maintain/repair of the conveyance systems. The DPW will not sign the Final Plat until these issues are addressed to the satisfaction of the Department. Our comments on the originally submitted Final Plat are as follows.

The Final Plat must reflect all easements required for stormwater conveyance identified on the SWM Plans, Road & Storm Drain Plans, as well as the Lot Grading Plans. These plans identify drainage conveyance immediately adjacent to or on lots that must be protected by easements that will impact the use of these areas. Lots 3-6, 8, & 49 at a minimum will be impacted by this requirement.

Dimensions for the widths of all easements must be identified on the plat.

Where appropriate stormwater conveyance easements must be clearly identified as being private and as such belonging to the HOA.

All SWM Areas must be clearly identified on the plat.

The full extent of the access required through the easement between Lots 59 & 60 must be identified on the plat so that potential buyers of these lots are aware that a 12 wide stone access road will be located on their property. The proximity of the well for these lots to the proposed access road for SWM Pond #3 presents a potential hazard in that heavy equipment may need to use this access and could damage the well heads. The Department recommends that all SWM inspection and maintenance access be provided via common open space, where feasible, to avoid potential conflicts with affected lot owners.

The SWM Plan, Street and Storm Drain Plan, and a Mass and Final Grading Plan are technically approved and only administrative issues remain outstanding.

Final Plat 2, Section 1 contains an incorrect plat reference in the note adjacent to Lot21. The area being referenced is shown on Plat 1 not, 3.

Rock Hollow Court must be built out in its entirety in Phase 1.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 464 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The existing Holt Farm Lane should be required as a temporary construction entrance until all lots on Rock Hollow Court are built-out. A similar temporary construction entrance accessing the Rosewood cul-de-sac directly from Oldfield Point road should be required until Lots 9-17 are built-out. The Department recommends that these entrances be made a condition of Final Plat approval.

The routing of the mulch path adjacent to the rear of Lot 10 must be reconfigured to pass behind Lot 9 in order to prevent the requirement that residents cross a rip rap drainage inlet for the SWM pond.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

A PWA will be required for internal streets and storm drains.

Mr. Williams read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. Williams questioned Plat 3 submittal. Mr. Whittie replied Plat 3 contain wet weather perc.

Ms. Kilby asked for clarification of the submittal made on Wednesday, after the Monday deadline which contained corrections. Mr. Whittie stated he had resubmitted the plats to DPW allowing them to address the corrections prior to the PC meeting. Ms. Kilby questioned the time span with both the large number of items on the agenda and a three day window for DPW to review the corrections.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

7. Tim Whittie and Mr. Downs presented The Reserve at Elk River, Section 2, Lots 38 & 43-48, Oldfield Point Road, Final Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Whittie advised these lots had been removed from the approved preliminary plan due to wet perc requirements. The proposed lots would utilize the roads and SWM facilities approved by DPW. FCP and Landscape Plan have been approved. The JD has been approved. The TIS has been approved inclusive of these lots. The well appropriation permit was approved. The well variance has been applied for through the Health Department.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 465 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Smith recused himself, as he is an adjacent property owner.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated Zoning: NAR, SR, LDA (Critical Area)

The Concept Plat was approved on 2/24/03, at a density of 1/3.15 in the NAR portion, and a density of 1/2.76 in the SR portion, conditioned on:

2) A boundary line survey being completed prior to the TACs review of the Preliminary Plat; and

3) A waiver being granted for both the proposed Rosewood Drive and Winslow Drive will require a waiver of §7.2.12.B.9 of the Subdivision Regulations.

The Preliminary Plat for Section 1, Lots 1-37, 39-42, & 49-60 was approved on 10/20/03, conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) A Final Plat checkprint, containing the FRA boundaries, being approved prior to the review of the Final Plat by the Planning Commission;

4) The FCP and Landscape Plan being approved prior to the review of the Final Plat by the Planning Commission;

5) The details of the FCP and the Final Plat matching up;

7) Sidewalks not being required;

8) The percentage of tree removal being shown on the Final Plat; and

9) A Title Search to determine ownership of the road stub adjacent to proposed Lot 35 being performed, prior to Final Plat review.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 466 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The Section 2 Preliminary Plat was approved on 7/19/04, conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) A note to the effect that no FRAs are proposed to be located on these lots appearing on the plat;

4) The FCP and Landscape Plan being approved prior to the review of the Final Plat by the Planning Commission;

5) The details of the FCP, Landscape Plan and the Final Plat matching up;

6) Sidewalks not being required; and

7) The 10 street tree planting easement being depicted and/or noted on the plat.

In the NAR-zoned portion, this Section 2 Preliminary Plat now proposes 7 lots, in addition to Section 1s 33 lots (30 new) on 129.73 acres, for a proposed aggregate density of 1/3.243. Per the conditions of approval for St. Johns Manor West, 3 lots and 2.5 acres from St. Johns Manor West are included in this density calculation. The proposed NAR density is consistent with the approved Concept Plat density of 1/3.15.

There are no Section 2 lots proposed in either the SR-zoned portion or the Critical Area portion of this development.

To recapitulate, the NAR density must be calculated by adding 3 lots and 2.5 acres (from St. Johns Manor West).

This Section 2 Final Plat is generally consistent with the approved Concept and Preliminary Plats.

The proposed lot numbers are not included in the title blocks, as required in §4.2.13 (a) 4. They must be included on the Record Plat.

A notation that there are no Forest Retention Area boundaries on these lots needs to be included on the Record Plat.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 467 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for any non-tidal wetland or stream impacts prior to recordation. The JD was completed on 6/24/03.

The combined Sections 1 & 2 Preliminary Plats satisfy the 60% open space requirement for bonus density eligibility in the NAR zone.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone.

No sidewalks are required per condition #6 of Preliminary Plat approval.

A Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) was previously approved on 2/11/02, and revised FSDs were approved on 2/13/03 and 8/15/03.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) was approved on 9/8/03. No FRAs are proposed to be located on these lots. A note to that effect must appear on the plat.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan were both approved on 6/1/04.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

Access to common open space beside lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

Consistent with §4.2.13 (i), the areas of the proposed lots under one acre in size have been expressed in square feet.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 468 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space and landscaped islands and/or eyebrows must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

Mr. Woodhull noted as previously stated the Section 1 Final Plat originally submitted for DPW review had critical information omitted. DPW received the revised Final Plat on Wednesday, 8/11/04 identifying the previously omitted easements, however they have not had special time to review them.

The SWM Plan; Street and Storm Drain Plan; and a Mass and Final Grading Plan are technically approved and only administrative issues remain outstanding.

Drainage easements must be identified on Lots 46-48 to correspond with stormwater conveyance identified on the Lot Grading Plan and the SWM Plan.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

A PWA will be required for internal streets and storm drains.

Mr. Williams read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

8. David Dodge and Donald Sutton presented The Mews at Northeast Creek, Lots 1-170, Mechanics Valley Road, Revised Concept Plat, McCrone, Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Dodge advised that due to the July 04 Planning Commission disapproval of the Concept Plat improvements had been made. Thirty or so lots backing up to the existing railroad tracks have been removed. The applicant may convey the 40 acres on the northern side of the tracts to adjacent property owners or land trust. Existing access to the tracks would be closed and posted. Tract 3 has been offered to the adjoining property owner. The updated TIS concluded that the key intersections and road sections will continue to operate in an expectable level of service. Mechanics

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 469 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Valley Road does not appear to be overloaded with the traffic volume standpoint. The intersection of Mechanics Valley Road and Bouchelle Road could be improved by the installation of proper signage, new guardrail and street lighting. The SHA concurs with the TIS findings in a letter to the OPZ dated 7/26/04. Access onto Route 40 can not be obtained at this time. They have diligently pursued the access for a long period of time and have met with the landowner on at least four occasions. Mr. Dodge went on to speak on the SR zoning.

Mr. Sutton stated the SWM facility will use best management practices to minimize the effect on downstream conveyance based on the State and County guidelines. A redesign has been completed to show a divided entrance.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was SR which permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per one (1) acre, or two (2) dwelling unit per one (1) acre with community facilities. This Concept Plat proposes 170 lots on 217.3 acres, for a proposed density of 1/1.275 for the whole property, or 1/1 for Tract 1s 170.7 acres.

This layout differs from previous ones in that the proposed Vista Creek and South Falls Drives form an interior loop road.

Note #15 indicates that a boundary line survey has already been completed.

Slopes greater than 25% must be shown again on the preliminary plat. Steep slopes have been depicted.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 470 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 maximum distance of 160.

A 25 buffer is required around all non-tidal wetlands and intermittent streams present. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland impacts prior to recordation. A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) must be done prior to Preliminary Plat review by the Planning Commission.

53.2% common open space is proposed. Fifteen percent (15%) is required. Consideration should be given to exploring possible greenway and hiking trail linkages, especially in the open space along the Northeast Creek. Such linkages could include the East Coast Greenway and the Mason Dixon Trail.

Access to the forest conservation area to the north of the CSX rail line is problematic. That is a Class 1 main line. Pedestrian crossings would not be safe and are not permitted.

Tracts 2 and 3 are shown as to be conveyed to adjoiners. Should Tracts 2 or 3 be developed or sold off, then that could affect the density, common open space, forest conservation, and/or other calculations.

Protective fencing is recommended around the stormwater management areas, especially those near designated recreation areas. Such protective fencing should be included in the Public Works Agreement.

With respect to those recreation areas, if playground equipment is proposed, then it, too, should be included in the Public Works Agreement.

A notation on the plat indicates that the AT&T easement will be relocated to align with proposed roads.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 471 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Twenty percent (20%) landscaping of the development envelope is required in the SR zone.

Sidewalks are recommended on at least one side of all internal roads, the names of which all have been approved.

Mr. DiGiacomo asked how many parking spaces are proposed for each lot. Are they proposed to be off-street? Mr. Sutton replied two off street.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the frontages on Mechanics Valley Road and the Pulaski Highway. Note #18 indicates that a waiver of the Bufferyard C requirement is being requested. This relates to sight distance issues.

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) was approved 12/5/03. The site is not home to any rare, threatened, or endangered species.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 472 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 shown on the record plat.

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space and common facilities must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

The Final and Record Plats shall contain a statement signed by the Health Department approving authority; to the effect that use of the community water supply and community sewerage system is in conformance with the Master Water and Sewer Plan. The Record Plats shall also contain a statement, signed by the owner, to the effect that such facilities will be available to all lots offered for sale.

Verification of sewer capacity must be obtained from the Cecil County Department of Public Works prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission.

Verification of water allocation must be obtained from the Town of North East prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission.

The TIS has been updated to reflect the reduced number of proposed lots and the boulevard-style entranceway. The original TIS revealed that the proposed 216-lot development would create a level of service (LOS) at the US 40 and Mechanics Valley Road intersection below what the Comprehensive Plan deems acceptable for this area. In addition, the TIS recommended that the developer pursue the construction of an additional southbound lane along Mechanics Valley Road. This additional lane would allow for on exclusive left turn lane and one shared thru and right turn lane.

The updated TIS, dated June 2004, concluded that:

· The key intersections and road section will continue to operate at acceptable LOS;

· The intersection of Mechanics Valley and Bouchelle Roads could be improved with enhanced signage, a new guardrail, and possibly new intersection lighting.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 473 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 As stated at the 8/4/04 TAC review, staff recommends that access onto US 40 be obtained. That would enhance the layout from both the urban design (including pedestrian access to future transit service) and emergency access management standpoints. A future access through the lands of Futty to US 40 has been shown, beyond the cul-de-sac on the proposed Vista Creek Drive.

Comments dated 7/30/04 were received from the North East Fire Company on 8/4/04, but too late for them to have been included in the TAC review. They state: The blueprints for the Mews at North East need two entrance ways in the event of an emergency and an evacuation needs to take place. Also, hydrants are a big concern due to the close proximity of the railroad. Hydrants can be tied into existing water in Timberbrook by going across the North East [sic] Creek.

Fire hydrant/standpipe locations should be shown on the Preliminary Plat, and they should consistent with DPW regulations and recommendations by the North East Volunteer Fire Company.

Mr. Woodhull stated that it should be noted for the record that it is the Departments understanding that the Town of North East will own the water distribution system in this development. The CCDPW recommends that the water distribution system including fire hydrant locations be designed to meet or exceed the Countys standards. We also recommend that the Town request that the serving fire company review fire hydrant spacing and locations.

The water lines must be reflected on the sanitary sewer plans and as-builts.

A SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan, Sanitary Sewer Plan and a Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, and Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 474 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Sight distance measurements must be provided to the DPW to establish compliance with the Cecil County Road Code.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the owners expense.

Any applicable Road Code Variance must be requested prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat approval.

The phasing of this development will significantly impact the competency of the roadways in completed sections because of the potential for large amounts of construction traffic accessing later sections. Subsequently, a phasing plan must be submitted for use in developing a plan for when internal road sections will be accepted by the County and the magnitude of maintenance bonds that will be required as well as the time frame over which they will be held.

All lots must front Minor Roads wherever possible.

All driveways must be paved at least to the right of way and those accessing Valley Vista Drive, Vista Creek Drive, South Falls Drive, and Branch Court must be provided with turnaround capability. All of this must be so indicated on the Lot Grading Plan.

Lot frontage dimensions dictate that closed section road is used. Modified curb and gutter may be used internally, but standard 7 curb will be required for the entrance(s) from at least the PCs.

Lots 2 & 68 must be denied access to Valley Vista Drive.

The DPW concurs with terminating Vista Creek Drive in a temporary Tee-Turnaround. However, the Department strongly recommends that the Planning Commission require that the 60 ROW indicated from

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 475 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 this Tee-Turnaround to the Lands of Mabel Futty be identified as a paper street providing for the proposed future connection to MD Route 40. The Intermediate Turnaround shown will not be required and should be removed from the plat.

The Route 40 pump station has no more capacity and sewer allocation cannot be made until it is upgraded. Mechanics Valley LLC has executed an agreement with the Board of County Commissioners that, if successfully completed, will provide build-out capacity for the area identified by the Department as the MD Route 40 corridor. The agreement projects completion of the new station by February 2006.

The Department recommends that the Town require a PWA for the water line.

The County will require PWAs for the internal streets & storm drains and sanitary sewer work as well as an I&M Agreement for all SWM facilities.

Mr. Williams read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. Smith directed his question to DPW. What is the long term plan for Mechanics Valley Road and the railroad bridge in terms of widening or realigning? Mr. Carter replied there were no future plans.

Ms. Prickett asked if the project was approved would Tract 2 be limited in its further development. Mr. Sutton stated it would be deeded as such with forest conservation restrictions on it.

Mr. Williams asked if Tract 3 would have an easement on it as well. Mr. Sutton replied that it had its own set of environmental guidelines, floodplain etc and therefore would also have deed restrictions.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 476 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Mortimer referenced the TIS. He noted the amount of homes being reduced. Mr. Mortimer asked if the Bouchelle Road improvements where a requirement. Mr. DiGiacomo stated it was a recommendation. Mr. Mortimer asked it the developer would be responsible for the Bouchelle Road improvements at the intersection. Mr. DiGiacomo replied, typically yes. Mr. Carter replied yes, as DPW had no plans in their capital improvement program to address it.

Mr. Mortimer stated that the applicants had worked hard on the plan. Mr. Mortimer asked the applicants to comment on what they felt was the reason for Mrs. Futtys resistance. Mr. Dodge stated Mrs. Futtys husbands, who had since passed away, purchased the land, which included two acres along the two bridges on Rte 40 in the 1950s. It was her desire to hold on to the land for as long as she was living. She has granted the applicants an easement to bring in the utilities (sewer, water, electric, etc) but she will not allow the roadway to come through her front yard. Mr. Sutton stated in talking with State Highway the entrance was better because it was so close to the bridge area. Mr. Dodge stated there was no monetary value that could change Ms. Futtys decision. The applicants had proposed to give Mrs. Futty, in return for the one acre, public water and sewer to her existing home, two acres to the north which they would build her a new home. Mrs. Futtys reply was no thank you. Discussions followed concerning the possibilities of gaining access of the property adjacent to Rte 40.

Mr. Williams asked if the applicants were opened to evaluating some innovating approaches to stormwater, such as constructed wetlands versus the typical pond. Mr. Carter replied yes. Mr. Dodge replied yes it was very interesting and he was sure the engineer would look into it. Discussion followed concerning SWM.

No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

Faye Weaver, 521 Bouchelle Road, appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. She stated one of her biggest concerns with this proposed development was safety of the country roads. There is already a horrendous amount of traffic, 10 wheelers, coming from the hot mix plant and quarry, which is one mile away. While setting in the driveway, across from the property, for one hour Ms. Weaver counted 127 10-wheelers traveling at a high rate of speed and loaded to the max. This number does not include cars, pickups and vans. These trucks begin at 5:00 am and end between 5:00 and 6:00 pm. When 127 is multiplied by 12 hours the number is 1524 10-wheelers. Again this does not include cars, pickup or vans. Four trucks have overturned in a space of 1½ miles on Mechanics Valley Road and Bouchelle Road, dumping their loads onto the actual roads and shoulders of the road. The ridge immediately above the property and the knoll parallel to the property, as Mr. Woodhull has previously mentioned, does not allow safe stopping distance for a car, let alone a heavily laden truck traveling at a high rate of speed. As often is the case developers come out of county and will never have to deal with the safety issue and the amount of traffic those of us who live on this road must endure every day. There are no shoulders on the road and she is concerned that the County may find it necessary to improve the road, which would require taking land from landowners. This should not be allowed in order to satisfy the needs of a developer. In her opinion very little has changed since the last time this proposal came before the Planning Commission. The issues remain the same. She strongly urged the Planning Commission to consider the

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 477 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 safety factor on this road when making their decision.

Rodney Gulberson, 785 Mechanics Valley appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. He stated he was the closest resident to the project, separated only by a farm lane or his lane. He was concerned with the safety of the railway and the traffic on Mechanics Valley Road. If this project is approved should Mechanics Valley Road be considered the drag strip of Maryland?

Lynn Campbell, 752 Mechanics Valley Road, appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. She stated the issues regarding this proposed development were multiple. This large piece of property sets on primarily sloping land. She is concerned with runoff into the North East Creek that empties into the North East River ultimately dumping into the Chesapeake Bay. Her concern is magnified due to the recent flood in North East as a direct result of the flooding of the North East Creek. She has concerns of yet another Cecil County rural area and wildlife habitat. The close proximity of the railroad tracks and recent derailment near this property is disconcerting and presents a true and real hazard. She realizes that Mr. Dodge had altered the plans in an effort to move the homes away from the tracks, but that does not negate or fix the dilemma of one entrance if evaluation were necessary, nor will it prevent foot traffic or 4-wheel traffic from crossing the tracks. This is an issue that exist presently and prior to this proposed development. A gate or posting of the property will not negate the problem. The most disturbing and profound issue that still remains is one of traffic safety on Mechanics Valley Road and the intersection of Rte 40 and Mechanics Valley Road. As Mrs. Weaver had already mentioned the truck traffic is an issue onto itself. This development will add an additional 340 cars or more. The TIS performed almost a year ago indicated that the Mechanics Valley Road and Rte 40 intersection will reach an E level during peak times of the day. She is not sure how the deletion of approximately 60 cars brings the study now within standard. Additionally the TIS does not differentiate cars from trucks and on Mechanics Valley Road this is a very significant factor in this traffic problem. It has been documented and multiple meeting minutes that this plan is not acceptable for a variety of reasons. It is not prudent to approve the plan simply because Mr. Dodge has returned to this table repeatedly with minor changes or because he tried really hard to get the entrance off of Rte 40. These are attempts to ware down the Planning Commission in the hope that it will be passed. Conformance to the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and subdivision regulations in this particular situation are not only issues to be considered but an analogist to try to fit or place a square peg into a round hole and it just wont work. Further more it is grossly inappropriate to refer to the demise of Mrs. Futty as a solution to obtain an entrance off of Rte 40. This plan should not be approved based on this assumption and it is purely an assumption. May God help us if this is what we have been reduced to for the sake of money and personal gain. I continue to contend that there are tracts of land in Cecil County that are not suitable for development because of extraneous circumstances and she truly believes this is one of them. I employ the Planning Commission to hear our voices and our concerns and act accordingly.

Val Petterson, 433 Lums Road, appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. He stated previous disapproval of this plan had already occurred. The lower density and minor changes submitted this time have not affectively remediated the previous issues for disapproval. The investigation of the train derailment at Leslie, which was in very close proximity to this project, is a major causative factor. Heavy rains, grading and removal have brought about undermining erosion, with no end in site. It would be prudent to review the safety inspection study, NTSB, railroad safety board report and topographical situation of this property. The tracts are above just about every piece of land on this site,

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 478 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 therefore setting above everything. Any disturbance of this ground would affect these tracts. Mr. Petterson went on to state that in his opinion the TIS has failed to fully factor in the partial or total closing of the railroad bridge on Rte 272 leading into North East. This project could take several years. The meeting held at the North East Firehouse by the State Road and Bridge engineers, stated their intentions where to divert most of the excess traffic from this project on to Mechanics Valley Road which crossed Rte 40 and becomes Bouchelle Road. He stated the Bouchelle Road traffic was currently at capacity no matter what the others may say, its possibility above considering the trucks from Maryland Materials. Without obtaining the entrance from Rte 40 to this site traffic safety would be substandard and a real danger to the public due to the increased traffic diverted for this bridge maintenance which must be considered. However unfortunate the timing of it is, the notation of projected entrance is a wish and a hope and should not mitigate the facts concerning public safety on a hope and wish. In conclusion considering these points and others not mentioned public safety should be the foremost issue and we would advise disapproval.

9. Donald Sutton and William Juliano presented Windswept Farms, Lots 4-22, Cherry Grove Road, Concept Plat, McCrone, Inc., First Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Sutton advised they were proposing 19 new lots. Lots 1-3 were reviewed and approved previously. This subdivision proposes two mini roads off Cherry Grove Road. Some of the DPW recommendations from TAC have been taken into consideration in regards to a cul-de-sac at the end of Cherry Grove Road and provided some site distance information for their review. Per Mr. Julianos request the proposed density is one (1) unit per 14 acre density.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was SAR and RCA. The SAR zone permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per eight (8) acres. Bonus density eligibility carries with it a permitted density of 1/5.

The Critical Area RCA overlay zone permits a maximum density of 1/20.

This Concept Plat proposes 19 lots on 267.7 acres, for a proposed density of 1/14.1. Four (4) new Lots are proposed on 110.2 Critical Area acres, for a proposed density of 1/27.6.

The Final Plat for Lot 1-3 (all in the Critical Area) was approved on 7/17/95 and signed on 4/29/97. If the combined acreages of Lot 1B, 2B, and 3 (31.8) are taken into account, 7 lots on 142 Critical Area acres, yields a density of 1/20.3.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 479 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Resubdivision plats for Lots 1 & 2 were signed on 10/23/97 and 12/9/98.

A boundary line survey must be done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes.

Slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the Preliminary Plat.

The habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided. An Environmental Assessment has been submitted.

The Natural Heritage letter indicates that Salt-Marsh Bulrush, a rare species, is known to occur within the vicinity of the project site. In addition, the open waters adjacent to the site are known historic waterfowl concentrations.

Fifteen percent (15%) common open space is required; 42.6% is proposed.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the SAR zone. No sidewalks are recommended.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 480 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of Cherry Grove Road.

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) has been approved.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat. The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat. The portion of the property in the Critical Area is exempt from the Forest Conservation Regulations per §3.2B. A note to that effect must appear on the plat.

Per §241.2.d (1), any building sites within the 100-yr. tidal floodplain can be approved only after a Variance has been granted. Should such variance applications to create the building sites in the 100-yr. floodplain be successful, then the requirements of §243 must be strictly adhered to.

§241.2.f (2) states that, High priority should be given to clustering development out of the floodplain while preserving the low lying land and forested areas in natural vegetation.

Lots 1-3 received Final Plat approval on 7/17/95, yet the reforestation associated with that approval has yet to be planted. Mr. DiGiacomo asked for the record why hasnt the required reforestation taken place? Mr. Sutton replied it would be included in the work required within the reforestation area. The land is currently being tilled. Mr. DiGiacomo continued, detailed reforestation plans for the 2.1- and 4.9- acre reforestation areas must be submitted. If the 1995 plans will be used, then they must be updated and revised. They must be approved prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 481 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

Any proposed piers shall conform with the provision of §169.

No more than 15% of the surface area can be converted to impervious surface in the RCA.

No more than 20% of the forest or developed woodland may be removed. The area inside the Critical Area is exempt, per §3.2.B, as has now been noted on the plat. In the critical area, no structure shall exceed 35 in height.

The internal road names will need to be approved by the County 911 Emergency Center prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat.

Access to common open space between and beside lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation. All lot owners, including those of 1B, 2B, and 3, must become members.

Mini-road Maintenance Associations for the maintenance of the mini roads must be established prior to recordation, with the owners of all lots accessing the respective mini-roads becoming members.

This layout includes 5 proposed panhandle lots (7, 9, 10, 11, 22).

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 482 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Woodhull stated a SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan, and a Mass & Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, and Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

If stormwater discharge is directed off of the site on to adjacent property it is the responsibility of the developer to obtain appropriate easements from the affected property owners per Section 251-13 of the Cecil County SWM Ordinance. The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

Sight distance measurements must be provided to the DPW to establish compliance with the Cecil County Road Code for the driveway entrances for Lots 14, 15, & 21. The centerline of these entrances must be marked in the field. Lots 7, 8, 13 16, 20 & 22 must be denied access to Cherry Grove Road.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the owners expense.

Section 3.07.15 of the Road Code nominally directs that Cherry Grove Road be upgraded to a Minor Collector Standard for a distance of 100 either side of the point of intersection with Fords Landing Court as well as with Windswept Lane.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 483 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 responsibilities of the Mini-Road Maintenance Association in the maintenance of roads and storm drainage systems: (The proposed internal roads will not be dedicated for public ownership or maintenance. The Mini-Road Maintenance Association shall retain title to the road and all maintenance responsibilities.).

Any applicable Road Code Variance must be requested prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat approval.

All driveways must be paved at least to the right of way and this must be so indicated on the Lot Grading Plan.

Mr. Woodhull asked what is the proposed disposition of the existing lane providing access to proposed Lot 9 to Riverside Drive? Mr. Sutton stated it was up to the owner. He may allow a private easement between the two, in order to allow access to Riverside Drive. It is currently a paved lane. Mr. Woodhull stated likewise the same question applies to the lane located along the property line of Lots 4 & 9. Mr. Sutton stated it could be a joint easement.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

A PWA will be required for internal streets and storm drains.

Mr. Williams read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

Mr. Mortimer asked how Lots 10 and 11 would be accessed. Mr. Sutton replied Lots 10 and 11 would be accessed via Windswept Land between the two panhandles.

Mr. Williams asked if the existing reforestation area on Lot 11 been planted, or has it just been designated. Mr. Sutton replied it was a designated area. It has not been planted but will be dealt with. There will be additional reforestation area to deal with regards to limited clearing within Lots 10 and 11, in additional to forest conservation regulations.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 484 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

10. Donald Sutton and Dennis Reimann presented State Line Farm Estates, Lots 1-28, MD Rte 273, Concept Plat, McCrone, Inc., Fourth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Sutton advised the DPW comments made at TAC had been taken into consideration. A temporary construction easement would be provided off of Rte 273. Mr. Sutton had been out to the site and reviewed the option of a second access to Rte 273. In his opinion it was questionable because of site distance issues. The existing Evan Drive entrance was adequate and has a better site distance. They will be dealing with the question of ownership of Sherryl Drive.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was SR which permits a maximum density of one (1) dwelling unit per one (1) acre, or 2/1 with community facilities. This Concept Plat proposes 28 lots on 33.1 acres, for a proposed density of 1/1.18. Twenty-nine lots were proposed on the plat submitted for TAC review.

A boundary line survey must be done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes. Note #11 indicates that the boundary survey was conducted by Mike McAllister on 1/5/2000. Mr. DiGiacomo asked if the boundary survey was for a Minor Subdivision on file in the OPZ. Mr. Sutton replied yes, but they will be verifying that the boundary was correct because a small portion of Lots 1 & 2 was not included.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated consistent with §176.2.a, Sherryl Drive is no longer proposed as part of the common open space. How will the lands of Lanzi be accessed? Mr. Sutton replied they were currently accessed through Delaware, which would not change. He believed that it goes through Sherryl Drive.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the existing structures on proposed Lot 28 forward of the building restriction line are proposed to remain.

References must be made to Minor Subdivisions 2191, 2251, and 3259.

Note #10 cites the wrong F.I.R.M. community panel numbers. That must be corrected on the Preliminary Plat submitted for TAC review.

Dwellings or impervious surfaces shall not occur on slopes with a grade of 25% or more covering a contiguous area of 10,000 ft2 or more. Proposed lots 1-8, 12-16, 22-23 & 25-27 are depicted as having areas

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 485 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 of steep slopes. On slopes between 15 and 25%, good engineering practices shall be used to ensure sediment and erosion control and slope stabilization before, during and after disturbance activities.

Slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the Preliminary Plat.

The habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided.

This proposal satisfies the common open space requirements of the SR zone. 15% is required; 17.22% is proposed. At a minimum, 15% of the required open space shall not consist of perennial or intermittent stream buffers, nontidal wetlands or buffers, steep slopes, or habitats of rare, threatened and endangered species. No more than 40% of the common open space required shall consist of those areas designated as nontidal or tidal wetlands. Those thresholds shall be calculated and included on the Preliminary Plat.

Twenty percent landscaping of the development envelope is required in the SR zone.

Sidewalks are recommended on at least one side of the internal streets.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of Telegraph Road (273). As the existing structures on proposed Lot 29 are proposed to remain, modifications to the Bufferyard C and setback requirements are necessary.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 486 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) has been approved.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The internal road names will need to be approved by the County 911 Emergency Center prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat.

Mr. DiGiacomo asked, has any consideration been given to extending Sherryl Drive to Wedgewood Road to improve access? Has any consideration been given to direct access onto Telegraph Road (273)? Mr. Sutton replied they had looked at the direct access onto Telegraph Road. The site visibility is in question at that point along that area. In answer to extending Sherryl Drive, it is very close to flood plain area and they have no intention to make any improvements at this point.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated access to common open space between and beside lots must be marked with concrete monuments. This design includes two (2) panhandle lots.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 487 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 For subdivisions proposed on property contiguous to operating farms, notice shall be provided on the plat that an agricultural operation is being conducted on a contiguous property and said agricultural operation is protected from nuisance claims provided the conditions of Article I, § 4 are being complied with.

Mr. Woodhull stated a SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan, and a Mass & Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, and Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

The SWM Plan and Lot Grading Plans must address this Departments concern that Lot 7 of Tara may be impacted by runoff from this development.

The Lot Grading Plans for Lots 6, 7, 8, 12, & 13 must address the Departments concern regarding the existing swale shown on the Plat and its potential impact on these lots. The Road & Storm Drain Plans must address conveyance across Kelley Way at Lot 8.

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

If the existing pond is used for SWM an as-built and a Dam Breach Analysis of the pond must be completed and submitted to DPW for review.

Mr. Woodhull confirmed the intent of Sherryl Drive would be termination.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 488 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Sight distance measurements must be provided to the DPW to establish compliance with the Cecil County Road Code for Kelley Way. The centerline of this entrance must be marked in the field.

Lots 3 & 9 must be denied access to Evan Drive.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the owners expense.

The inclusion of a separate construction entrance is a very good idea. However, DPW would to make sure they address what measures will be taken to make sure contractors use this entrance in lieu of Evan Drive. If Evan Drive is used as a construction entrance it will be milled 1½ and paved when 80% of the lots are constructed. This work will extend from 100 north of Kelly Drive to MD 273.

Any applicable Road Code Variance must be requested prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat approval.

All driveways must be paved at least to the right of way and this must be so indicated on the Lot Grading Plan.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

A PWA will be required for internal streets and storm drains.

Mr. Williams read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

Mr. Mortimer asked if Lots 24 and 25 would be panhandled from Christopher Way between Lots 23 and 26. Mr. Sutton replied yes. When the construction entrance is shut down it will be regarded. Lot 28 has its own existing access which is what the school board is currently using as a turn around for the buses.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 489 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Mortimer asked what the existing building where. Mr. Sutton replied a combination of barns, dwelling and one trailer.

Mr. Williams question the number lots. Mr. Sutton replied 28 lots. There were 29 at TAC, but after reconfiguration of Lots 1 and 2 the new total is 28.

11. Donald Sutton and Manuel G. Gierbolini presented Manuel G. Gierbolini (Lands of), Calvert Road, Concept Plat, McCrone, Inc., Ninth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Sutton advised the project consisted of 50 lots on a total of 152.8 acres of land. They are seeking bonus density. They have provided a through road system. They have allowed interconnectivity between Wilson Road and Calvert Road. Based on comments from the TAC meeting, they have adjusted the Calvert Road entrance further east, approximately 125 to deal with the site distance issue on the knoll. The development will be clustered to the western side of the property. The remaining portion, Lot 50 as 78.2 acres of ground.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was NAR which permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres, or one (1) dwelling unit per three (3) acres with the granting of bonus density. This Concept Plat proposes 50 lots on 152.8 acres, for a proposed density of 1/3.06.

A boundary line survey must be done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes. Note # 10 indicates that the property lines are taken from a plan dated 1/17/84. Was that done for a Minor Subdivision on file in the OPZ? Mr. Sutton replied it was done as a boundary survey and will be updated.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated proposed Lots 28-32 must be denied access to Calvert Road, and proposed Lots 1 and 49 must be denied access to Wilson Road.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 490 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the Preliminary Plat.

A 110 perennial stream buffer is required from all perennial streams present.

Per Section 174.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, the stream buffer along the North East Creek and its unnamed tributary must be expanded to 160 feet due to the presence of nearby hydric (Hatboro Silt Loam) and highly erodible (Glenelg and Glenville Silt Loams) soils.

All stormwater management facilities (especially the one near proposed Lots 10 & 11) must remain outside the expanded stream buffer.

Permits for the proposed intermittent stream crossing (in the vicinity of proposed Lots 27 & 36) must be obtained prior to recordation.

A 25 buffer is required around all non-tidal wetlands and intermittent streams present. The wetlands maps indicate the presence of a large wetland complex in the eastern portion of proposed Lot 50. The approved FSD also shows a wetlands area not depicted on the Concept Plat. Such details must appear on the Preliminary Plat and they must match up with those on the approved FSD and PFCP.

Permits are required from the US Army Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland and stream impacts. Permits must be received prior to recordation. A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) must be done prior to preliminary plat review by the Planning Commission.

The habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided.

Fifteen percent common open space has now been proposed. The proposed large lot consists of 51% of the total acreage. Thus this proposal is eligible for bonus density consideration.

Covenants prohibiting the further subdivision of the proposed large lot (Lot 50) must be noted on the plat and recorded prior to recordation.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 491 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation. All lot owners must become members of the Homeowners Association.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) has been approved.

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone.

A Bufferyard C is required outside the right of way, along the road frontages of Wilson and Calvert Roads.

Rows of street trees with 10 planting easements are required, outside the right of way, along both sides of all internal roads. The natural vegetative equivalent may be used, if and where feasible, to satisfy the landscaping requirements.

The Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The internal road names must be approved by the County 911 Emergency Center prior to Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat. Road names are required on Concept Plats, per §4.0.13 (h) of the Subdivision Regulations. No proposed road names appear on the concept plat.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 492 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The Community Fire Company of Rising Sun has requested a drafting tank for this project. Dry hydrants at stormwater management ponds and the North East Creek should also be considered.

Sidewalks are not recommended.

Mr. Woodhull stated a SWM Plan and a Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, and Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

The Lot Grading Plans for Lots 28-32 must reflect the laying back of the roadside embankment creating 2:1 side slopes. This is necessary to improve traffic safety on Calvert Road

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 493 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

All conveyance and access easements must be identified on the Final Plat. The standard easement width is 20 however they may need to be wider depending on the type of conveyance and/or the combination of access and conveyance.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the owners expense.

The centerline of the proposed entrance locations must be marked in the field.

The requirements of Section 3.07.15 of the Road Code requires that both Calvert and Wilson Roads be upgraded to Minor Collector road standard for 100 either side of the proposed entrances for. The applicant can anticipate the requirement to improve and/or establish shoulders and improve drainage along this developments entire road frontage.

Lots 28-32 must be denied access to Calvert Road. All denied access must be indicated on the Final Plat as well as the Lot Grading Plan.

The department will require substantial Geo-Tech investigation to determine the suitability of the sub-grade in the area of the proposed stream crossing to support a County road.

Any applicable Road Code Variance must be requested prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat approval.

All driveways must be paved at least to the right of way and this must be so indicated on the Lot Grading Plan.

A PWA is required for the Roads and Storm Drains

An I&M Agreement is required for SWM facility

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 494 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Williams read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. Williams stated from looking at the topography of the site, it looks like the stormwater from Lots 1-9, 47-49 and 12-17 will be directed off towards the existing residents on Lot 50. Is there a possibility that a SWM being put in place to catch the runoff. Mr. Sutton replied they would look into the possibility. The existing dwelling on Lot 50 is up on a knoll and there is a ridge that runs through the property. They will be looking at it as part of the work that they do.

Ms. Prickett questioned any future development anticipated for Lot 50. Mr. Sutton replied any future development would be denied.

Mr. Mortimer asked if the Lot 50 would be deed restricted. Mr. Sutton replied yes, it would be on the record plat.

Ms. Kilby stated she had two concerns. When traveling Calvert Road, on either side of this property, there is a sign advising flooding area. This area floods excessively. Her concern being with this amount of lots and bonus density the impervious area will be increased which will aggravate this situation. Her second concern was when looking at the school capacity in this area Rising Sun High School was at over capacity by 226 students. Calvert Elementary was over capacity by 83 students and Rising Sun Elementary School is over capacity by 142 students. Ms. Kilby asked the applicant if there were any provisions in this plan to address these issues. Mr. Sutton replied he believed the school board had stated at TAC the students would attend the Rising Sun school district. Mr. DiGiacomo stated that although both Rising Sun and Calvert were over capacity, Rising Sun was less over and therefore the elementary students would attend Rising Sun. Discussion followed concerning the school capacity.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

12. Donald Sutton presented Fulton Hills, (formerly Lands of Harry M. Crawford, et. ux.), Old Telegraph Road, Concept Plat, McCrone, Inc., First Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Sutton advised per the drainage area is shown as common open space. The lots have been adjusted in order to allow for the drainage and dealt with the SWM area. Seventeen lots have been proposed and seeking bonus density. The remaining area located in Delaware will remain in Mr. Crawfords ownership. Mr. Crawford will also retain a 100 wide strip located at the southern boundary for access to the Delaware property. The project will consist of 17 new

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 495 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 lots and Lot 18 consisting of the remaining lands which will include the existing farm buildings.

Mr. Mortimer asked if there was a possibility that the 53 acres located in Delaware could be connected to the Maryland development or become common development. Mr. Sutton replied he doubted it. The developer he was working with was not purchasing that land. Mr. Mortimer asked if the property could be deed restricted. Mr. Sutton stated he would discuss with Mr. Crawford deed restricting. Mr. Sutton pointed out the possibility of a mini road along the 100 ROW for accessing the six lots in Delaware.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was SAR which permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per eight (8) acres. Bonus density eligibility carries with it a permitted density of 1/5. This Concept Plat proposes 18 lots on 93.1 acres, for a proposed density of 1/5.17.

The add-on hook must indicate the direction of the add-on. Mr. DiGiacomo asked if the access to the Delaware portion was proposed to be a private or public road. Mr. Sutton replied no road was planned. It was simply access to the property for Mr. Crawford. Should Mr. Crawford desire to develop it in the future it would be presented for approval. Mr. DiGiacomo read a letter addressed to Mr. Carter from Mr. Thomey concerning the question raised at the August 4th TAC meeting about the road access. (Exhibit B)

Mr. DiGiacomo stated New Castle County records indicate that the Delaware portion of this property, which is zoned SR, is 60 acres. If the 53.7 acre figure is correct, then possibly 11 additional lots could be approved. If the open space option were elected, then possibly 21 additional lots could be approved.

Mr. DiGiacomo asked had any development been planned or proposed in New Castle County for that portion of the property. Mr. Sutton replied no not at this time. Mr. DiGiacomo asked why the proposed access strip located at the very end of the property would need to be in excess of 100 wide. Mr. Sutton replied it was in the contract of sale for the property. Mr. DiGiacomo asked if there was any technical reason why. Mr. Sutton replied no.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated any development of the remaining lands in New Castle County will require New Castle County approval prior to Cecil County recordation of the access strip. If a private, mini-road is used, then the mini-road maintenance association must be formed and the incorporation documents recorded in both counties prior to recordation of the roadway in Cecil County.

A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for the full build-out potential may be recommended. 39 or more possible lots accessing Old Telegraph would be more than twice the number than if bonus density were granted for the Cecil County portion of the property.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 496 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

A number of issues, including traffic, emergency services, school attendance, and stormwater management will require interjurisdictional coordination.

A boundary line survey must be done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes.

Minor Subdivisions 279, 2020, 3124, and 3441 must be referenced on the plat.

Slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the preliminary plat.

The habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided.

Fifteen percent common open space is required; 31.58% is proposed. The common open space and the proposed large lot together total 7154% of the total acreage, thus satisfying eligibility for bonus density consideration in the SAR zone.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the SAR zone.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 497 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Sidewalks are not recommended.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of Old Telegraph Road.

In lieu of the Bufferyard C requirement for proposed Lot 18, a modified Bufferyard A is proposed along the rear lot lines of proposed Lots 8-13 (with the normal rear BRL). In lieu of the Bufferyard C requirement for proposed common open space, a modified Bufferyard A has been proposed along the side property line of the lands of McCloskey & Valvo and Teat. These modifications would better preserve the rural character of the area if bonus density were to be granted, consistent with staff comments at TAC review.

Rows of street trees with 10 planting easements are required, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of the proposed, unnamed loop road. Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements.

Again, a modified Bufferyard A should be considered for the strip of common open space along the side property line of the lands of McCloskey & Valvo and Teat, as this would better preserve the rural character of the area than just the required street trees.

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) has been approved.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 498 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The proposed internal road name will need to be approved by the County 911 Emergency Center prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat.

The F.I.R.M. community panel number has been corrected.

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

Covenants prohibiting the subdivision of the large lot must be recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

Mr. Woodhull stated the Department had requested that the Countys Attorney review what obligations the County may be responsible for to those lots built on the Remaining Lands of Crawford, in that they will be completely inside Delaware yet be provided sole ingress, egress, and regress via a Cecil County road. As stated in the letter previously read by Mr. DiGiacomo (Exhibit B), the County is not obligated to provide access via a County maintained road. Indeed they are reluctant to do so as the County would seemingly have obligations to tax payers form another jurisdiction.

A SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan, and a Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, and Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 499 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 the penalty provisions therein.)

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

The SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan, and the Lot Grading Plan must address the existing drainage swale running across the property (Lots 1, COS) to Sandy Branch. Impacts to the Lands of Clevenger and Teat must also be analyzed and addressed.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the owners expense.

The centerline of the proposed entrance locations must be marked in the field to allow the Department to review the sight distances quoted.

The requirements of Section 3.07.15 of the Road Code requires that Old Telegraph Road be upgraded to Minor Collector road standard for 100 either side of the proposed entrances onto Martha Way. The applicant can anticipate the requirement to improve/ establish shoulders and improve drainage along this developments entire road frontage.

The DPW will require substantial Geo-tech investigation to determine the suitability of the sub grade in the area of the existing drainage swale crossing of Martha Way to support a County road.

The ROW dedication for Old Telegraph Road must extend along the developments entire frontage.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 500 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The Department strongly recommends that the Planning Commission require connectivity to the remaining Lands of Crawford from the proposed loop road.

Lots 1 & 17 must be denied access to Old Telegraph Road.

Any applicable Road Code Variance must be requested prior to submittal for

Preliminary Plat approval.

All driveways must be paved at least to the right of way and this must be so indicated on the Lot Grading Plan.

A PWA is required for the Roads and Storm Drains.

An I&M Agreement is required for SWM facilities.

Mr. Williams read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. Mortimer questioned if Delaware was developed would Delaware school buses come into the County, accessing the development and then coming back out of the County. Mr. Sutton replied he believed that was how it works for the Bridal Run development which is approximately two miles north of the property. Mr. Williams asked if it would be the same for emergency services. Mr. Sutton replied he believed it would be a joint effort. Discussion followed concerning the emergency services.

Ms. Prickett questioned the possibility of future development of the remaining 53.7 acres of lands in Delaware. Mr. Sutton stated the cursory review that they did of the UDC, the development code in Delaware their best guess was six lots, based on what they had looked at. They had not been requested to look at it by their developer. Ms. Pricket asked and Lot 18? Mr. Sutton stated Lot 18 would be developed in the future because they were seeking bonus density. Discussion followed concerning density and access.

No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 501 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Louisa Pleasanton, 1151 Middle Neck Road, appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. She stated her family had put over 1000 acres of land in preservation. The property directly across from her property is also in land preservation. Whats the point? The entire area is abused. There is a lot of drainage into Sandy Branch from both the Delaware and Maryland parts. Occasionally heavy rains prevent the residents from crossing the bridges. I am totally against it.

13. Christopher Diebolt presented Prelude (Located in Village of Bay View), Old Bayview Road, Minor Subdivision Concept Plat, American Engineering & Surveying, Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Diebolt advised this project was a four lot minor subdivision located in the Village of Bayview. FSD has been approved. The applicant was granted a Road Frontage Variance for Lot #3. The road widening easement along Old Bay View was changed to a fee simple conveyance to the County which will eliminate 90% of the issues with the neighboring lands to the north. Mr. Diebolt has contacted the owner, Mr. Edwards, and informed him that any additional lands needed to satisfy him would be deeded in their name. Bufferyard C has been provided along Rte 274. A 10 easement has been provided along Old Bayview Road. P&Z had received copies of the State Highway entrance permit and the Water Service Agreements from the Town of North East.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was VR (Village Residential), the purpose of which is to provide for the protection of existing villages by allowing limited development consistent with the character of these villages.

The VR zone permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per one (1) acre, or 4/1 with community facilities.

This Minor Subdivision (Concept?) Plat is being reviewed by the Planning Commission, consistent with §28.2.a of the Zoning Ordinance, which stipulates that all subdivisions in the VR zone must be reviewed by the TAC and the Planning Commission.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 502 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 between 1 and 5 lots.

In this case, however, a Concept and then a Preliminary/Final Plat is in order, so as to allow adequate time to secure a Variance, to achieve FSD, FCP, and Landscape Plan approvals, and to obtain documentation of water allocation and sewer capacity in an orderly fashion prior to final approval.

This proposal was DISAPPROVED by the Planning Commission last month because the FSD had not been approved. The plat has not subsequently gone back to the TAC for review. The title block indicates that this is a minor subdivision plan, but not whether it has been submitted as a Concept or a Preliminary/Final Plat. OPZ had view it as a Concept Plat.

A Variance for the road frontage of proposed Lot 3 was granted by the Board of Appeals on 7/27/04. The opinion should be signed on 8/24/04. If this submittal is intended as a Preliminary/Final Plat, then Planning Commission cannot approve this plat until after the opinion has been signed, though that could be a condition of approval. The Variance must be referenced by case number on the plat.

This proposal consists of Parcels 49 and 138, both original parcels of record, and it proposes 4 lots on 1.6113 acres, for a proposed density of 2.48/1.

A boundary line survey has been done.

A fee simple road widening dedication will be required on Old Bayview Road. Therefore, the notation on the plat has been changed accordingly.

On any slopes between 15 and 25%, good engineering practices shall be used to ensure sediment and erosion control and slope stabilization before, during and after disturbance activities.

Any slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the Preliminary/Final Plat.

Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for any non-tidal wetland and stream impacts prior to recordation. Mr. DiGiacomo asked if a JD been done? Mr. Diebolt replied he did not know.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 503 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. DiGiacomo continued, the habitats of any rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided.

§28.3 of the Zoning Ordinance stipulate that there be flexibility in lot, yard, open space and setback requirements and to encourage innovative and creative design in order to meet the objectives of this district. It goes on to say that such requirements in the Village District may be varied for each in each individual project by the Planning Commission. In establishing these requirements the Planning Commission shall consider such factors as the proposed intensity of the project, the existing character of the village, and all other County, State, and federal requirements.

With respect to lot and yard requirements, this proposal is generally consistent with the Schedule of Zone Regulations for the VR district, set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.

With respect to open space, this proposal requires no common open space because fewer than 10 lots are proposed.

With respect to the proposed intensity of the project being consistent with the existing character of the village, the proposed density is generally consistent with that of the existing village.

With respect to the existing character of the village, this proposal is generally consistent with that of the existing village.

Sidewalks are not recommended in this case.

Mr. DiGiacomo asked what is meant by private water services shown on the plat leading to proposed Lot 3, generally in the area of the road bed of MD Rte 274. Mr. Diebolt replied it would not be involved with the easement where the water is going to Lots 1 and 2. The front of the house on Lot 3 is the water service. The back of the house on Lot 3 would be the septic. Discussion continued.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated landscaping in the VR zone is required to provide a minimum of 20% landscaping that must create a visually harmonious and compatible setting, consistent with the existing character of the village.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 504 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Bufferyard Standard C is recommended along the MD 274 road frontages; street trees with 10 planting easements are recommended along Old Bayview Road, consistent with §186.1.

In areas with community facilities, no street trees shall be planted within 20 feet of sewer laterals and cleanouts. Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) has not been approved (or even submitted).

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The Final and Record Plats shall contain a statement signed by the Health Department approving authority; to the effect that use of the community water supply and community sewerage system is in conformance with the Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan. The Record Plats shall also contain a statement, signed by the owner, to the effect that such facilities will be available to all lots offered for sale. Notes 7-9 will not suffice.

As stated at previous reviews, written verification of water allocation and sewer capacity must be received prior to Preliminary/Final Plat review by the Planning Commission.

Mr. Woodhull stated it should be noted for the record that it is the Departments understanding that the Town of North East will own the water distribution system in this development. The CCDPW recommends that the water distribution system including fire hydrant locations be designed to meet or exceed the Countys standards. We also recommend that the Town request that the serving fire company review fire hydrant spacing and locations. It is also DPWs belief that there is an existing water line from the Town of North East coming some distance up Old Bayview Road. Depending on the distance, it maybe a less problematic source for water then coming all the way off of Rte 274 with a 3/4 line. Mr. Diebolt stated he had been verbally informed that water does not come under Rte 274.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 505 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. Woodhull stated the water lines must be reflected on the sanitary sewer plans and as-builts.

A SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan, Sanitary Sewer Plan, and a Mass & Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, and Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

Sight distance measurements are required for the driveway on Lot 2. The location of the driveway must be marked in the field.

Lot 2s driveways must be paved at least in the County ROW.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the owners expense.

The preparation of the grading plans for these lots must satisfactorily address the slopes on site and how adverse impacts from runoff will be prevented.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 506 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

A PWA will be required for the sanitary sewer connections.

Mr. Williams read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. Mortimer stated that the definition of private water lines needed to be addressed.

Mr. Williams asked if the FSD had been completed. Mr. DiGiacomo replied the FSD had been completed but had not been approved. It is approved with the exception of receipt of the natural heritage letter. They have 30 days to respond. The application was submitted on 8/2/04. If they have not responded within in 90 days, 9/3/04, it would be approved by default.

No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

David Carter, 325 Old Bayview Road, appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. He stated his property was directly above the proposed development.

Mr. Mortimer asked if he was the property owner with the existing driveway. Mr. Carter replied no, that was Mr. Edwards.

Mr. Carter stated his biggest concern was that he did not believe the development reflected anything typical of the Village of Bay View because the lot sizes were very small. He owns two acres and Mr. Edwards, who is adjacent, owns over one acre. You can make anything work on paper but when you look at this property as homeowners it doesnt make sense. Mr. Carter purchased his property three years ago. He would not have purchased it had he known that there would be three houses built on tiny lots. The house sizes do very a little

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 507 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 bit due to the new development that went in behind them, but they are not encroaching on houses that where already in the Village. He asked the Planning Commission members to visit the site. Another concern was very little open space will remain after three proposed houses are added to the one exiting house. Mr. Carter expressed his concern regarding public utilities and who would be responsible. Mr. Diebolt addressed some of Mr. Carters concerns. Mr. Carter reiterated, I dont know if you folks are seeing what Im seeing but it seems like what is here seems very not typical of whats in Bay View.

Grace Edwards, 315 Old Bayview Road, appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mrs. Edwards stated she had lived at her present address for over 38 years. This is not typical of their area. It is so easy to look at something on a piece of paper but going out and seeing it is different. Ms. Edwards asked that should the subdivision be approved she would like to have a line of trees planted between their property (Exhibit C) and the entire driveways be paved, not just the ROW.

William Edwards, 315 Old Bayview Road, appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Edwards stated he had met with Mr. Diebolt in reference to the driveway issue. There was a discrepancy with the easement allowance that still needs to be addressed. In referenced to the July 04 Planning Commission minutes, he would like to see a contingency enforced or included in the final approval that states that these lots not be used for rental property or Section 8 properties.

14. Faron Pyle presented New Bridge Farm, Lots 2-10 & Common Open Space, New Bridge Road, Final Plat, Northern Bay, Ninth Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Pyle advised this Final Plat would complete the New Bridge Farm Project. The only significant change from the Preliminary Plat being Lot 8 had been slightly decreased in size, with the balance of the property being added to the common open space which adjoins to the northwest.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was RR which permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres. Bonus density eligibility carries with it a permitted density of 1/3.

The Concept Plat proposed 17 lots on 51.43 acres, and on 1/21/03 it was approved for a density of 1/3.03, conditioned on:

1) A boundary line survey being complete prior to the TACs review of the Preliminary Plat;

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 508 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 2) The common open space sensitive area thresholds being calculated and included on the Preliminary Plat submitted for TAC review; and

3) The adjacent property owners names being corrected.

The Preliminary Plat, proposing only 10 lots, was approved on 7/21/03, conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) Department of Public Works requirements being met;

3) The FCP and Landscape Plan being approved prior the Final Plat review; and

4) The FRA boundaries on the FCP and the Final Plat matching up.

The Final Plat for Lot 1 was approved on 8/18/03, conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) Department of Public Works requirements being met;

3) 15% common open space being provided in future sections of the subdivision;

4) this lot becoming a member of the Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space with $50 for improvements placed in escrow prior to recordation;

5) deed restrictions prohibiting further subdivision of Lot 1 being recorded prior to recordation;

6) deed restrictions, to ensure the long term protection of the forest retention areas, being recorded prior to recordation;

7) a Landscape Agreement being executed to ensure preservation of the existing vegetation used to satisfy the Bufferyard C requirements;

8) the word planted being removed from the bufferyard notations; and

9) the septic reserve area being shown on the plat.

This Final Plat is consistent with the approved Concept, Preliminary, and Final Plats.

The perennial stream buffer has been shown. The CPS designation cited under the Legend is not shown on the plat.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 509 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

This proposal satisfies the open space provisions of the RR zone and condition #3 of Lot 1s Final Plat approval.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the RR zone.

A row of street trees with a 10 planting easement is required, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of the proposed Spring Meadow Lane. This planting easement must be shown on the Record Plat.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the New Bridge Road road frontages. If feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements.

The FSD, PFCP, FCP and Landscape Plan have been approved. A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The road name Spring Meadow Lane has been approved.

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

Mr. Woodhull stated the SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan, and Grading Plan are substantially complete. Only minor comments and administrative issues remain outstanding.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 510 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 New bridge Road over Octoraro Creek (CE007) is currently limited to no more than 6,000-pound loads. The steel truss bridge dates to 1884 and the historic nature will likely limit us to repair rather than replacement. As such, the 16-5 travel way will not be widened. Most ambulances, fire trucks, school buses, and fuel delivery trucks may not legally use the bridge. Rehabilitation is currently planned for Fiscal Year 2006 at an estimated cost of $400,000. However in light of greater bridge priorities these repairs will likely be delayed several years. Therefore, major traffic loads will need to enter and exit from the west via Roop Road, including emergency response vehicles.

The driveway entrances for Lots 6 and 7 must be installed, to the edge of the ROW, at the time of construction of Spring Meadow Lane.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

A PWA will be required for internal streets and storm drains.

Mr. Williams read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 511 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

ITEM B DECISIONS

1. Eagleaire, Rte 272, Final Plat, Will Whiteman Land Surveying Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Prickett and unanimously carried to approve with conditions: (1) Health Department requirements being met; (2) DPW requirements being met; (3) The existing dwelling on Lot 6 having an EagleAire Way address; (4) Deed restrictions for the long-term protection of the Forest Retention/Afforestation Areas (FRAs) being recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation, with the metes and bounds description of the FRA being shown on the record plat; (5) Lots 1 and 3 being denied access onto MD 272; (6) A mini-road maintenance association being established prior to recordation with all lot owners becoming members; and (7) A Landscape Agreement being executed prior to recordation.

2. Paradise Streams, Red Toad Road, Final Plat, Will Whiteman Land Surveying Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Smith, seconded by Mortimer and unanimously carried to approve with conditions: (1) Health Department requirements being met; (2) DPW requirements being met; (3) The rough leaved asters location and associated buffer appearing on the Record Plat; and (4) The adjacent properties information on the vicinity map and the Record Plat being corrected and made consistent.

3. Harrison, John R. (Lands of), Welders Lane, One Year Extension of Concept Plat, William A. Carroll, First Election District

Motion made by Smith, seconded by Williams and unanimously carried to approve one year extension of the concept plat approval with all previous conditions of Concept Plat approval remaining in force.

4. Beulah Land, MD Rte 272 & Wheatley Road, Preliminary/Final Re-subdivision of Lot 44A & Add-on, C. Robert Webb, Ninth Election District

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 512 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Motion made by Smith, seconded by Mortimer to approve Preliminary and Final.

Motion made by Mortimer to amend the previous motion because of SWM and septic issues, seconded by Smith and unanimously carried to approve Preliminary Concept Only with conditions: (1) Health Department requirements being met; (2) DPW requirements being met; (3) The §3.2N exemption being noted on the Record Plat; (4) The Landscape Agreement being executed prior to recordation; (5) A note appearing on the Record Plat to the effect that there can be no further subdivision because the full Beulah Land subdivision potential is exhausted with the recordation of this lot; (6) The owners of the new lot becoming members of the Homeowners Association with $50 for this recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation; and (7) A setback modification being granted, as requested.

5. Thomas & Jane Garvin, New Bridge Road, Preliminary/Final Plat, C. Robert Webb, Eight Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Williams and unanimously carried to approve with conditions: (1) Health Department requirements being met; (2) DPW requirements being met; and (3) The Landscape Agreement being executed prior to recordation.

6. The Reserve at Elk River, Section 1, Lots 1-37, 39-42, & 49-60, Oldfield Point Road, Final Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Prickett and carried to disapprove based on unresolved issues on well placements, entrances, easements, drainage and DPW review.

Mortimer, Prickett and Williams in favor.

Smith recused.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 513 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 7. The Reserve at Elk River, Section 2, Lots 38 & 43-48, Oldfield Point Road, Final Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Prickett and carried to disapprove based on unresolved issues on well placements, entrances, easements, drainage and DPW review.

Mortimer, Prickett and Williams in favor.

Smith recused.

8. The Mews at Northeast Creek, Lots 1-170, Mechanics Valley Road, Revised Concept Plat, McCrone, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Prickett, seconded by Mortimer and carried to disapprove based on limited access.

Mortimer, Prickett and Williams in favor.

Smith opposed.

9. Windswept Farms, Lots 4-22, Cherry Grove Road, Concept Plat, McCrone, Inc., First Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Smith and unanimously carried to approve with conditions: (1) A JD being completed prior to Preliminary Plat review by the Planning Commission; (2) A boundary line survey being completed in conjunction with the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes; and (3) The internal road names being approved prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat.

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 514 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 10. State Line Farm Estates, Lots 1-28, MD Rte 273, Concept Plat, McCrone, Inc., Fourth Election District

Motion made by Williams, seconded by Smith and unanimously carried to approve with conditions: (1) The correct F.I.R.M. community panel numbers being cited on the Preliminary Plat submitted for TAC review; (2) A JD being completed prior to Preliminary Plat review by the Planning Commission; (3) A setback modification being granted for the existing structures on proposed Lot 28 forward of the building restriction line; (4) A Bufferyard C modification being granted for proposed Lot 28 because of the location of existing structures; (5) The disposition of the Sherryl Drive area being determined prior to Preliminary Plat review by the Planning Commission; and (6) A boundary line survey being completed (or a signed and sealed copy being provided to OPZ) in conjunction with the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes.

11. Manuel G. Gierbolini (Lands of), Calvert Road, Concept Plat, McCrone, Inc., Ninth Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Smith and unanimously carried to approve with conditions: (1) A JD being completed prior to Preliminary Plat review by the Planning Commission; (2) A boundary line survey being completed (or a signed and sealed copy being provided to OPZ) in conjunction with the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes; (3) The internal road names being approved prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat; and (4) A 30,000 gallon drafting tank being included in the common open space near to Wilson Road.

Brown, Mortimer and Smith in favor

Prickett and Williams opposed

12. Fulton Hills, (formerly Lands of Harry M. Crawford, et. ux.), Old Telegraph Road, Concept Plat, McCrone, Inc., First Election District

Motion made by Smith, seconded by Mortimer to approve with conditions: (1) A boundary line survey being completed in conjunction with the preparation of the Preliminary plat for Density calculation purposes; (2) A JD being completed prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat; (3) The proposed internal road names being approved by the County 911 Emergency Center prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat; (4) The right-of-way access to the remaining lands in Delaware becoming a

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 515 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 private mini road at such time as those remaining lands are developed; and (4) The Bufferyard standard C requirement being waived in favor of a modified Bufferyard A along the rear lot lines of proposed Lots 8-13 (with the normal rear BRL) and along the side property lines of the lands of McCloskey & Valvo and Teat.

Smith in favor.

Mortimer, Prickett and Williams opposed.

Motion defeated.

Motion made by Williams, seconded by Mortimer and carried to disapprove based on density not being consistent with the rural character of the region.

Mortimer, Prickett and Williams in favor.

Smith opposed.

13. Prelude (Located in Village of Bayview), Old Bayview Road, Minor Subdivision Concept Plat, American Engineering & Surveying, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Smith and unanimously carried to disapprove with the recommendation that the plat be resubmitted once the FSD has been approved.

14. New Bridge Farm, Lots 2-10 & Common Open Space, New Bridge Road, Final Plat, Northern Bay, Ninth Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Prickett and unanimously carried to approve with conditions: (1) Health Department requirements being met; (2) Department of Public Works requirements being met; (3) The 10 street tree planting easement, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of the proposed Spring Meadow Lane, being depicted and/or noted on the Record Plat; (4) The owners of these lots becoming members of the Homeowners Association which must be established for maintenance of common open space, with $50 per

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 516 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 recorded lot being placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation; (5) A Landscape Agreement being executed prior to recordation; and (6) Deed restrictions for the long-term protection of the Forest Retention/Afforestation Areas (FRAs) being recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation, with the metes and bounds description of the FRA being shown on the Record Plat.

There were no further comments.

Meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m.

NEXT MEETING: September 20, 2004 at TBD in the County Administration Building

August 16, 2004, 10:00 p.m. 517 September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m.

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Subdivisions)

PRESENT: Brown, Campbell, Carter, DiGiacomo, Kilby, Moore, Mortimer, Murray, Sennstrom, Smith, Williams, Woodhull, and Jones

ABSENT: Prickett

OPENING COMMENTS: Mr. Brown, Co-Chairman, commented on the unusual circumstances of the Planning Commission meeting being rescheduled two times. Due to the possibility of people being unable to attend due to the meeting date change an additional five minutes was allotted to anyone who wished to both speak themselves and on behalf of someone else.

The Villages of Cherry Hill was withdrawn from todays agenda. Reason being after encountering numerous opponents stating the rescheduling did not supply sufficient notice, the applicants will reapply next month. The Planning Commission, in addition to an alternate snow date in the winter months, has approved a consistent alternate meeting day for any unforeseen reason which will be Wednesday.

MINUTES: Motion made by Smith, seconded by Murray, and unanimously carried to approve the August 16, 2004, 10:00 a.m., minutes as mailed, with a correction to page 54, Item 11, three to two vote changing the minutes to read this motion was not unanimous.

1. Tim Whittie presented Candlelight Ridge, Phase 1, Red Toad Road, Final Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Whittie stated the plat represented Lots 6-35. The roads, storm drains, sewer, SWM and sediment control plans have been approved. Public Works agreements have been executed. The Grading Permit has been released by DPW. MDEs road permit for the road crossing has been approved. The Master Sewer Plan has been amended to include this project. The Landscape and Forest Conservation plans have been approved by OPZ. The project

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 518 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 is technically complete on the engineering side.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was SR which permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per one (1) acre. With community facilities, a density of 2/1 is permitted.

The Concept Plat was approved on 3/17/03 at a density of 1.28/1 (39 lots on 30.38 acres), conditioned on:

1) A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) being done prior to preliminary plat review by the Planning Commission;

2) The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan modifying the previous FCP associated w/ Minor Subdivision # 3369, or the proposed Raydan Road alignment being changed;

3) The internal roads names being approved prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat;

4) Minor Subdivision # 3369 being referenced on the plat; and

5) A sensitive species survey being conducted on site prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat;

All the conditions of Concept Plat approval were satisfied, and the Preliminary Plat was approved on 9/15/03, conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) The FCP and Landscape Plan being approved prior to Final Plat review;

4) The block or grid number being added to the plat;

5) A Homeowners Association being established for maintenance of common open space with $50 per recorded lot being placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation, with all lot owners becoming members; and

6) Satisfactory well compliance reports being submitted to the Health Department prior to release of any building permit.

This Phase 1 Final Plat is generally consistent with the approved Concept and Preliminary Plats.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 519 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The Master Water and Sewer Plan now includes this site as W-2 and S-1 areas, respectively.

For Phase 2, the Water Service Agreement between the Town of North East and the County does not include this area. Therefore, the Mayor and commissioners of the Town and the Board of County Commissioners would need to agree to amend the plan prior to any Phase 2 Final Plat review. If the two bodies agree and the plan is amended, the water allocation must be verified by the Town prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Final Plat. In addition, the Master Water and Sewer Plan must be amended to include this site as a W-1 area prior to the Planning Commissions review of any Phase 2 Final Plat.

A GAP has been issue for 30 lots.

Dry hydrants should be installed at the SWM ponds and the proposed Raydan Way stream crossing if at all feasible.

Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland and stream impacts prior to recordation. The JD has been done.

The acreage of each area of common open space has been provided. Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

By providing 9.195 acres of common open space (30.27%), this proposal satisfies the common open space. The total common open space proposed has been reduced by two acres. Therefore, there needs to be a reconfirmation that the common open space proposed will be within the sensitive areas thresholds established in §176.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.

The FSD, PFCP, FCP and Landscape Plan have been approved. The forest retention areas are now shown on the Final Plat.

Rows of street trees with 10 planting easements are required, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of all internal roads. Those planting easements must be shown on the Record Plat, consistent with §186.1.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 520 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

In areas with community facilities, no street trees shall be planted within 20 feet of sewer laterals and cleanouts.

A 25 intermittent stream buffer is required, except in forest retention areas where the intermittent stream buffer is expanded to 50. Stream buffers and expansions thereof have been shown.

The proposed road names have been approved. Sidewalks are recommended on at least one side of all internal roads.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space and landscaped islands must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

The depiction of the site location in the location map varies from one sheet to another. The Record Plats shall contain accurate depictions of the location of the site on all location maps on all streets.

Mr. Woodhull stated this final plat submittal as originally submitted on 9/7/04 for DPW review had serious omissions of critical information. Several drainage and utility easements identified on the approved SWM Plans, as well as the Road & Storm Drain Plans were not reflected on the Final Plat. The requirement to indicate these easements on the Final Plat is for creating their legal standing when recorded as well as to identify encumbrances on effected lots to the Planning Commission and potential buyers and owners. These easements provide protection to stormwater conveyances required to meet the approved SWM Plan. DPW did receive a revised Final Plat on Friday, 9/10/04, identifying the previously omitted easements. This re-submittal, has adequately addressed the DPWs primary concerns.

As mentioned the SWM Plan, Street and Storm Drain Plan and Mass and Final Grading Plan are approved and administrative agreements have been executed.

Mr. Smith read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 521 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

Robert Fritz, 39 Black Snake Road, Elkton, appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. He stated he planned to appeal any decision made by this board today using the argument that 15 days prior notice was not given to the public for the change of this meeting.

2. Tim Whittie presented The Reserve at Elk River, Section 1, Oldfield Point Road, Final Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Whittie stated the plat was for Lots 1-37, 39-42. The preliminary plan was approved. Road and storm drains, SWM and sediment control have been signed off on by DPW and Soil Conservation service. Public Works agreements have been submitted and approved. The JD has been approved; The TIS was approved. The SCP and Landscape Plans have been approved. Well appropriation permits have been approved. A Well variance has been requested and approved by DPW. The plans have been formally approved. All comments pertaining to the plat have been addressed by the applicant, DPW and Health Department.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was NAR, SR, LDA (Critical Area).

The Concept Plat was approved on 2/24/03, at a density of 1/3.15 in the NAR portion, and a density of 1/2.76 in the SR portion, conditioned on:

2) A boundary line survey being completed prior to the TACs review of the Preliminary Plat; and

3) A waiver being granted for both the proposed Rosewood Drive and Winslow Drive will require a waiver of §7.2.12.B.9 of the Subdivision Regulations.

The Preliminary Plat for Section 1, Lots 1-37, 39-42, & 49-60 was approved on 10/20/03, conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 522 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 2) DPW requirements being met;

3) A Final Plat checkprint, containing the FRA boundaries, being approved prior to the review of the Final Plat by the Planning Commission;

4) The FCP and Landscape Plan being approved prior to the review of the Final Plat by the Planning Commission;

5) The details of the FCP and the Final Plat matching up;

7) Sidewalks not being required;

8) The percentage of tree removal being shown on the Final Plat; and

9) A Title Search to determine ownership of the road stub adjacent to proposed Lot 35 being performed, prior to Final Plat review.

Per condition #3 of Preliminary Plat approval, the Final Plat checkprint was submitted for review.

This Section 1 Final Plat is generally consistent with the approved Concept and Preliminary Plats.

In the NAR-zoned portion, this Section 1 Final Plat now proposes 33 lots, 30 which are new, on 129.73 acres, for a proposed density of 1/3.931. Per the conditions of approval for St. Johns Manor West, 3 lots and 2.5 acres from St. Johns Manor West are included in this density calculation, as shown. The proposed NAR density is consistent with the approved Concept and Preliminary Plats density of 1/3.15.

In the SR-zoned portion, this Section 1 Final Plat now proposes 23 lots on 64.3 acres, for a proposed density of 1/2.795. That calculation is based upon the subtraction of 23.87 acres increased from 23.53 acres of previously reserved land because of the survey that was conducted. The proposed SR density is consistent with the approved Concept and Preliminary Plats density of 1/2.76.

No development is proposed, or can be permitted, in the reserved 23.87 acres that were used for the St. Johns Vista subdivision density calculation, upon which that Final Plat was approved on 9/19/89.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 523 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 To recapitulate, the NAR density must be calculated by adding 3 lots and 2.5 acres from St. Johns Manor West, and the SR density must be calculated by subtracting at least 23.53 acres reserved as part of St. Johns Vista, lots 1-22.

A portion of the SR-zoned portion, approximately 68 acres, lies within the LDA classification, or overlay zone, of the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area District, which has an impervious cover limitation of 15%.

The boundary line survey, done in conjunction with the preparation of the Preliminary Plat, resulted in the elimination of the isolated rectangle of land near the western end of this property.

On the Record Plat, all references to the Critical Area must include the specific LDA designation.

An environmental assessment associated with a prior proposal was previously reviewed, and no rare, threatened, or endangered species inhabit the site, though the forested areas contain FIDS habitat.

In a letter dated 2/4/03, the Critical Area Commission staff indicated that the depicted limits of tidal and non-tidal wetlands and buffers, and the expanded 110 Critical Area Buffer, were accurate. That letter also pointed out, however, that a Variance would be required for any development in the Critical Area on slopes greater than 15%, and that the Commissions staff would not support a variance for development on lots in the Critical Area where disturbance to steep slopes is proposed.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 524 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

No development is permitted in the tidal wetlands and tidal waters buffers, including septic systems, impervious surfaces, parking areas, roads, or structures.

No more than 20% of the forest or developed woodland may be removed. When less than 15% of the site is in forest cover, at least 15% of the gross site area shall be afforested.

In the critical area, no structure shall exceed 35 in height.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone. 20% landscaping is required in the SR zone.

Sidewalks are usually recommended along one side of all internal roads in the SR zone. However, a significant portion of the proposed Rosewood Drive is located in the Critical Area, where we seek to minimize impervious cover, and the NAR portion of the project will not have sidewalks. Therefore, the Preliminary Plat approval carried with it, no requirement for sidewalks, in the interest of minimizing adverse impacts to this sensitive area and for the sake of design consistency.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 525 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The portion of the site within the Critical Area is exempt under §3.2B of the Cecil County Forest Conservation Regulations, as noted on the plat.

Access to common open space between and beside lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

It has been determined that the .474 acres labeled Holt Farm Lane remains in the ownership of the Holt family. In a communication received on 7/12/04, it is proposed that the Holt family will retain ownership. A note to that effect should appear on the Record Plat, so that Holt Farm Lane is never assumed to be an approved, buildable lot.

Mr. Woodhull stated the omissions on the previous Final Plat submittals had been corrected to the satisfaction of DPW. The SWM Plan, Street and Storm Drain Plan and Mass and Final Grading Plan had been approved and administrative agreements had been executed.

Mr. Smith read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 526 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Robert Boutin, 69 Duck Hollow Drive, Elkton, appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. He questioned if Mr. Smith would recuse himself from consideration of this proposal. It was his opinion that the only reasonable circumstance for his prior inclusions would be if he had some how resolved his prior conflicts. It was Mr. Boutins understanding that the prior conflict was Mr. Smith resides adjacent to the proposed development. It was his opinion that the integrity of the process was being compromised. Mr. Boutin asked if a TIS had been completed by SHA as stated previously by Mr. Whittie in his opening statement. Mr. Whittie stated that a formal TIS had not been performed, but a study was performed by the applicant and DPW. Mr. Boutin stated an ill advised precedent was being set in the County regarding the acceptance of proposed planning and development of limited access parcels. There is a public safety issue that presents itself when these plans reveal a single access, including substandard County roads that serve these proposed developments. The Reserve of Elk River is a prime example of this situation. The portion of Oldfield Point Road slated to access this development is shown to be the only way in and out and consist of the final ¾ of a mile of the County Road which is only 20 wide with no shoulders and would be hard pressed to be considered a decent farm lane. This is the reality that the existing 180 plus homeowners, including him, have to deal with on a daily basis. In Mr. Boutins opinion, the traffic in this instance is not considered to be an issue by the Planning Commission. He is concerned that a TIS has not been performed in the area encompassing Racine School Road and last couple of miles of Oldfield Point Road, which is near Elk Neck Elementary School. He asked that a TIS be a requirement. He questioned the introduction of direct stormwater into Jones Creek, which would impact the already overburden capacity. At present the flooding south of Jones Creek causes residents to be stranded on either side of the creek during flood conditions.

3. Tim Whittie presented The Reserve at Elk River, Section 2, Oldfield Point Road, Final Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Whittie stated this plat was for Phase 2, Lots 38 and 43 48. The lots had been removed from the preliminary plan, Phase 1 approval, due to the fact that they required a wet season perc test. The lots are to utilize the roads, storm drains and SWM facilities that were approved under Section 1. The SCP and Landscape plan have been approved. The JD has been approved. The Well Appropriation Permit was approved for all of the lots including Phase 1 and 2. A well variance was requested through the County Health Department and approved.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was NAR, SR, LDA (Critical Area).

The Concept Plat was approved on 2/24/03, at a density of 1/3.15 in the NAR portion, and a density of 1/2.76 in the SR portion, conditioned on:

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 527 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 2) A boundary line survey being completed prior to the TACs review of the Preliminary Plat; and

3) A waiver being granted for both the proposed Rosewood Drive and Winslow Drive will require a waiver of §7.2.12.B.9 of the Subdivision Regulations.

The Preliminary Plat for Section 1, Lots 1-37, 39-42, & 49-60 was approved on 10/20/03, conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) A Final Plat checkprint, containing the FRA boundaries, being approved prior to the review of the Final Plat by the Planning Commission;

4) The FCP and Landscape Plan being approved prior to the review of the Final Plat by the Planning Commission;

5) The details of the FCP and the Final Plat matching up;

7) Sidewalks not being required;

8) The percentage of tree removal being shown on the Final Plat; and

9) A Title Search to determine ownership of the road stub adjacent to proposed Lot 35 being performed, prior to Final Plat review.

The Section 2 Preliminary Plat was approved on 7/19/04, conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) A note to the effect that no FRAs are proposed to be located on these lots appearing on the plat;

4) The FCP and Landscape Plan being approved prior to the review of the Final Plat by the Planning Commission;

5) The details of the FCP, Landscape Plan and the Final Plat matching up;

6) Sidewalks not being required; and

7) The 10 street tree planting easement being depicted and/or noted on the plat.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 528 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

In the NAR-zoned portion, this Section 2 Preliminary Plat now proposes 7 lots, in addition to Section 1s 33 lots (30 new) on 129.73 acres, for a proposed aggregate density of 1/3.243. Per the conditions of approval for St. Johns Manor West, 3 lots and 2.5 acres from St. Johns Manor West are included in this density calculation. The proposed NAR density is consistent with the approved Concept Plat density of 1/3.15.

There are no Section 2 lots proposed in either the SR-zoned portion or the Critical Area portion of this development.

To recapitulate, the NAR density must be calculated by adding 3 lots and 2.5 acres from St. Johns Manor West.

This Section 2 Final Plat is generally consistent with the approved Concept and Preliminary Plats. The proposed lot numbers are now included in the title blocks, as required in §4.2.13 (a) 4.

A notation that there are no Forest Retention Area boundaries on these lots must be included on the Record Plat.

Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for any non-tidal wetland or stream impacts prior to recordation. The JD was completed on 6/24/03.

The combined Sections 1 & 2 Preliminary Plats satisfy the 60% open space requirement for bonus density eligibility in the NAR zone.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone. No sidewalks are required per condition # 6 of Preliminary Plat approval.

A Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) was previously approved on 2/11/02, and revised FSDs were approved on 2/13/03 and 8/15/03. The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) was approved on 9/8/03. No FRAs are proposed to be located on these lots. A note to that effect must appear on the plat. The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan were both approved on 6/1/04. A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 529 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Deed restrictions for the long-term protection of the Forest Retention/Afforestation Areas (FRAs) must be recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation. The metes and bounds description of the FRA must be shown on the record plat.

Access to common open space beside lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

Consistent with §4.2.13 (i), the areas of the proposed lots under one acre in size have been expressed in square feet.

Mr. Woodhull stated the SWM Plan, Street and Storm Drain Plan and Mass and Final Grading Plan have been approved and the administrative agreements have been executed. The omissions on the previous final plat submittal have been corrected.

Mr. Brown asked Mr. Woodhull if he could elaborate on the proposed road improvements to Oldfield Point Road as part of this project. Mr. Woodhull stated originally the comments referenced the upgrade to the final section of Oldfield Point Road and was scheduled for FY08 in the CIP. DPW had commented that it did not feel that the roads were suitable for the additional 660 trip ends per day that would be generated by the development without substantial offsite improvements. Those improvements were required at the Preliminary Plat review. The improvements were spelled out in the DPWs 2/14/03 letter which addressed the improvement to the road surface, drainage, shoulders and some removal of over vertical, minor alignment and road widening. These improvements spanned from the southern end of the property on Oldfield Point Road to the intersection of Racine School Road and Oldfield Point Road.

Mr. Smith read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. Brown reminded the audience that all comments would be held to five minutes with no yielding of time. All questions should be directed to the Planning Commission and not to the applicants. It is the Planning Commissions job to ask the applicants questions. All comments must be made a point of order. There will be no debates or discussions from the floor.

No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 530 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Robert Boutin, 69 Duck Hollow Drive, Elkton, appeared in opposition of the proposal, still under oath his testimony followed. He reiterated his positions. He referenced the comments made by DPW on the areas of Oldfield Point Road/Jones Creek to the intersection of Racine School Road. It is his belief that a TIS should be completed.

Mr. Brown asked what circumstances currently trigger a TIS. Mr. DiGiacomo replied currently there is a threshold of 100 lots. They are working to revise their guidelines to be in consistent with the standards set by the Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE). If there are obvious problems that manifest themselves, regardless of the number of lots, a TIS would be triggered. The developers are responsible for the cost of a TIS, not the County. In this case Mr. DiGiacomo was not involved in the deliberations between MRA and CCDPW. He recalled that even thought this project fell below the threshold, and a formal TIS was not done, the road improvements agreed upon where the result of anticipated traffic volumes that had been taken from the ITE Trip Generation, which is the same one that the traffic engineers would use if they conducted a formal TIS. OPZ has a three volume set of the trip generation manuals and Mr. DiGiacomo believes that is where those numbers came from. Therefore the numbers are the same ones that a traffic engineer would have used had a formal TIS been done.

Mr. Woodhull added that under the current guidelines a TIS would not have adequately addressed the link for the road condition itself. As it currently stands, and they are in the process of changing, it would have addressed more of the intersections. That is why it didnt trigger a TIS. DPW understood the requirements and the need for improvement to Oldfield Point Road and that is why they took it upon themselves to mandate those changes and require the developer to improve the road.

Mr. Boutin stated the argument that they had the same reference material as an accredited organization, which job it is to do a certain service, was not acceptable to him.

Ms. Kilby asked if someone could address the impact that Mr. Boutin raised about Jones Creek. Mr. Carter stated the SWM plan for the development approved by DPW was in accordance with the SWM regulations, which addresses both quality and quantity controls. A downstream analysis has been completed, which reviews what happens once the flow leaves the site. This analysis concluded that the Jones Creek pipe under Oldfield Point Road was adequate. The DPW improvements slated to be carried out for Oldfield Point Road will include the pipe being upsized because of the type of concerns Mr. Boutin raised.

4. Donald Sutton, Dave Hill and Harry Crawford presented Fulton Hills, (formerly Lands of Harry M. Crawford, et. ux.), Old Telegraph Road, Concept Plat, McCrone, Inc., First Election District

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 531 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Sutton stated this project was before the Planning Commission last month and was disapproved. The applicants have since reviewed the August Planning Commission comments. The project site and surrounding area include Lake Forest Estates and Grand Farm Estates, one of which is adjacent of 2000. Both of these developments received the 1/5 density. The applicants are currently seeking the same density. He discussed the differences between the three projects. Mr. Sutton evaluated the changes made since the project was reviewed in August. The 100 wide ROW still exist to the south end of the property, which continues to allow Mr. Crawford access to the remaining lands in Delaware. Without this ROW the land would be land locked as it does not have access to a road in Delaware.

Mr. Hill stated the Delaware property had never been offered to him for sale and he would not be interested in developing it.

Mr. Crawford stated he had no plans in selling the Delaware property. Should the property be sold in the future there would be an agreement with the buyer requiring a road be built and maintain by the new owner. Therefore Maryland would have no responsibility.

Discussion followed concerning 100 ROW accessing the property on the Delaware side.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was SAR which permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per eight (8) acres. Bonus density eligibility carries with it a permitted density of 1/5. This Concept Plat proposes 18 lots on 93.1 acres, for a proposed density of 1/5.17.

New Castle County records indicate that the Delaware portion of this property, which is zoned SR, which is a different SR than Cecil Countys SR, is 60 acres. If the 53.7 acre figure is correct, then possibly 11 additional lots could be approved (or 21 lots, if the open space option were elected).

It has been stated by the developer that no development been planned or proposed in New Castle County. Mr. DiGiacomo asked if there was any technical reason why the proposed access strip was located at the very end of the property, and why it was proposed to be in excess of 100 wide. Mr. Crawford stated the 100 was a figure thrown out; it could be 50 or 60 along as the access was wide enough to accommodate the farm equipment.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated any development of the remaining lands in New Castle County would require New Castle County approval prior to Cecil County recordation of the access strip. If such access was a private mini-road than a mini-road maintenance association would need to be formed, and the incorporation documents recorded in both counties prior to recordation of the roadway in Cecil County.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 532 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

A for sale sign on the property touts the development potential for all 150 acres including those in New Castle Delaware County.

A number of issues, including traffic, emergency services, school attendance, stormwater management, etc. will require interjurisdictional coordination.

A boundary line survey must be done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes.

Minor Subdivisions 279, 2020, 3124, and 3441 have been referenced on the plat.

Slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the Preliminary Plat.

A 25 buffer is required around all non-tidal wetlands and intermittent streams present. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland and stream impacts prior to recordation. A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) must be done prior to Preliminary Plat review by the Planning Commission.

The habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided.

15% common open space is required; 31.36% is proposed. The common open space and the proposed large lot together total 62.19% of the total acreage, thus satisfying eligibility for bonus density consideration in the

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 533 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 SAR zone.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the SAR zone.

Sidewalks are not recommended.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of Old Telegraph Road. Staff recommends a waiver of the Bufferyard C requirement along proposed Lot 18, if the modified Bufferyard A is implemented along the rear lot lines of proposed Lots 13-17, as that design would better help preserve rural character.

Rows of street trees with 10 planting easements are required, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of the proposed, unnamed loop road, which has been changed to Fulton Court and Martha Way. Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements.

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) has been approved.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The proposed internal road names have been approved.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 534 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

Covenants prohibiting the subdivision of the large lot must be recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

Mr. Woodhull stated a SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan, and a Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, and Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the Countys SWM Ordinance. The SWM Plan, Road and Storm Drain Plan and Lot Grading Plan must address the existing drainage swale running across the property (Lots 1, COS) to Sandy Branch. Impacts to the Lands of Clevenger and Teat must also be analyzed and addressed. Applicant may be required to pickup Old Telegraph Road drainage and cross lot drainage and convey it to the stormwater management facilities to address existing conveyance concerns. DPW recommends that as a condition of approval of the Concept Plat,

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 535 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 any residential development located in Delaware on the Lands of Crawford is accessed via a connection to Fulton Court and that a 50 ROW be stubbed from Fulton Court, aligned with Martha Way, to the Remaining Lands of Crawford. If connectivity to this portion of the site is sought in the future via the proposed 100 wide access, the DPW recommends that it be limited to a private mini road serving no more than 5 Lots.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, owner, designer, or DPW; utilities poles must be relocated at the owners expense.

The requirements of Section 3.07.15 of the Road Code requires that Old Telegraph Road be upgraded to Minor Collector road standard for 100 either side of the proposed entrances onto Old Telegraph Road. The applicant can anticipate the requirement to improve and/or establish shoulders and improve drainage along this developments entire road frontage.

DPW will require substantial Geo-tech investigation to determine the suitability of the sub grade in the area of the existing drainage swale crossing of Fulton Court to support a County road.

Lot 1 must be denied access to Old Telegraph Road. Lot 18 must also be denied access except at the existing driveway.

Any applicable Road Code Variances must be requested prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat review.

All driveways must be paved at least to the right of way and this must be so indicated on the Lot Grading Plan.

A PWA is required for the Roads and Storm Drains. An I&M Agreement is required for SWM facilities.

Mr. Smith read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

Betty VanStant, 27 Nellington Road, Nellington, MD appeared in favor of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. She stated that she would like to read a letter submitted by Susan Fitzwater, 145 Mary Court, Warwick, MD 21912, a copy attached for reference. Ms. VanStant stated she had signatures of 23 residents that could be faxed upon request.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 536 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Phyllis Kilby, 795 Firetower Road, Colora, appeared on behalf of William Manlove in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. She stated that she was speaking in behalf of William Manlove, who was unable to attend. Mr. Manlove has lived in this area his entire life and has four points that he would like to emphasize. (1) He feels that this property is an example of urban swale. There would be less concern if it was in the Village of Warwick. (2) There is more imperious surface to drain across the natural swale which will require the need for more piping to be created. If this is not handled correctly it will cause another drainage problem. (3) It would be incumbent to assure that the house not be built closer because of the nearby drainage field. (4) His major concern was the bonus density request for this property, which is based on land that could not be developed anyway. The open land that will be used in this request will not give the County anything in return. Ms. Kilby stated, in the words of our imminent council who has told us many times that each development must be considered on its own merits and not considered in relationship to what has gone before, what may be going on in the future.

Jim Mullins, 1676 Glebe Road, Earleville, appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. He stated his concern was the remaining 60 acres of land in New Castle County. The Middletown town limits now extend to Middle Neck Road. There is one parcel between the remaining lands and Middletown town limits. He is asking the OPZ and Planning Commission to diligently account for the remaining ground and cover all their bases. He suggested that the Town of Warwick be asked to annex this property. He asked that the commission look at some sound land use planning, planning options and accountability. Susan Fitzwater is a realtor with Remax and, therefore has a monetary gain if this project moves forward. Mr. Mullins distributed an article in addition to a map of land where the land banking is taking place, a copy attached for reference.

5. Doug Kopeck presented Glennas Heights, Johnson Road, Preliminary Plat, CAN, Eighth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Kopeck stated the project is proposing 25 single family units with bonus density. The plan has only a few minor changes from the Concept Plat. Mr. Kopeck reviewed these changes.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was NAR which permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres, 1/3 if bonus density is granted.

The Concept Plat, proposing 25 lots on 70.26 acres was approved on 6/21/04, conditioned on:

1) The JD being completed prior to Preliminary Plat review by the Planning Commission;

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 537 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 2) The mini road name being approved prior to Preliminary Plat review by the Planning Commission;

3) A sensitive species survey being completed prior to Preliminary Plat review by the TAC;

4) The acreages of all parcels and deed parcels being included on the plat prior to Preliminary Plat review by the TAC;

5) All streams and buffers being clearly delineated on the Preliminary Plat; and

6) The Final Plat reflecting that this project is in Cecil County.

It invoked the minor subdivision potential of 1 of the deed parcels. Therefore, 4 of the proposed lots could be minor subdivision lots, and the density was calculated as follows:

Total site area is 70.26 ac.

4 potential minor sub lots -4.00 ac.

Remaining site area 66.26 ac.

1 unit/3 acres: 66.26 /3 = 22 lots (density of 1/3.113, 1/3.155 for 21 lots)

Add minor subs = 4 lots

TOTAL ALLOWED LOTS = 26

TOTAL PROPOSED LOTS = 25

Note #19 indicates that a boundary line survey has been completed. The acreage has changed to 70.28 acres.

As stated at TAC review, the areas of lots have been provided, but not in table form, as required in §4.1.22 (r). The acreage of the proposed large lot (# 24) has now decreased to 22.14 acres (was 22.87 ac.; was 15.31 ac.), and the common open space has been increased to 20.03 (was 19.40 ac.; was 27.01 ac.), for a total of (was 42.27; was 42.32 ac.), or 60.0%. Therefore, this design retains bonus density eligibility.

The BG&E gas transmission line has been shown. Mr. DiGiacomo asked if there was an easement associated with it. Mr. Kopeck replied they had discovered that the BG&E line is outside of the transmission line ROW. This will need to be address with BG&E. They may have to grant BG&E some type of easement.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 538 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Mr. DiGiacomo stated under Legend, the stream buffer area graphic is unnecessary. It is the stream buffer which must be shown.

There are still some lines that are not labeled or shown, including a stream buffer leading into the pond on proposed Lot 24.

As stated at TAC review, the steep slopes graphics under Legend is the same that is used for roadways and driveways. As stated at TAC review, that is confusing and must be changed

On slopes between 15 and 25%, good engineering practices shall be used to ensure sediment and erosion control and slope stabilization before, during and after disturbance activities.

A 110 perennial stream buffer is required from all perennial streams present. A 25 buffer is required around all non-tidal wetlands and intermittent streams present. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland and stream impacts prior to recordation. The JD has been done.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone. No sidewalks are recommended in the NAR zone.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of Johnson Road. Sight distance issues may possibly require modification of that requirement.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 539 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided.

The FSD was approved on 4/14/04. The Natural Heritage Service reported that the Long-awned Diplachne and Whorled Mountain Mint, endangered plant species, are known to occur within the vicinity. The species survey and revised FSD for the Glenna's Heights subdivision have been approved.

The location of the species has been shown on the PFCP, which was approved on 8/5/04, but neither the general location nor protective buffer zones have been shown on the Preliminary Plat.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat. A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

Cobble Drive and the mini road name (Doolyn Road) have been approved. Access to common open space between and beside lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

Documentation of a formal agreement between the developer and the utility to cross the transmission corridors must be received prior to Final Plat approval. The applicant has indicated that some steps have been taken in that regard.

Covenants prohibiting the subdivision of the large lot must be recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

A mini-road maintenance association must be established prior to recordation, with the owners of all lots accessing the mini-road becoming members.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 540 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Woodhull stated a SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan and Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, and Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the Countys SWM Ordinance.

DPW finds the sight distance for the proposed entrance onto Johnson Road acceptable.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, owner, designer, or DPW; utilities poles must be relocated at the owners expense.

Johnson Road is approximately 18 wide with no shoulders and roadside drainage is spotty with some poor conditions in and around the proposed entrance.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 541 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

However, DPW anticipates that the addition of some 230 trips per day will require substantial off-site roadwork beyond the limits set by Section 3.07. 15. Existing wetlands may complicate this off-site work.

Our preliminary intention is that the developer addresses improvements to Johnson Road extending 900 west and 1,300 east of the proposed entrance. The improvements will require repair of areas of failed sub-grade identified by the Department, installation and or replacement of cross culverts, re-establishment of adequate roadside drainage, and overlay of Johnson Road at a minimum 1½ at the edges effecting a 3% cross slope for the entire 2,200.

DPW will require substantial Geo-tech investigation of the suitability of the sub-grade, along the proposed roadway, to support a County road. The area of this investigation runs from the area of the proposed SWM facility to the intersection with Johnson Road.

The private mini-road proposed must meet the requirements spelled out in Section 2.13 of the Road Code. These requirements include placing a statement, on the approved Final Plat that clearly outlines the responsibilities of the Mini-Road Maintenance Association in the maintenance of roads and storm drainage systems. (The proposed internal roads will not be dedicated for public ownership or maintenance. The Mini-Road Maintenance Association shall retain title to the road and all maintenance responsibilities).

All driveways must be paved at least to the right of way and this must be so indicated on the Lot Grading Plan.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities. A PWA will be required for internal streets and storm drains.

Mr. Smith read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. Williams asked the applicant if they had considered using the buffer of the tributary south of the pond as a reforestation area. Mr. Kopeck replied they had used the reforestation area on the other side of the transmission line. Mr. Williams questioned why the other area had not been used as reforestation area. Mr. Kopeck replied because they did not use it for the calculations. Mr. Williams asked if the applicant would consider taking the reforestation located in the southeast corner and moving it up near the tributary. This would protect the water quality and control flooding. Mr. Kopeck replied they could do it but it would require revising the FCP.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 542 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

6. The Villages at Cherry Hill, Singerly Road (Rte 213), Leeds Road and Black Snake Road, Concept Plat, Glackin Thomas Panzak, Inc., Third Election District

WITHDRAWN

7. Christopher Diebold presented Prelude (Located in Village of Bayview), Old Bayview Road, Minor Subdivision Concept Plat, American Engineering & Surveying, Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Diebolt addressed comments from the August 2004 Planning Commission Meeting minutes. The labeling of the proposed private ¾ water service was done as such because there private maintenance will be performed on individual lines. The applicant is awaiting the letter from the National Heritage Foundation. They have been informed that the FSD was approved.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was VR (Village Residential) the purpose of which is to provide for the protection of existing villages by allowing limited development consistent with the character of these villages. The VR zone permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per one (1) acre, or 4/1 with community facilities.

This proposal consists of parcels 49 and 138, both original parcels of record, and it proposes 4 lots on 1.6113 acres, for a proposed density of 2.48/1.

A boundary line survey has been done.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 543 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

A Variance for the road frontage of proposed Lot 3 was granted by the Board of Appeals on 7/27/04. The opinion was signed on 8/24/04. The Variance must be referenced by case number on the Preliminary-Final and Record Plats.

A fee simple road widening dedication will be required on Old Bayview Road. Therefore, the notation on the plat has been changed accordingly.

On any slopes between 15 and 25%, good engineering practices shall be used to ensure sediment and erosion control and slope stabilization before, during and after disturbance activities. Any slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the Preliminary Plat.

Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for any non-tidal wetland and stream impacts prior to recordation. Mr. DiGiacomo asked if a JD been done. Mr. Kopeck replied he did not believe so.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the habitats of any rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided.

With respect to lot and yard requirements, this proposal is generally consistent with the Schedule of Zone Regulations for the VR district, set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.

With respect to open space, this proposal requires no common open space because fewer than 10 lots are proposed.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 544 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

With respect to the proposed intensity of the project being consistent with the existing character of the village, the proposed density is generally consistent with that of the existing village.

With respect to the existing character of the village, this proposal is generally consistent with that of the existing village.

Sidewalks are not recommended in this case.

Landscaping in the VR zone is required to provide a minimum of 20% landscaping that must create a visually harmonious and compatible setting, consistent with the existing character of the village.

The peripheral VR Bufferyard shown on the approved Landscape Plan must be shown on the Preliminary-Final Plat, as must the street trees with 10 planting easements, consistent with §186.1.

The FSD was conditionally approved on 9/2/04 because the Natural Heritage Service exceeded their allowed 30 days to respond to the consultants inquiry regarding the presence of rare, threatened, or endangered species. The Natural Heritage Service letter must be received and any issues addressed prior to Final Plat approval.

The FCP and Landscape Plan have been approved. A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 545 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The Preliminary-Final and Record Plats shall contain a statement signed by the Health Department approving authority; to the effect that use of the community water supply and community sewerage system is in conformance with the Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan. The Record Plats shall also contain a statement, signed by the owner, to the effect that such facilities will be available to all lots offered for sale. Notes 8 & 9 will not suffice.

Written verification of water allocation and sewer capacity must be received prior to Preliminary-Final Plat review by the Planning Commission.

All zoning violations must be satisfactorily remedied prior to recordation

Mr. Woodhull stated DPW understands that the Town of North East will provide water to this development. The water lines must be reflected on the sanitary sewer plans and as-builts presented to the Cecil County Department of Public Works for review.

A SWM Plan, Road and Storm Drain Plan, Sanitary Sewer Plan, and Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, and Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 546 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Sight distance measurements are required for the driveway on Lot 2. The location of the driveway must be marked in the field. All driveways must be paved at least in the County ROW and reflected on the Lot Grading Plan.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, owner, designer, or DPW; utilities poles must be relocated at the owners expense.

The preparation of the grading plans for these lots must satisfactorily address the slopes on site and how adverse impacts from runoff will be prevented.

The proposed private force main must terminate in a terminal manhole located at or near the lot owners side of the new ROW boundary and continue on as a gravity line to the main. A doghouse manhole will be required at the existing gravity main.

The gravity line and the manhole will be County maintained and the force main from the manhole back to the dwellings will be private. This must be made abundantly clear to all lot owners, including a note on the Final Plat.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

A PWA will be required for the sanitary sewer connections.

Mr. Smith read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. Brown welcomed Mr. Mortimer to the meeting, 11:40 am.

No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

David Carter, 325 Old Bayview Road, North East, appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. He stated a major concern was the runoff that would be created from the proposed development. The size of the homes to be built has not been determined; therefore he is

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 547 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 unable to predict the amount of runoff. Mr. Woodhull explained how DPW predicts the run off. Mr. Carter stated that the proposed development still fails to fit in with the community due to the density, road frontage and yard space.

Mr. Mortimer asked Mr. Carter to describe again the reason why he felt this project was not typical of the current development. Mr. Carter replied with the lot size, all the houses would have minimum road frontage compared to existing homes, the shared driveway is not typical of the community and the houses will be cluttered in the low laying area.

Mr. Brown reminded Mr. Edwards that he had five minutes allotted to speak and an additional five minutes to speak on behalf of his wife.

Williams Edwards, 315 Old Bay View Road, North East, appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. He read a statement on behalf of his wife, Grace Edwards, 315 Old Bay View Road, North East, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. Smith asked Mr. Edwards if he had seen the plans currently proposed afforestation area and had reviewed the location of the trees to be planted. Mr. Edwards reviewed the plat. Discussion followed concerning the location and possibility of the trees being planted.

Mr. Edwards stated the driveway problem had not been solved as to date. Mr. Diebolt had been in contact with Mr. Edwards. They will meet in the future to resolve any deeding issues concerning the driveway. He spoke of the change from 7 to 10 and the change in density. Mr. Edwards touched on the proposed project not fitting into the existing development. He verified that the FSD had been approved. He would like to see a condition included in the final approval stating that the property would not be used for rental property of Section 8 housing. It is his opinion that the petition should be accepted as opposition. Mr. Edwards verified that a JD had not been completed. He spoke on the runoff from rain onto the properties. He questioned water feasibility of the water lines leading to various areas. He asked if a statement had been completed informing potential buyers that public water was available and questioned the surveying being conducted without a title search.

Mr. Smith asked what the significance of the owners signed statement was as opposed to it being in the notes. Mr. DiGiacomo replied it was required by the ordinance on the Final Plat.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 548 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 8. Bob Webb and Stewart Wilson presented Beulah Land, MD Rte 272 & Wheatley Road, Preliminary/Final Re-subdivision of Lot 44A & Add-on, C. Robert Webb, Ninth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Wilson spoke on the history of the property in relationship to his family. It was his opinion that the County records are not accurate and that the family lots where lost during the development of Beulah Land. He is requesting to be allowed to expand the lots back into the previous usable lots. His property has exceptional perc. He has looked into the possibility of building an assistant living house for his mother and aunt.

Mr. Webb stated Mr. Wilson had done an extensive research of the property and questioned if Mr. Wilson had the right to create additional lots.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was RR which permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres, or 1/3 if bonus density were to be granted by the Planning Commission.

In response to an inquiry from Mr. Wilson, based upon an extensive review all Beulah Land files, the Office of Planning and Zoning in July 2003 determined that the Beulah Land subdivision had the potential for one additional lot.

That determination was consistent with the existing, sequential numbering of lots and the Planning Commission minutes of 8/20/85 and 3/16/92. Those minutes clearly state that 90 total lots were permitted in the approved, and still valid, Concept Plat. In addition, the recorded Beulah Land lots are numbered 1-89. Were the original Concept Plat no longer valid, then no additional lots could now be created in the RR-zoned Beulah Land subdivision.

The applicant was advised at that time that the creation of an additional lot would require a resubdivision plats being reviewed by the TAC and the Planning Commission, because subdivision potential based upon remaining density does not, in and of itself, authorize the creation of additional lots especially if the existing subdivision layout precludes the creation of additional, new lots that must designed and laid out consistent with Subdivision and other County and State Regulations.

This proposal was reviewed by the TAC and the Planning Commission in August, 2004. Owing to questions regarding septic systems in the immediate area, the Planning Commission on 8/16/04 approved this application as Preliminary Plat only, conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 549 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 2) DPW requirements being met;

3) The §3.2N exemption being noted on the Record Plat;

4) The Landscape Agreement being executed prior to recordation;

5) A note appearing on the Record Plat to the effect that there can be no further subdivision because the full Beulah Land subdivision potential is exhausted with the recordation of this lot;

6) The owners of the new lot becoming members of the Homeowners Association with $50 for this recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation; and

7) A setback modification being granted, as requested.

A boundary line survey has been done. An access permit has been issued by SHA for direct access onto MD 272.

Common open space is not an issue in this case.

The applicant was granted a modification of the minimum setback requirement along MD 272 as part of Preliminary Plat approval on 8/16/04.

This Proposal is exempt from the Forest Conservation Regulations per §s 3.2K and 3.2N. The 3.2K exemption has been noted on the plat; the 3.2N exemption has not.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the RR zone.

A Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontage of North East Road (MD 272). The Landscape Plan was approved on 8/16/04. A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

As was a condition of Preliminary Plat approval, a note must appear on the Record Plat to the effect that because the full Beulah Land subdivision potential is exhausted with the recordation of this lot, there can be no further subdivision.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 550 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The owner(s) of the new lot must become members of the Homeowners Association with $50 for this recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

Mr. Stewart asked if the Homeowners Association was still in existence. Mr. DiGiacomo replied he believed it was still in existence. Mr. Sennstrom stated that it was possible that the association may not be active. In order to dissolve a HOA it would have to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners and he did not believe that had happened.

Mr. Woodhull stated the SWM Plan had been technically approved and only administrative issues remain outstanding.

Based upon public testimony at the August Planning Commission meeting, DPW staff returned to the site for further investigation that a flooding concern existed. The 42 conveyance under Route 272 appears to be open and functioning, although the applicants engineer has reported concerns to SHA about the condition of the pipe in the middle of the highway. Also, there is some question whether flows from low frequency storms might actually travel underneath the pipe at least part of the way. Again, this would point to a maintenance concern that SHA may wish to look into further. Nonetheless, the conveyance appears more than adequate for the design flows. However, staff has amended the stormwater management approval to require regrading up to the entrance of the pipe so that conveyance of watershed flows to the pipe can be better assured.

All other Departmental requirements have been satisfied.

Mr. Smith read the Health Department comments in addition to a letter read addressing failed septic systems, a copy attached for reference.

No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

Linda Hunt, 44 Wheatley Road, North East appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. She stated she had spoken in opposition last month. Pictures were present concerning water run off, a copy attached for reference. Of the eight properties that surround the proposed project four septics have failed and two have required repairs. She referenced a letter written to Mr. Robert Hutton from the Health Department in 1990 denying him permission to subdivide this piece of property. The letter noted a 25 requirement from the State ROW to the septic which would compromise the 100 from Wheatleys well to the proposed septic. Ms. Hunt is not against who would be living in the assistant living home but the potential problems with water run off and septic.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 551 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Mortimer asked how many lot existed and could another lot be added. Mr. DiGiacomo stated after his investigation of the previous Planning Commission minutes and review of files, he had concluded that the Planning Commission approved 90 total lots, based on Mr. Rogers statements in the minutes, the last section consisting of Lots 75-89, it was determined that there existed the potential for one additional lot.

Mr. Stewart stated that the property in the pictures submitted by Ms. Hunt was not his property.

Mr. Moore stated a 25 separation from the property line was not a requirement. It is 25 from the road side ditch and/or 5 based on the easement along the property line for Planning & Zoning. In response to the other issue, the Health Department receives many requests for bedroom additions to a dwelling. Basically it is stated that an addition to a bedroom increases the size of the septic and drain field. He speculated that was the case with Ms. Hunt. In order for the permit to be issued for an additional bedroom the drain field and septic would have needed to be updated.

9. Mark Retz, Michael Pugh, Ben Brockway, Michael Fisher and Mark Pesch presented Wapiti, Turkey Point Road, Site Plan Growth Allocation, Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC, Fifth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Retz stated the property was purchased by Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania in order to create a retreat center but would not be exclusive to the Diocese of Pennsylvania. It will also be opened to the community at large. The goal is to bring people together in a Christian environment. He briefed the committee on the projects that would be involved in Phase 1. As a result of the September TAC meeting the applicants have meet with SHA, OPZ and are currently coordinating meetings with DPW. Mr. Retz stated in closing they felt this would be a great project for the community, environment and the applicants.

Mr. Pugh stated the purpose of the applicants appearing before the committee today was to seek Growth Allocation. The applicants are requesting 40 acres for effective Growth Allocations from the Countys reservoir of the available Growth Allocation. The effective Growth Allocation would be a transition from a zoning of RCA to LDA. Mr. Pugh explained the procedure for Growth Allocation being awarded based on point scoring. The Planning Commission will be tasked with reviewing the point scoring and assign points that would give the applicant the 90 point threshold, as a recommendation to the County Commissioners. After which the applicants would appear before a public and request the reward of the Growth Allocation. After these procedures the MD Critical Area Commission will review the project for approval.

Mr. Williams asked if the 50% shoreline protection was based on existing drawings. Mr. Retz replied based on the previous landowners had developed a stone erosion control jettie and white protector along the

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 552 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 shoreline. There were also some areas that had experienced erosion prior to the applicants purchasing the property, in which they intended to repair.

Mr. Smith asked if there was a bald eagle nest present. Mr. Pugh replied yes there was one and pointed out its location on the plat.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was NAR, RCA (Critical Area).

This is a site plan, which the Planning Commission does not ordinarily review. However, this proposed project was granted a Special Exception (File # 2910) for a conference center and campground by the Board of Appeals on 1/28/03, and because the project is proposed to be located in the Critical Area RCA zone, a condition of the Special Exception is that the applicant receives Growth Allocation. That requirement, for this use in the NAR and RCA zones, is found in the Cecil County Zoning Ordinance, Table of Permissible Uses, found between pages 76 and 77, and it is found in §s 85.1.e & 101.16.

§206.2 and 210.2.a (1) of the Cecil County Zoning Ordinance stipulate that Growth Allocation applications be placed on the TAC and Planning Commission agendas. The TAC review took place on 9/1/04, so this proposal is now before the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for approval or disapproval of the Growth Allocation application. This application seeks Growth Allocation from RCA to LDA for 40.0 acres.

Until such time as the Board of Commissioners might award Growth Allocation, any site plan comments are to be considered preliminary in nature. The primary issue at this time is that of the possible awarding of growth allocation based on the point award system.

The Cecil County Critical Area Program established an application screening process whereby only development projects that are exemplary of sensitive development in the Critical Area are given Growth Allocation.

The details of the point award system are contained in §206, 207 and 208 of the Cecil County Zoning Ordinance, and provide that the minimum scoring threshold for consideration of award of Growth allocation and reclassification is 90 points.

§206, 207, and 208 provide that the scoring system be the basis for any recommendation of reclassification. The applicant has self-scored the project and, as shown on the site plan, awarded it a total of 99 points, only

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 553 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 91 of which can count toward the established threshold.

OPZ has reviewed the scoring and concurs with the points awarded.

Mr. Woodhull stated his comment applied to the development of the site plan as opposed to the Growth Allocation, which DPW has no direct input to. DPW must receive and approve a Stormwater Management Plan and Mass and Final Grading Plan for the project at such time as any cumulative disturbance exceeds 5,000 square feet. The Site Plan must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Final Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, and Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

The Final Grading Plan must include a note saying: No clearing or grading is permitted beyond the limits of disturbance show hereon. Any expanded clearing and/or grading in the absence of an approved revised lot grading plan may be considered non-compliance with Chapter 251 of the Cecil County Code and either or both the developer and/or builder may be subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for any and all SWM facilities. DPW will meet with Site Resources next week to address SWM.

Mr. Smith read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

Jim Mullins, 1676 Glebe Road, Earleville, appeared in favor of the proposal and testimony followed. He stated I think its a good use of this property at this time. These gentlemen are voluntarily agreeing to a conservation easement(s) on the property and have show good will and judgment. Use of the property will be extended to various agencies. He feels it is a very nice fit for Cecil County.

No on appeared in opposition to the proposal.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 554 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Pugh asked if they would be notified of the scheduling for the Commissioners Meeting. Mr. DiGiacomo replied October 5th.

10. Michael Vaughn, David Parrack and David Mieskin presented Charlestown Crossing (Town of Charlestown), Rte 40, Concept Plat & Special Exception, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Parrack stated the project would be reviewed on two different levels, Concept Plat and Special Exception. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Board of Appeals requesting permission to establish a Planned Unit Development in this zone.

Mr. Vaughn stated he would like to take the Planning Commission through the process that the applicants went through in getting to where they are today. If approved this would be the first PUD in the Countys history. He showed the members the location of the property in relation to Ritchie Brothers and the industrial park properties. The applicants have met with Charlestown and are working very closely with them.

Mr. Mieskin stated they had set aside a couple of acres within the community that will be set aside for future use (municipal services). He reviewed sketches of several different styles of the proposed houses. The project will be comprised of employment, commercial, and residential areas.

Mr. Mortimer questioned lot sizes. Mr. Mieskin stated the vision was one of two different size townhouses, 20 and 30 wide. Five different lot sizes for single family homes with a price range in the low $200,000 to $400,000.

Mr. Mortimer asked if the applicant was expecting the County to attract business to the commercial areas. Mr. Vaughn stated they propose 1500 of neighborhood retail service. The primary rolls will be to service the community and Charlestown. Mr. Mortimer asked if the applicants would proactively, as developers, trying to attract liquor stores, etc. Mr. Vaughn stated this commercial area is not to service Rte 40 and would uphold a certain image of quality businesses.

Mr. Smith asked if there any successful applications of diversified Plan Unit Development (PUD) concept close by. Mr. Vaughn replied Washington or Montgomery County. Mr. Mortimer asked for the addresses of sites in the Washington area so that he could physically review them.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 555 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Josh Brown referenced a letter from the Town of North East, which voiced a concern of water service rights to this property, a copy attached for reference. Mr. Vaughn stated the County had an agreement with the Towns on a Growth Allocation. Ms. Kilby replied Urban Growth Boundary. Mr. Vaughn stated that the whole issue of water service is being reviewed. The applicants have an interest in this issue because they are insecure of the quality, amount and dependability of the water service for the park, long term. There are three different ways to service this project with water; onsite with wells, service from Town of North East or annex into the Town of Charlestown.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was SR, M1, BG, & RCA & LDA (Critical Area).

At the TAC review earlier this month, it was revealed that the question of possible annexation is still open. On the other hand, page 4 of 6 of the narrative states that City sewer and City water will be parts of the local service plan. Be that as it may, the review of this Concept Plat must be solely in the context of County ordinances and regulations.

Since the TACs review, this Concept Plat/Sketch Plat has added a note to the effect that this submission is invoking the provisions of §6.1 of the Cecil County Subdivision Regulations regarding residential cluster development.

The intent of §6.1 is to permit greater flexibility for creative design, using the clustering of homes to save permanent open space, which would provide recreational opportunities close to home. Such clustering may be accomplished through allowing reductions in the respective minimum lot area and yard requirements.

It should be noted that §6.1.5 (a) (b) & (c) of the Subdivision Regulations require strict compliance, as follows: a) Resubdivision shall not be permitted in cluster development so as to reduce lot areas below those permitted in the originally recorded Final Plat. b) The development of land within the cluster is permitted only in accordance with the approved site development plan on file at the Office of Planning and Zoning. c) The agreements concerning the ownership and maintenance of open space land shall be recorded simultaneously with the Final Plat.

This Concept Plat has not shown estimated staging of construction, as required in §6.1.1 (e) of the Subdivision Regulations. A Schedule of Construction is included on page 6 of the accompanying narrative,

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 556 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 but it is impossible to identify the phase areas on the plat. In addition, in the narrative all 594 dwelling units are proposed to be single family dwellings, in direct contradiction to the 176 townhouses proposed on the plat.

In addition, subsequent to TAC review, the townhouses, or villas, shown on the plat are now proposed as condominiums on private roads.

Since portions of this project are condominium projects, those portions will have a different review process than the normal subdivision process to be applied to the single family portions. The TAC and the Planning Commission must review the Concept Plat/ Sketch Plat as a whole. If approved, then the applicant will submit a Preliminary Plat/Site Plan for the condominiums for TAC review and Planning Commission review and approval. Once the proposed townhouse condominiums are built, then the developer will apply for as built Final Plat review by the Planning Commission. If approved, then condominium plats may be recorded.

For all other proposed sections, no building permits shall be issued prior to Recordation or final Site Plan approval.

The condominiums are proposed to be located on private roads, which will require a Variance from the Board of Appeals. Mr. DiGiacomo asked what steps had been taken or are planned in that regard. Mr. Parrack stated it had not been decided if the structures would be condominiums or townhouses. If the decision was made that they would be townhouses their position would be that under the PUD regulations (§254) the Planning Commission could establish the exact setback and lot size. If built as townhouses without private roads. Mr. Smith stated that the applicant had two choices, fee simple with County roads or condominium with private roads which would require a variance. Mr. Vaughn state in answer to the question no action had been taken on the variance because they are not sure exactly which way to go.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated Note # 10 indicates that the BG- and M1-zoned portions of the property are excluded from this application. However, all, or portions, of 12 proposed townhouse condos are included in the design in the M1-zoned portion of the property. In addition, townhouses are not permitted in the M1 zone.

The graphic inclusion and verbal exclusion of these units is confusing and made more so by the fact that sites access from Route 40 is proposed through the BG- and M1-zoned portions of the property.

In addition to:

a) the invocation of the residential clustering provisions pf §6.1,

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 557 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 b) the proposed condominiums requiring the separate and distinct condominium review and approval process, and c) the need for a Variance from the Board of Appeals to create the townhouses on the private roads,

Note # 3 indicates that this project has been submitted as a Planned Unit Development (PUD).

PUDs must adhere to the requirements of ARTICLEs XII and XVII of the Zoning Ordinance and §6.0 of the Subdivision Regulations.

Of particular note is the PUD review and approval process established in §256 of the Zoning Ordinance. §256.1 stipulates that a PUD is permitted in the SR zone by Special Exception. §256.2 requires that the Sketch Plat/Special Exception Application shall be reviewed by the TAC, as was done on 9/1/04. Up to that point, there is no difference between the PUD approval process and the normal subdivision review and approval process.

§256.3 requires that the Sketch Plat/Special Exception Application next shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission, and that the Planning Commission shall make recommendations to the Board of Appeals.

The Sketch Plat/Special Exception has already been placed on the 9/28/04 agenda of the Board of Appeals, pursuant to §256.4, which specifies that then The Sketch Plat/Special Exception shall be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. The Board shall consider the recommendations of the Technical Advisory Committee, the Planning staff, the Planning Commission and the standards in Article XVII, Part II, in making their determination to approve or disapprove the proposed PUD.

Moreover, §s 256.3 & 256.4 make clear that the Planning Commissions role now is to make a recommendation to the Board of Appeals on the Sketch Plat/Special Exception Application rather than an actual decision on what would otherwise be considered a Concept Plat.

§256.5 stipulates, in part, that Following approval of the PUD Special Exception by the Board of Appeals the PUD or section thereof shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of the Cecil County Subdivision Regulations. Thus, assuming approval of the PUD Special Exception, Preliminary Plats, Preliminary Plat/Site Plans (for the condominium portions), and Final Plats would be reviewed in the regular way, with the Planning Commission rendering decisions approving or disapproving such submissions, rather than making recommendations to any other body.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 558 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Just as is the case with a Concept Plat approval, the possible PUD Sketch Plat/Special Exception Application approval by the Board of Appeals does not guarantee any subsequent Preliminary Plat, Preliminary Plat/Site Plan, and Final Plat approvals by the Planning Commission.

The SR zone permits a base density of one (1) dwelling unit per one (1) acre, 2/1 with community facilities, 4/1 in a Planned Unit Development. This Concept Plat proposes an as-yet-to-be determined number of lots in the 223 SR-zoned acres.

The individual sections dwelling unit and the Site Data notes totals add up to 594, but some within that total are located in the M1 zone, which Note # 10 indicates is to be excluded.

The number and proper locations of proposed dwelling units must still be determined.

The Site Data notes indicate that 892 dwelling units are permitted on 223 SR-zoned acres.

The proposed density must be cited on the Concept Plat submitted for review by the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals.

§248. 2 states that ARTICLE XIIs intent to permit certain commercial uses in a PUD that serve the day to day needs of the residents of the PUD. §252.2 stipulates that the business uses permitted in a PUD shall be the same as those permitted in the BL zone. As stated at TAC review, the intended, proposed non-residential uses must be declared prior to any approvals. No detailed information has been provided for the employment area in the SR along Route 40, but that location does not seem a logical one for BL-permitted uses that serve the day to day needs of the residents.

§252.3 states that the requirements of the BL zone shall apply to business uses in a development in the PUD.

Since the SR-zoned area is part of this proposal, there should be some detail of the 3.4 acres of Employment area. The Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals need to know if the planned activities and uses are, in fact, consistent with meeting the day-to-day needs of residents in a PUD.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 559 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The internal road names will need to be approved by the County 911 Emergency Center prior to Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plats and Preliminary Plat/Site Plans.

Consistent with Appendix A of the Zoning Ordinance, a title block has now been included on the plat.

The respective SR, M1, & BG zones have now been delineated, but their boundaries in some cases create conflict between their respective permitted uses and those proposed. Either the property must be rezoning to conform to the proposed design, or the design must be revised to conform to the existing zoning. This proposal cannot be approved as submitted.

The Critical Area boundary was not been depicted on the Sketch Plat/Special Exception Application that was submitted for TAC review, as required in §4.0.13(n)6. That has been corrected, and the redesign includes no residences in the LDA or RCA Critical Area overlay zones at this time.

The Critical Area acreage has now been provided, as required in §4.0.13(n)7.

No more than 15% of the surface area can be converted to impervious surface in the RCA. Mr. DiGiacomo asked what amount of impervious cover is proposed in the Critical Area. Mr. Vaughn replied less than 15%.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated no more than 20% of the forest or developed woodland may be removed which will need to be required.

In the critical area, no structures shall exceed 35 in height.

If a Special Growth Allocation is required, then it must be obtained prior to the Planning Commissions and the Board of Appeals reviews of the Concept/Sketch Plat.

Any Special Growth Allocation application must adhere to the procedures and requirements set for in §s 205-209 of the Zoning Ordinance.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 560 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 §253.2 stipulates that no business establishments shall be permitted to operate until 25% of the residential units are constructed.

§253.1 stipulates site plans must be prepared for all business uses shown. Any site plans must be approved prior to Final Plat approval(s), and the requirements of §291 and Appendix A of the Zoning Ordinance must be adhered to.

In the SR zone, no more than 20% of the PUD dwelling units can be townhouse or apartment units. Base upon 610 proposed dwelling units, there can be no more than 122 townhouses. 176 are proposed, which is within 20% of the theoretical maximum permitted density. However, §250.2 states that the maximum number of townhouses in a PUD in the SR zone shall be 20%. §250.2 does not state that the maximum number of townhouses shall 20% of the maximum number allowable.

The total number of off-street parking spaces and the space to unit ratio for the proposed townhouses has not been provided on the plat or in the narrative, consistent with §4.0.13 (m). This requirement was explicitly cited at the TAC review.

As drawn, it is unclear whether the townhouse lot boundaries or the townhouse structures are being depicted. Per §4.0.13 (m), both must be depicted on the Concept Plat submitted for review by the Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals.

§250.1.d (1) requires that there be no more than 4 townhouses in one building as has now been depicted.

The normal minimum SR zone lot size is 12,000 ft2 and the setbacks are 30-10-40. For townhouses, minimum SR zone PUD lot size is 1,800 ft2 and the setbacks are 20-15 (end units) -40. §254 of the Zoning Ordinance allows flexibility in setbacks, lot size, yard requirements, etc. in PUDs. In addition, the applicant has invoked the residential clustering provisions of §6.1 of the Subdivision Regulations, which also allows for flexibility in setbacks, lot size, yard requirements, and the like.

No details have been provided regarding the proposed community center. The proposed community center must be served by water & sewer systems approved by the Health Department.

If the community center, any parking, and recreational facilities are accessory uses to the proposed residential development, then the Preliminary Plat must include their details or a major site plan submittal shall required. Any major site plans must be approved prior to Final Plat approval(s). The requirements of §291 and

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 561 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Appendix A of the Zoning Ordinance must be adhered to.

Mr. DiGiacomo asked who would have access to and responsibility for the proposed community center. Mr. Mieskin replied the HOA would be responsible.

Any Variances to be requested must appear on the Concept/Sketch Plat prior to review by the Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals; however, the Variance needed to create the townhouse lots on the proposed private roads has not been cited.

In general, the Concept/Sketch Plat must adhere to the Subdivision Regulations requirements for Concept Plats and the Zoning Ordinance Appendix As requirements for Sketch Plats, per §256. In addition, for that portion of the property included in the Critical Area RCA & LDA zones, all the requirements of §4.0.13(n) must be adhered to on the Concept/ Sketch Plat. As stated at TAC review, all deficiencies (title block, soils information, specific proposed uses, etc.) must be corrected on the Concept/Sketch Plat submitted for review by the Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals.

A boundary line survey must be done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes.

Slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the Concept/Sketch Plat prior to review by the Planning Commission.

This Sketch Plat/Special Exception Application depicts perennial streams with only 50 stream buffers. A 110 perennial stream buffer is required from all perennial streams present. This buffer shall be expanded to include contiguous areas of hydric soils, highly erodible soils, and soils on slopes greater than 15% -- to a maximum distance of 160.

When the correct stream buffers are depicted on the plat, then approximately 100 dwelling sites now proposed will be situated inside the stream buffers. That is not permitted. If those stream buffers need to be expanded, then that number could rise.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 562 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

In addition, a number of townhouse lots and one cul-de-sac are proposed to be located in the floodplain. That is not permitted.

A number of proposed lots include non-tidal wetland buffers or non-tidal wetlands. Some of them, especially proposed lot 13, for example, may not be achievable as designed.

The habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided.

30% common open space is required. All areas of common open space must be labeled and delineated on the plat. There is no obvious demarcation between HOA common open space and Condominium Association common area. The proposed open space acreage has been provided, but not allocations to common open space, County-owned parkland, and condominium common areas. Note #13 does not indicate that there will be any condominium common areas; is that accurate?

30% landscaping of the gross site is required, per §251.3.

Sidewalks, consistent with §255.3, are recommended. Note #12 indicates they are proposed.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of US 40 and MD 7.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 563 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Note #7 cites §29.5a vis-à-vis the Bufferyard C requirement; however, §29.5 pertains to the RM zone. Therefore, that citation is inappropriate.

Page 5 of 6 of the narrative contain a reference to Article VII, §251 with respect to a 50 landscaped buffer. §251 is actually contained in Article XII of the Zoning Ordinance, but it makes no reference to a 50 landscaped buffer. In addition, no such landscaped buffer is depicted on the plat.

§187.2 empowers the Planning Commission to require bufferyards to separate different zoning districts from each other in order to eliminate or potential nuisances such as dirt, litter, noise, glare of lights, signs, and unsightly buildings or parking areas, or to provide spacing to reduce adverse impacts of noise, odor, or danger from fires or explosions. Staff will make specific recommendations to the Planning Commission in that regard at Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Plat/Site Plan reviews so that any resultants conditions of approval may be incorporated into respective Landscape Plans prior to Final Plat reviews.

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

The FSD has been approved.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plats or Preliminary Plat/Site Plans.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat, the Preliminary Plat/Site Plan for the condominiums, and/or commercial site plan approvals(§6.3.B(1)(a)).

The portion of the property within the Critical Area is exempt from the Forest Conservation Regulations per §3.2B. A note to that effect must appear on the plat. An Environmental Assessment has been submitted, but not yet approved.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 564 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation or commercial site plan approval.

Cool Spring Road is depicted on the plat, but it has not been labeled. No information has been provided on the plat or the accompanying narrative as to the ownership of Cool Spring Road or if there are any deed access rights that could impede the implementation of this project as currently designed.

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments. Mr. DiGiacomo asked if the parks shown on the plat were proposed to be part of the common open space. Mr. Mieskin replied yes.

Note # 13 raises the specter of the common open space being maintained by Cecil County Government. Mr. DiGiacomo asked what steps had been taken to effectuate such an arrangement. Mr. Vaughn replied they were prepared to have the Community Association maintain everything.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation. All proposed common open space must be so labeled. The narrative does not address the issue of how, or even if, the businesses in the SR zone will participate in the Homeowners Association and what their responsibilities might be.

All condominium owners must become members of the condominium association for maintenance of the buildings, parking areas, private roads, landscaping, and common elements.

If the proposed condominium owners will have use of the community center, then either the condominium association must participate in the cost of its maintenance, or the condominium owners must also becomes members of the Homeowners Association.

The Condo Instruments for these condominiums must be accepted by the Maryland Secretary of State, and documentation thereof must be supplied to OPZ prior to recordation.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 565 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The locations of fire hydrants must be shown on the respective site plans, Preliminary Plats, and Preliminary Plat/Site Plans. Those locations shall be selected in consultation with the DPW and the Charlestown Volunteer Fire Company.

Written verification of water allocation and sewer capacity must be provided prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission, commercial Site Plan approvals, or Preliminary Plat/Site Plans for the condominiums. Specific, final water and sewer providers have not been provided on the Concept/Sketch Plat, although there is a reference to City water and City sewer.

§256.1.c requires a draft of the terms and provisions of the public works agreement. None has been provided in the narrative.

The Record Plats shall contain a statement signed by the Health Department approving authority; to the effect that use of the community water supply and community sewerage system is in conformance with the Master Water and Sewer Plan. The Record Plats shall also contain a statement, signed by the owner, to the effect that such facilities will be available to all lots and condominiums offered for sale.

A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) must be completed prior to Preliminary Plat and/or Preliminary Plat/Site Plan reviews by the TAC. The TIS must account for the full impact of the full potential build-outs in all zoning classifications on the parcel, regardless of whether or not they are specifically part of the PUD proposal.

The narrative does not cite any sources for the figures used in the computation of the cost-revenue ratio required by §256.1 (e).

In addition, the cost-revenue ratio in the narrative does not consider long-term costs and revenues. From what can be seen from the projections provided, the average annual long-term net revenue figure will be smaller than the average annual short-term net revenue figure. That needs to be explicitly stated in words, rather than merely implied in the data projections.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 566 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 In addition, even though the M1 and BG portions of the project are considered separate for purposes of the required cost-revenue ratio, the Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals may want them included, inasmuch as the clustering, design flexibility, and mixed uses allowed in the PUD make the whole project, including the M1 and BG portions, feasible for the developer.

Mr. Woodhull stated it was DPWs understanding that this property may be annexed by the Town of Charlestown and the streets may be dedicated to the Town, and the water mains will be dedicated to the Town. The CCDPW recommends that the roads and water distribution system be designed to meet or exceed the Countys standards. We also recommend that the Town request that the serving fire company review fire hydrant spacing and locations. The sanitary sewers and pump station would be owned and maintained by Cecil County.

If the site is annexed, we request that the Town withhold Final Plat approval until the Department has approved the SWM plan and the Mass and Final Grading plan. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, and Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

A SWM Plan, Sanitary Sewer Plan and Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat approval.

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

The 100-year flood plain must be plotted by elevation (rather than graphically from the FEMA maps) as it is suspected that several areas of the improved site may be impacted by the floodplain.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 567 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The submitted plan indicates no provisions for stormwater management facilities.

The through boulevard should be designed only after conscious decision by the Town of Charlestown, CCDPW, and SHA of whether they wish it to be an outlet to U.S. 40 or not and a recognition that it may become one regardless.

An existing over-vertical south of the entrance is of some concern to the Department of Public Works and the Department of Public Works recommends that SHA review whether the applicant should be required to remove it.

A TIS is recommended. Because County roads (particularly, Wells Camp Road and Red Toad Road) would be indirectly impacted, the Department of Public Works wishes to be included in the scoping session. The study must provide analysis of the physical nature (surface condition, width, shoulders, horizontal and vertical alignment, etc) of the existing roads and how they compare to the geometric standards for roads with comparable loadings addressed in AASHTO guidelines, as well as recommendations as to what work will be required to prepare these roads for the additional loadings.

The results of the TIS analysis of internal traffic distribution will be used to assess what Road Code Standards will apply to each street.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, owner, designer, or DPW; utilities poles must be relocated at the owners expense.

Mr. Woodhull asked if connectivity to the adjacent properties had been considered. Mr. Vaughn replied yes. Mr. Vaughn asked if he was referring specifically to Trinity Wood. Mr. Woodhull replied where Cool Springs Road comes in off of 40. Trinity Woods internal roads were not designed to handle the additional traffic that this would generate nor is there a spot that you could obtain connection. Mr. Vaughn stated there was no way to connect. They had discussed connecting pathways, but not on the road system. They have not looked at the area above Trinity Woods and Rte 40 because there is nothing to look at.

Mr. Woodhull asked who owned the Cool Springs Road ROW running across the site. Mr. Vaughn replied he believed it was an abandoned ROW power line. Mr. Woodhull asked that the applicants inform DPW if was determined to be AT&Ts ROW or whomever and what the disposal would be.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 568 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The cul-de-sacs shown on the plans are in non-compliance with Road Code Standard R-14 as to bulb diameter.

All islands associated with the cul-de-sacs and loop road sections will be the responsibility of the HOA.

If sidewalks are required or proposed, the CCDPW recommends that the Final Plats should include a note indicating that sidewalks maintenance will be the responsibility of the adjacent property owner.

An I&M Agreement will be required for all SWM facilities. A PWA will be required for the sanitary sewers.

CCDPW recommends that the Town require PWAs for the water lines as well and internal streets and stormdrains (if annexation occurs).

Mr. Smith read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. Mortimer asked for clarification. Is it correct that the Planning Commission will not be voting on the Concept Plat? Mr. DiGiacomo stated his interpretation of what is provided in the ordinance that you can vote and the decision will be in fact a recommendation to the Board of Appeals. As this proceeds the Board of Appeals approval of the Special Exception will replace the Planning Commissions approval of a Concept Plat as a threshold to then go to a Preliminary Plat.

Mr. Parrack stated he would be addressing the OPZ issues in Mr. DiGiacomos comments. In presenting the plats to the OPZ and subsequently in the TAC meeting it was not made clear that the intention was to seek a PUD for the 223 acres that would be residential. The applicants requested a Residential Plan Unit Development for the 223 acres that would not encompass BG and M1 areas. Therefore a large portion of the comments did not apply to the plan that was before the Planning Commission. He noted that this was the first PUD to be reviewed by the County. Mr. Parrack read Article 12 §248 of the ordinance. This is different than other projects that the Planning Commission had reviewed. The Planning Commission is in the position to decide what the developer can do utilizing creative approaches. The applicant is before the Planning Commission seeking PUD with a density that would permit up to 594 units. He is asking for approval of the Concept Plat conditioned upon the Cecil County Commissioners designating exactly where the commercial and manufacturing zones would be located. The 20% allowance under PUD would total 119 townhouses; the applicants have proposed 176 townhouses. The PUD allows, in addition to 119 townhouses, up to 50% of the units in the development (semi detached, duplex or apartments). The applicants are asking approval of 176 townhouses as they will not be building semi detached, duplex apartments. They feel that their plan is in conformance and should be recommended for approval.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 569 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Jim Mullins, 1676 Glebe Road, Earleville, appeared in favor of the proposal and testimony followed. He stated this project accomplishes several goals here in Cecil County. The applicant is creating a residential market in the County growth corridor which will draw construction. It will draw a suburban swale in the designated growth corridor.

No one appeared in opposition to the proposal.

GENERAL DISCUSSION:

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Smith, to appointment Josh Brown as Chairman. Motion unanimously carried.

Motion made by Murray, seconded by Williams, to appointment Tim Smith as Co-Chairman. Motion unanimously carried.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 570 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

ITEM B DECISIONS

1. Candlelight Ridge, Phase 1, Red Toad Road, Final Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Smith, seconded by Murray and unanimously carried to approve with conditions.

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space and landscaped islands must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation;

5) Sidewalks being included on at least one side of all internal roads;

6) A Landscape Agreement being executed prior to recordation;

7) A reconfirmation that the common open space proposed is still within the sensitive areas thresholds established in §176.2 of the Zoning Ordinance being submitted to the Office of Planning & Zoning prior to recordation;

8) All sheets of the Record Plats containing accurate depictions of the location of the site on all location maps;

9) The 10 street tree planting easements being shown on the Record Plat, consistent with §186.1; and

10) Permits for the stream crossing being issued prior to recordation.

2. The Reserve at Elk River, Section 1, Oldfield Point Road, Final Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fifth Election District

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 571 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Motion made by Murray, seconded by Williams and unanimously carried to approve with conditions.

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) A note to the effect that the Holt family will retain ownership of Holt Farm Lane, which has not been approved as a buildable lot;

4) A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space and landscaped islands and/or eyebrows being established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation;

5) Deed restrictions for the long-term protection of the Forest Retention/ Afforestation Areas (FRAs) being recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation, with the metes and bounds description of the FRA being shown on the record plat;

6) A Landscape Agreement being executed prior to recordation;

7) All references to the Critical Area including the specific LDA designation on the Record Plat; and

8) The 1.32 acres of forested area to be removed being noted on the Record Plat.

3. The Reserve at Elk River, Section 2, Oldfield Point Road, Final Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Smith, seconded by Murray and unanimously carried to approve with conditions.

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) A note to the effect that no FRAs are proposed to be located on these lots appearing on the Record Plat;

5) A Landscape Agreement being executed prior to recordation;

6) The proposed lot numbers being again included in the title blocks on the Record Plat, as required in §4.2.13 (a) 4.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 572 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

4. Fulton Hills, (formerly Lands of Harry M. Crawford, et. ux.), Old Telegraph Road, Concept Plat, McCrone, Inc., First Election District

Motion made by Smith, seconded by Murray and to approve with conditions.

Motion made by Smith, seconded by Murray to amend pervious motion and unanimously carried to approve with conditions

1) A boundary line survey being completed in conjunction with the preparation of the Preliminary plat for Density calculation purposes;

2) A JD being completed prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat;

3) The Bufferyard standard C requirement for proposed Lot 18 being waived in favor of a modified Bufferyard A along the rear lot lines of proposed Lots 13-17 with the normal rear BRL;

4) Any right-of-way access to the remaining lands in Delaware becoming a private mini road at such time as those remaining lands are developed;

5) The 100 ROW shown be limited to farm access and any change in the future would require approval by the Planning Commission; and

6) A Bufferyard A being established on the rear lot lines of Lots 4-13 to buffer the adjacent agricultural uses on the remaining lands of Crawford in Delaware.

5. Glennas Heights Glennas Heights, Johnson Road, Preliminary Plat, CAN, Eighth Election District

Motion made by Smith, seconded by Williams and unanimously carried to disapprove with the recommendation that the plat be resubmitted once:

1) the areas of lots have been provided in table form, as required in §4.1.22 (r);

2) all stream buffers have been clearly delineated;

3) the sensitive species location and protective buffers have been clearly delineated on the plat; and

4) different graphics are used for roadways and steep slopes.

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 573 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

6. The Villages at Cherry Hill, Singerly Road (Rte 213), Leeds Road and Black Snake Road, Concept Plat, Glackin Thomas Panzak, Inc., Third Election District

WITHDRAWN

7. Prelude (Located in Village of Bayview), Old Bayview Road, Minor Subdivision Concept Plat, American Engineering & Surveying, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Smith and unanimously carried to approve with conditions.

1) The Variance being referenced by case number on the Preliminary/Final and Record Plats;

2) The Natural Heritage Service letter being received and any sensitive species issues being addressed prior to Preliminary-Final Plat approval;

3) The Final and Record Plats containing a statement signed by the Health Department approving authority; to the effect that use of the community water supply and community sewerage system is in conformance with the Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan;

4) The Preliminary-Final and Record Plats containing a statement, signed by the owner, to the effect that such facilities will be available to all lots offered for sale;

5) Consistent with §186.1, a 10 street tree planting easement along Old Bayview Road being shown and labeled on the Preliminary/Final Plat; and

6) Written verifications of water allocation and sewer capacity being received prior to Preliminary/Final Plat review by the Planning Commission.

8. Motion Beulah Land, MD Rte 272 & Wheatley Road, Preliminary/Final Re-subdivision of Lot 44A & Add-on, C. Robert Webb, Ninth Election District made by Mortimer, seconded by Murray and unanimously carried to approve with conditions.

8) Health Department requirements being met;

9) All DPW requirements being met;

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 574 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 10) The §3.2K and §3.2N exemptions being noted on the Record Plat;

11) The Landscape Agreement being executed prior to recordation;

12) A note appearing on the Record Plat to the effect that there can be no further subdivision because the full Beulah Land subdivision potential is exhausted with the recordation of this lot; and

13) The owners of the new lot becoming members of the Homeowners Association with $50 for this recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

9. Wapiti, Turkey Point Road, Site Plan Growth Allocation, Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC, Fifth Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Smith and unanimously carried to recommend approval of Growth Allocation to the Board of Commissioners.

10. Charlestown Crossing (Town of Charlestown), Rte 40, Concept Plat & Special Exception, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Smith and unanimously carried to recommend that a Special Exception be granted with conditions that a revised plat be submitted addressing all outstanding issues to OPZ prior to a Preliminary Plat being submitted; these issues being:

1) No lots are proposed in the M1 zone;

2) No lots are proposed in the nontidal floodplain;

3) The complete estimated staging of construction has been shown on the plat and narrative, as required in §6.1.1 (e);

4) The perennial stream buffers have been accurately depicted;

5) No dwellings are depicted in the perennial stream buffers;

6) The nature of the proposed uses in the employment area in the SR zone have been declared and they are, in fact, permitted in the BL zone;

7) The total number of off-street parking spaces and the space to unit ratio for the proposed townhouse condominiums has been provided on the plat, consistent with §4.0.13 (m);

8) The townhouse condominium lot boundaries are differentiated from the townhouse structure footprints, as required in §4.0.13 (m);

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 575 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 9) A note to the effect that the Critical Area portion of the property is exempt from the Forest Conservation Regulations per §3.2B appears on the plat;

10) All contradictions between the plat and the narrative have been eliminated;

11) Reference to §29.5.a in Note # 7 has been corrected;

12) The elevations of each building type have been provided, per §256.1.a;

13) The Variance needed to create the townhouse lots on the proposed private roads has been cited on the plat or the proposed private roads are eliminated;

14) The proposed density has been cited on the plat submitted for review by the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals;

15) A draft of the terms and provisions of the public works agreement being provided in the narrative, as required by §256.1.c; and

16) Any townhouse units in excess of 20% or more are to be substitute with semi-detached or duplex homes with the condition of a maximum of 176 units.

There were no further comments.

Meeting adjourned at 4:38 p.m.

NEXT MEETING: October 18, 2004 at TBD in the County Administration Building

September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m. 576 October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m.

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Subdivisions)

PRESENT: Brown, Campbell, Carter, DiGiacomo, Kilby, McDowell, Moore, Mortimer, Murray, Orr, Prickett, Sennstrom, Smith, Williams, Woodhull, and Jones

ABSENT:

Motion made by Smith, seconded by Murray, and unanimously carried to approve, to make an exception without setting precedence, allowing Ms. Comeau, court recorder for the applicants of The Villages at Cherry Hill, to be seated at the Planning Commissioners table.

MINUTES: Motion made by Smith, seconded by Murray, and unanimously carried to approve the September 23, 2004, 10:00 a.m., minutes as mailed.

RULES OF PROCEDURE: Motion made by Smith, seconded by Murray, and unanimously carried to approve amending the agenda; thereby, allowing Other Business (Rules of Procedure) to be heard ahead of Item #1, and, under that item to include the consideration of the adoption of new rules as mailed to the Planning Commission Members.

Motion made by Smith and seconded by Murray, to adopt the rules as proposed by Chairman Josh Brown.

Motion made by Williams, seconded by Smith and unanimously carried to approve dividing the rules into three categories: (1) alternate day notification and 10:00 a.m. starting time; (2) definition of officers, members and advisors; (3) public participation.

Motion made by Williams, seconded by Murray and unanimously carried to approve the changes, as amended, of §VI.A.2. to read in anticipation of inclement weather, lack of quorum or other unforeseen events the posted agenda shall contain an alternate day for both the Monday daytime meeting and the Monday evening meeting, which shall be held on the Wednesday immediately following the said Monday meetings. Either the Monday daytime meeting or the Monday evening meeting or both can be rescheduled. In addition change §VI.D to read the two meetings that are referenced above are held monthly and all members shall make every effort to attend. Changes made to §VI.A.a & b to read §VI.A.1 & 2.

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Pricket and unanimously approved to receive public comment on specifically discussion items.

No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

Lindsey Carter, 131 Black Snack Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal, was duly sworn according to law, and testimony followed. She stated 10 or more items should be specified because it was confusing. In her opinion it was the County Commissioners who oversee the Planning Commission and therefore they should be the ones who request changes, not the current members of the Planning Commission. There should be an adequate 15 days public notice given prior to any scheduled or rescheduled public meeting. This would afford people time to schedule a day off from work.

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 577 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Carl Walbeck, 47 Mallard Lane, appeared in opposition to the proposal, was duly sworn according to law, and testimony followed. Mr. Walbeck stated he had not particularly wanted to speak in opposition to the issue at hand, but would like to speak on a number of issues that may or may not be addressed by the Planning Commission. He asked how this could be accomplished. Mr. Brown stated the Planning Commission had voted only to take public input on the specific items addressed.

Mr. Walbeck stated the County Zoning Ordinance in reference to Planning Commission states there shall be public participation afforded to the public whenever they engage in deliberation. The Planning Commission is engaged in deliberations on the entire set of rules of procedure even though you may only vote to change certain portions of it. Therefore it is his opinion that at some point the public should be afforded the opportunity to speak on the items not being addressed today. How will this be handled? Ms. Campbell stated the entire package would be addressed. The public will have the opportunity to speak on various items as they are presented.

Robert Fritz, 39 Black Snack Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law, and testimony followed. He stated the public should be granted the 15 day notice as stated by Ms. Carter. In his opinion the proposed changes did not work towards building a better working relationship with the citizens in affording them more opportunities. It is his belief that the items proposed here today are not in goodwill. Harford County provides a 30 day notice.

Owen Thorne, 20 Hillwood Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law, and testimony followed. He expressed his concern of the attempt to restrict concerned citizens and elected representatives from participating in the deliberations of the Planning Commission. In his opinion the proposed rule changes appear to discourage public participation rather than ease it. A minimum of a 15 day notice for meetings including rescheduled meetings should be implemented, allowing the public arrange their lives accordingly.

Ken Wiggins, 504 Black Snack Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law, and testimony followed. Mr. Wiggins stated he wanted to reiterate the previous speakers comments. He asked how this would improve community relations with proceedings narrowing down from a 15 day to a 3 day notice.

The Planning Commission members discussed the ramifications of a 15 day notice in relationship with other meetings associated with the Planning Commission.

Motion made by Williams, seconded by Mortimer, and unanimously carried to approve the formation of a committee to investigate the ramifications of providing a 15 day notice for rescheduled meetings. The committee will include public participation, and be afforded the power to approve and recommend the make of up of the committee to the County Commissioners.

Motion made by Smith, seconded by Murray; Motion withdrawn by Smith.

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Murray and carried to approve the changes, as amended, moving §IV.Legal Counsel to read, to provide legal advice to the Planning Commission as required by the Commission members or when counsel deems it necessary to avoid legal errors by the Commission. §IV.Ex-officio Member will be moved to appear under §II.Members, leaving bullets 1, 2 and 3 as is, deleting bullets 4 and 5 and replacing it with the role of Ex-officio is a non-voting member, with full privileges on discussion items before the Commission.

Mortimer, Murray, Prickett and Smith in favor. Williams, opposed.

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 578 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Tom McWilliams, 245 Plum Point Road, appeared in favor of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law, and testimony followed. Mr. McWilliams stated he was in favor of the changes as amended. It has been his experience, as he has served as ex-officio member with and without the right to vote, while being afforded the right to participate fully in all discussions.

Robert Fritz, 39 Black Snack Road, appeared in favor of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law, and testimony followed. He stated he was opposed to the previous changes, but in favor of the current changes. This will allow Ms. Kilby, ex-officio member, to participate, who has offered very good advice in previous meetings.

Lindsey Carter, 131 Blacksnake Road, appeared in favor of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law, and testimony followed. She stated that Commissioner Kirby should be afforded the 1st Amendment right to speak. Should Commissioner Kirby be permitted to write her comments down in the future, allowing citizens to read; Ms. Carter volunteered to convey Ms. Kilbys comments.

Owen Thorne, 20 Hillwood Road, appeared in favor of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. He stated, referring to the second bullet under §II Ex-officio member once this position is selected another commissioner may not be used as an alternate in the event that the chosen ex-officio member cannot attend, questioned that the public would not be represented at the Planning Commission meeting should Ms. Kilby, ex-officio member, not be present. He proposed that Ms. Kilby be permitted to designate an alternate.

Ed Cairns, 104 Jackson Hall School Road, appeared in favor of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Cairns reiterated on both Mr. Thorne and Ms. Kilbys previous comments. He questioned the requirement for mandatory attendance and no public representation in the event that the ex-officio member was absent, found in §II. Ex-officio Member . The ex-officio member is a non-voting member and it goes without saying, they would not be counted in the tabulation of the quorum.

Russell Holland, 20 East Parkway, appeared in favor of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Holland read into the record a letter written by Richard Boyce, 11 Harvest Lane. The letter referenced the make up of the Planning Commission as stated in the Annotated Code and the Cecil County Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. Both articles accept the make-up of the Planning Commission to include a County Commissioner to serve as an ex-officio, non-voting member. There is no limitation called out on the type of membership other than it being non-voting. Any changes to the status of the County Commissions seat on the Planning Commission would require modification of the Zoning Ordinance and all that it entails. It is not subject to the whims of any of the members of the Planning Commission.

Ed Cairns, 104 Jackson Hall School Road, requested that the final decisions be posted for the public. He also asked that a time be allotted at the beginning of the next Planning Commission meeting to accept any public comments.

Kevin Koller, 7 Harvest Lane, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law, and testimony followed. He expressed a concern with limiting the input of the council; therefore, choosing to factor away information without consideration.

Carl Walbeck, 47 Mallard Lane, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law, and testimony followed. He stated he was the author of the vintage Rules of Procedures that was before the board. Mr. Walbeck referenced various items he felt needed changes. He did not see why it was necessary to insert the last bullet in §II.Officers. It was his opinion that the second bullet under members should be decided by the Board of County Commissioners. He would like to see an additional bullet added under the third bullet

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 579 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 referring members attendance. He stated §IV referencing the word advisor as being a bad choice of words. He was in approval of the legal advice comments. The second bullet under ex-officio member should be removed, leaving it to the discretion of the County Commissioners. He approved of the wording defining the duties of the ex-officio member.

Ken Wiggins, 504 Black Snake Road, appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law, and testimony followed. He stated he did not understand how an appointed board could build a structure that seem to exclude its elected members as well as exclude the public, all in one meeting.

Sally Cairns, 104 Jackson Hall School Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law, and testimony followed. She asked if the Planning Commission had clarified what would be replacing the last two bullets. Mr. Williams replied the ex-officio was a non-voting member who could input on any item before the Commission. Mr. Mortimer stated the issue of an alternate ex-officio member would be addressed by the Planning Commission at some point after receiving input from the County Commissioners, whose right and ability it was to make changes. It is not just the Planning Commission, but various other Commissions that this issue would involve. Mr. Brown added the bullet referring the alternate ex-officio would remain until such time as it was superceded by the Board of County Commissioners.

Diane Fritz, 39 Black Snack Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law, and testimony followed. She questioned why opposition was shown towards a substitute ex-officio member attending the meeting. Mr. Brown expressed concern to whether another Commissioner would be able to come up to speed on specific issues at hand. The Planning Commissions alternate member receives a package at the same time as the other members, allowing him time to review the material in the event that he would need to attend the meeting. Mr. Mortimer stated that while the Commissioners are aware of general issues they are not knowledgeable of all of the various codes, laws and regulations associated with the Planning Commission.

John McDaniel, 2068 Singerly Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law, and testimony followed. He stated he did not know why the other Commissioners would not be as knowledgeable as Ms. Kilby. It is his opinion that she should be allowed to designate an alternate.

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Murray and unanimously carried to approve the changes, as amended, deleting at the start of the meeting from §VI.K.b. It will read member of the public who wish to speak will be requested to register at the meeting on designated speaker sign in sheet. Any member of the public who has not signed in may still speak.

Ken Koller, 7 Harvest Lane, appeared in favor of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. He stated that he appreciated the changes brought forth by the Planning Commission.

Robert Fritz, 39 Black Snake Road, appeared in favor of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. He expressed approval of the proposed changes. He confirmed that people would in the future speak as they sign up, where as presently it is in the order of favor and opposed.

Ed Cairns, 104 Jackson Hall School Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law, and testimony followed. Mr. Cairns spoke of the possibility of being neither in favor or opposed to an item. He has found himself in the position of being in favor of a project, but having constructive suggestions. He said someone would have to sign up multiple times to speak on various items, only to decline later should they decide not to speak. Theres also the possibility that people may be prompted to speak after hearing applicants' testimony or amendments. If all questions must first be posed to the Commission after which they are posed to staff; it could become cumbersome, discouraging public participation and violating the Zoning Ordinance. While a time limit is given to the public, applicants receive

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 580 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 no time restraints.

Lindsey Carter, 131 Black Snake Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law, and testimony followed. She stated wording should be added defining the rights of speakers arriving late. People taking off from work may not be able to sign up at the beginning of the meeting. She expressed concern for people not being allowed to speak twice on one item, as in the five minute rule.

Owen Thorne, 20 Hillwood Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law, and testimony followed. He stated that as opposed to sign up sheets everyone is able to speak their names and addressed clearly. Signing up to speak will cause restrictions as well as being unduly cumbersome for some people. As to the rebuttal and counterpoint issue, if the order is determined before the start of the meeting there can be no give or take except by those who do not follow the Commissions request to sign in. This would be the basic problem. In order to improve communication and goodwill with the general public a proper environment in which to meet should be provided. The public is unable to view the plats being considered, unable to hear discussion by the board or be heard as they speak. He suggested a public representative be included in the group. At the minimum a proper public address system in here would go a long way towards goodwill to the citizens. The meetings should be held in the evening when the public can attend.

The Planning Commission asked Ms. Kilby to investigate the possibility of obtaining a public address system.

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Williams and unanimously carried to approve hearing public comment on the remainder of the body of the document.

Ed Cairns, 104 Jackson Hall School Road, appeared in favor of and/or opposed to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. He stated a specific deadline should be specified under filing an application. He asked that decisions be made immediately after each presentation of agenda item.

Robert Fritz, 39 Black Snake Road, appeared in favor of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law, and testimony followed. He stated he reiterated on Mr. Cairns comments.

Clay McDowell, 328 Smith Road, appeared in favor of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law, and testimony followed. He expressed his concern with the decision making taking place at the very end of the meeting. In his previous position as public representative for TAC, people have often expressed concerns of the Planning Commission waiting hours after hearing the presentation to vote. He strongly encouraged the members to vote after each agenda item.

Carl Walbeck, 47 Mallard Lane, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. He stated §5 should be revised to state that the Chairperson and the Director of the Office of Planning & Zoning shall review the applications. He would like to see §6, meetings, part C revised to state the Chairperson and the Director of Planning and Zoning shall jointly prepare a draft agenda. This would preserve the authority and the independence of the Planning Commission. Paragraph E resignation, is in the wrong place and should be moved to paragraph 2, under members. Due to items deleted from the original document, Mr. Walbeck suggested that after conditions, continue, postpone, deny or table be added to paragraph J, page 4; thereby restoring all the actions permitted by the Planning Commission.

Owen Thorne, 20 Hillwood Road appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law, and testimony followed. He suggested an amendment giving at least 15 days prior public notice for the agenda item.

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 581 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Motion made by Mortimer, second by Murray and unanimously carried to approve document with three revisions: (1) §VI.E Members of the Planning Commission wishing to resign need to formalize, in a written letter, any such claim to the Board of County Commissioners of Cecil County be moved to §II.Members; (2) revision of renumbering; Committee being §VII, Amending the Rules of Procedure being §VIII and Rules Not Jurisdictional being §VIIII; and (3) §VI.J revised to read Failure to receive a majority vote for approval constitutes failure of the motion; failure of a motion does not, however, constitute approval. Decision on each application shall be made at the close of testimony on each agenda item.

1. Tim Whittie presented Aston Pointe, Jackson Hall School Road and Rte 273, Rescind Condition #5 (Sensitive Species Survey), Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fourth Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Whittie stated on 4/18/04 the Planning Commission approved the Concept Plat with nine conditions. Condition #5 required a Sensitive Species Study be completed prior to the Preliminary Plat being reviewed by TAC. This condition was added based on a letter dated 9/18/03 from DNR stating there was a recent record of the States rare midland sedge occurring within the vicinity of the site. DNR released an updated version of its publication three months later in December 2003, updating rare, threatened or endangered plants in Maryland, in the midland sedge no longer appeared on the list. With the delisting of the Maryland sedge from this publication it is the applicants opinion that the need for a Sensitive Species Survey for this project is negated, and asked that Condition #5, requiring the study be removed as a condition of approval.

Ms. Murray abstained from any discussion or voting in the Aston Pointe project.

Ms. Prickett asked if there where any other animals not mentioned. Mr. Whittie replied there was nothing in the DNR letter other than the midland sedge.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was SR and BG.

The Natural Heritage Service letter, on 9/18/03, indicated the midland sedge, a rare plant species, was known to occur within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, as a condition of Concept Plat approval, a sensitive species survey was required prior to Preliminary Plat review by the TAC.

Subsequently, on 12/12/03, the Natural Heritage Program of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources promulgated a rare, threatened and endangered species report that updated the status of a number of species, including the midland sedge which went from a state rare to an apparently secure in Maryland classification.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) was approved on 3/11/04.

The Concept Plat, for 302 lots on 390.04 acres, was approved on 4/19/04, conditioned on: 1) The road names being approved prior to Preliminary Plat approval; 2) The estimated staging of construction being shown of the Preliminary Plat submitted for TAC review; 3) The PFCPs being approved prior to Preliminary Plat approval; 4) The sensitive areas thresholds in the common open space information being provided on the Preliminary Plat prior to TAC review; 5) A Sensitive Species Survey being completed prior to the TACs review of the Preliminary Plat; 6) A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) being completed prior to the TACs review of the Preliminary Plat; 7) The boundary line survey being completed prior to the TACs review of the Preliminary Plat; 8) The Jurisdictional Determination (JD) being completed prior to Preliminary Plat approval; and 9) A bufferyard and setback modification being granted for the existing structure on proposed Lot 301.

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 582 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 On 5/20/04, the Planning Commission subsequently approved a revision to the Concept Plat that eliminated roadway connectivity to the adjacent Locharron Drive in the Highlands.

Moreover, because the Natural Heritage Letter was written (and, thus, became part of the Aston Pointe file as of that time) approximately 3 months prior to the report that actually downgraded the status of the midland sedge, the Planning Commission required a sensitive species survey for a species, which, at that time (4/19/04), was no longer on the rare, threatened, and endangered list.

Mr. Orr stated todays scheduled Aston Pointe presentation addresses the developers request to be relieved of a sensitive species survey which does not fall within the purview of the DPW. On this specific request we have no comment.

Mr. Smith read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

Owen Thorne, 20 Hillwood Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law, and testimony followed. He stated this Concept Plat should have no standing as it was rejected three times, which includes the amendment to the Master Water and Sewer Plan. By law a rejected Concept Plat has no standing. There is at present an on going litigation to settle this matter before the courts. It is therefore inappropriate to entertain changes to the plat or to previous rulings regarding Aston Pointe until the judge hands down his ruling. There are many endangered species in Cecil County, midland and otherwise. Some likely reside in the properties of Aston Pointe. If the species are no longer on the endangered list they will be again soon if the developers are allowed to bulldoze their habitats. It is Mr. Thrones opinion that there are other endangered species that are on the current list for this area. The most endangered species is the threatened farmer. Why not invite the Natural Heritage Service and the DNR to examine the site prior to granting density, public sewers or any other request to the Aston Development Group? Why is a property species survey not warranted here?

2. Doug Kopeck presented Glennas Heights, Lots 1-28, Johnson Road, Preliminary Plat, CNA, Third Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Kopeck stated this project consisted of 25 lots and was very similar to the plat previously reviewed by the Planning Commission. The comments leading to denial of approval on 9/23/04 have been addressed and corrected on the plat. The applicant received verbal approval from the Health Department for all septic reserve areas, well locations, setbacks, etc.

Mr. Mortimer addressed one of the issues; the bisected nature of the plat, the mini road use is still shown through the BG&E easement. Mr. Kopeck state it was not an easement but a ROW. The applicant contacted BG&E at which time BG&E informed the applicant that they would like to review it once it was designed and engineered with Cobble Drive. There is also a gas line physically located outside of the BG&E ROW. BG&E is aware of this issue and there will probably be some type of negotiations with reference to the private mini-road in the future.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the zoning was NAR, which permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres, 1/3 if bonus density is granted.

The Concept Plat, proposing 25 lots on 70.26 acres was approved on 6/21/04, conditioned on: 1) The JD being completed prior to Preliminary Plat review by the Planning Commission;

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 583 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 2) The mini road name being approved prior to Preliminary Plat review by the Planning Commission; 3) A sensitive species survey being completed prior to Preliminary Plat review by the TAC; 4) The acreages of all parcels and deed parcels being included on the plat prior to Preliminary Plat review by the TAC; 5) All streams and buffers being clearly delineated on the Preliminary Plat; and 6) The Final Plat reflecting that this project is in Cecil County.

It invoked the minor subdivision potential of one (1) of the deed parcels. Therefore, four (4) of the proposed lots could be minor subdivision lots, and the density was calculated as follows:

Total site area is 70.26 ac. 4 potential minor sub lots -4.00 ac. Remaining site area 66.26 ac.

1 unit/3 acres: 66.26 /3 = 22 lots (density of 1/3.113, 1/3.155 for 21 lots) Add minor subs = 4 lots TOTAL ALLOWED LOTS = 26 TOTAL PROPOSED LOTS = 25

A boundary line survey has been completed. The acreage has changed from 70.26 to 70.28 acres.

The areas of lots have been provided as required in §4.1.22 (r). The acreage of the proposed large lot (# 24) has now decreased to 22.14 acres (was 22.87 ac.; was 15.31 ac.), and the common open space has been increased to 20.03 (was 19.40 ac.; was 27.01 ac.), for a total of (was 42.27; was 42.32 ac.), or 60.0%. Therefore, this design retains bonus density eligibility.

Mr. DiGiacomo asked if an easement was associated with the depicted BG&E gas transmission line. Mr. Kopeck replied the gas line was constructed outside of the ROW. There was no easement currently in place for the constructed gas line. Mr. DiGiacomo stated any documentation of a formal agreement between the developer and the utility to cross the transmission corridor and/or easement, or decision such as a ROW, must be received by the OPZ prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission. Mr. DiGiacomo asked if a number of steps had been taken in that regard. Mr. Kopeck replied yes.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated on slopes between 15 and 25%, good engineering practices shall be used to ensure sediment and erosion control and slope stabilization before, during and after disturbance activities.

A 110 perennial stream buffer is required from all perennial streams present. Per §174.1(a), the outfall area from the SWM facility to the north of proposed Lot 19 must be relocated outside stream buffer.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone. No sidewalks are recommended in the NAR zone.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of Johnson Road. Sight distance issues may possibly require modification of that requirement.

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 584 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 protected from nuisance claims provided the conditions of Article I, § 4 are being complied with.

The habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided.

The PFCP was approved on 8/4/04. The location of the sensitive species has been shown correctly on the PFCP and Preliminary Plat. The location of the protective buffer zones must be shown on the Final and record Plat.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat. A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

Cobble Drive and the mini road name (Doolyn Road) have been approved.

Access to common open space between and beside lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

Covenants prohibiting the subdivision of the large lot must be recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

A mini-road maintenance association must be established prior to recordation, with the owners of all lots accessing the mini-road becoming members.

Mr. Orr stated a SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan, and a Mass & Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, and Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 585 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 County SWM Ordinance.

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance.

Sight distance measurements for the proposed entrance have been submitted and are acceptable.

Section 3.07.4 of the Cecil County Road Code requires that Cobble Drive intersect Johnson Road at 90°. An intersecting angle between 70° and 90° can be accepted if adequately justified by the designer. This justification has not yet been made, to our knowledge. The applicant has acknowledged in their opening statement that intersecting angle falls short of the required 70º limitation. If this is acceptable to the Planning Commission, DPW can accept a 70º angle in lieu of environmental considerations but will reserve final comment until once DPW has received the actual horizontal geometrics from the designer.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the owners expense.

Johnson Road is approximately 18 wide with no shoulders and roadside drainage is spotty with some poor conditions in and around the proposed entrance.

Section 3.07.15 of the Road Code nominally directs that Johnson Road be upgraded to a Minor Collector Standard for a distance of 100 either side of the point of intersection between Johnson Road and Cobble Drive; however, DPW anticipates that the addition of some 230 trips per day will require substantial off-site roadwork beyond the limits set by Section 3.07. 15.

The developer must address improvements to Johnson Road extending 900 west and 1,300 east of the proposed entrance. The improvements will require repair of areas of failed sub-grade identified by the Department, installation and or replacement of cross culverts, re-establishment of adequate roadside drainage, and overlay of Johnson Road at a minimum 1½ at the edges effecting a 3% cross slope for the entire 2,200.

The developer must provide evidence of BG&Es approval of the mini-road design and crossing prior to Final Plat approval.

All driveways as well as the mini-road connection to the cul-de-sac must be paved at least to the right of way and this must be so indicated on the Lot Grading Plan.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

A PWA will be required for internal streets and storm drains.

Mr. Smith read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 586 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

Wayne Lockwood, 432 Jackson Hall School Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Lockwood stated he felt compelled to speak against this project because it involved NAR land. He questioned why people who had spoke against SAR did not speak against NAR. He is against the philosophy of not building in the SAR areas of the County while allowing development in the NAR and SAR areas of the County. He stated If we are really, really serious about saving farmland and agriculture well spend more time trying to develop the areas of the Master Comprehensive Plan which says we should be developing to relieve pressure on the NAR and SAR properties.

Mr. Kopeck stated he wanted to discuss in more detail DPWs comment referring to the Johnson Road intersection. Cobble Drive had originally been added to the west but because of the farm crossing near the edge of the property, DPW, Corps of Engineers and MDE had suggested that they move the road to its present location, which is causing some of the concerns at the intersection of Johnson Road. The applicant could have obtained the 90º angle at the other location but due to environmental conditions they moved the road. At present the applicant is working closely with DPW, Corps of Engineers and MDE to minimize impacts while maintaining public safety and welfare. The applicant stated that in order to design the road, make needed improvements to Johnson Road and the proposed Cobble Drive they needed to get past the Preliminary Plat stage.

Mr. Mortimer asked if Johnson Road would be widened on the north side. Mr. Kopeck replied they intend to improve Johnson Road, but in order to come to a decision they would first need to work with DPW.

Mr. Orr stated DPWs comments where directly almost entirely towards the present condition of the road. As this project moves forward DPW will require detailed plans of the engineering for Johnson Road.

Mr. Mortimer asked if after subtracting the four minor subs, the density was less that 1/3. Mr. DiGiacomo replied 1/3.155, but if the minor subs where added back in the density would be greater.

3. Francis H. Otenasek et ux. (Lands of), Cassidy Whaft Road, Preliminary/Final Plat, Michael Scott, Inc., First Election District

WITHDRAWN

4. Michael Pugh, West Guckert, Jay Young, David Meiskin and Dennis Glackin presented The Villages at Cherry Hill, Singerly Road (Rte 213), Leeds Road and Black Snake Road, Concept Plat, Glackin Thomas Panzak, Inc., Third Election District

Mr. Mortimer abstained from any discussion or voting of The Villages at Cherry Hill project.

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Young introduced the applicants and submitted resumes for Glackin, Guckert and Pugh. Each speaker has been qualified as an expert witness in a number of jurisdictions in the past.

Mr. Young spoke on the legal issues that had been raised by the opposition. One of which was the zoning not being legal because it was inconsistent with the Master Plan. There applicant provided a copy of Memorandum of Law prepared by the applicants. The Master Plan is an advisory document. Once the legislation is ruled upon it is a legislative act, at which time you cannot travel back to reopen the case to challenge whether or not the legislative body was correct in its analysis of whether or not the plan is

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 587 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 consistent with the master plan. Once the legislation was passed the Master Plan goes away, which was in the time frame of 1993. There were actions that could have been taken at that time, but were not; therefore, the applicants believe the zoning is valid. Mr. Young spoke of a letter interpreting whether the property was located within the Cherry Village district of the Comprehensive Plan from the OPZ. One issue raised at TAC was the restriction on this development as an active adult community. Cecil County does not have legislation that restricts housing to a particular age group or senior/age restricted housing.

Mr. Glackin state the community/recreation center will be approximately 10,000 ft² with will include tennis courts and swimming pool. The retail/commercial will be a future development and will require a rezoning. The Ordinance requires approximately 20% open space. This plan shows 44% open space which is provided in three different types of conditions. One being a series of buffers used along the exterior of the site. The second type being interior areas or landscaping within the development. There is a major area behind Gore that will provide setbacks via walking paths between the industrial use of Gore and residential usage. The third type of open space is the forested open space. This wooded area will not be proposed for development and contains two stream. There is an anticipated trail system as well as required sidewalks. The plan consists of 749 units in addition to the commercial area.

Mr. Brown asked if the light green areas would be landscaped. Mr. Glackin replied it would be open space consisting of a berm and buffer.

Mr. Brown questioned the lands located near the SWM. Mr. Glackin replied although a berm and buffer was not shown, it could be part of the late development plans or condition of approval.

Mr. Meiskin distributed a copy of the presentation brochure to the Planning Commission members; (a copy is available at the OPZ). He referred to the project as a master plan community because there where a number of different components; the housing product and the commercial component. Component 1 was located along Delancy Road. The property will be accessed via Route 213. There will be an onsite medical office located in the commercial component with a village/colonial type theme. This project will be geared towards residents doing a lot of walking. The applicants intention is to reduce the 20% non age restricted residents. A 10,000 ft² recreation center will include an indoor lap pool, exterior pool and various sports.

Following the TAC meeting the applicants had met with one public group in addition to a number of other individuals. After listening to their concerns some issues are being addressed. A plan acceptable to both sides was revised, but some issues could not be addressed. Eliminating the apartments and rearranging some of the units allowed for the number of units to be reduced from 978 to 749. The townhouses were reduced and single family homes were added per the residents request. Rolling berm with plantings has been added to address the issue of screening the perimeter. Once the applicants have reached the appropriate stage they will be addressing the issues of drainage and safety of Black Snake Road. In the main entrance into the project was located off of Black Snake Road but the residents objected of this entrance from the start. After acquiring the Delancy property, approximately two years later, the new entrance has been relocated to Route 213. This will reduce a tremendous amount of the impact on the side roads. It was brought to the applicants attention several months ago that there was an endangered species issue. A threatened and endangered species study will be will conducted in the spring, which is the earliest that the study can be conducted. If the study concludes that threatened and endangered species exist, this issue will be addressed at that time.

Single family homes will range from 1400 ft² to 2400 ft² of living space with a standard two car garage, master bedroom, 2nd bedroom on the 1st floor, and any usable rooms being located on the 2nd floor. Basements will be optional. The homes will be constructed with gabled roofs. A section of 1400 ft² duplex homes w/garage will be located off of Black Snake Road. Townhouses will range from three to seven units. The condominiums will consist of an elevator on the 1st floor parking area and living units on 2-4 floors. The units will range from to 1200 to 2000 ft².

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 588 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Meiskin distributed a financial analysis of the property, a copy attached for reference. He stated there was no requirement to build age restricted residents on this property. A total of 2508 homes could have been constructed on the two parcels in various combinations, including apartments with various options on the Milburn and Delancy properties. He stated the applicants had not addressed these options because they had taken into consideration the amount of homes and location not being appropriate for that area, therefore deciding to build age restricted homes. Mr. Meiskin summarized the fiscal monies for the project.

Mr. Pugh stated he would like to refocus on the issues associated with this plan, addressing were they are and were they would like to go as well as what lies ahead. The project consist of two parcels, the first being the Milburn property, where peach orchards are located. This property is zoned RM and consist of 148 acres. The parcel located in the corner of the intersection of Leeds Road and Route 213 is zone VR with approximately 31 acres. The mix of units described today will be located on the combination of both parcels in addition to a 140,000 ft² of commercial area. Several things will need to happen in order for this to take place. First being a rezoning of the property from VR to BG. Once again the purpose of today is to detail their vision and concept of the entire project and their opinion of what the appropriate overall use of the property in its entirely so that as the separate and individual pieces come together the public will be informed of how it will fit together. The rezoning of the commercial piece will need to come before both the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners. Under §6.1 of the subdivision regulations there is a provision for cluster development, in which the applicant is requesting today. The purpose of this provision is to allow the applicant to decrease the area for the lots that the houses will be placed on in order to increase the amount of open space.

As previously stated the open space on this project is over double the requirement. Buffers have been placed around the property and additional needed buffers will be remedied. In the course of doing the preliminary work it was found that there was a historical site nearby. Through an effort of buffering and vegetation they will attempt to protect any visual impact. The second issue is water and sewer. Although a portion of the property is already under the Master Water and Sewer Plan the Milburn property is not. An existing treatment facility located in Cherry Hill has some additional capacity but not enough for a project of this scope. At present no public water is available to the Cherry Hill Village. The applicants will need to generate a plan to address the Master Water and Sewer Plan amendment. They must receive Concept Plat approval in order to gauge the overall density of needed service. Although they do not know what the final solution is today there are a range of possibilities in which they will be exploring. It is Mr. Pugh opinion that this project is consistent with the Countys Master Development Plan. It is located within the Village of Cherry Hill which allows for the usages associated with the RM zone.

Mr. Pugh stated, as previously noted, it has come to the applicants attention that a possible Bog Turtle habitat may be located on the property. All lots located in this area have been withdrawn and a study will be conducted, by an appropriate technician recognized by the State authorities, in the spring of next year. The results of this study will be included in the Preliminary Plat. In addressing the issue involving tanks located on the property, all work immediately stopped and MDE was contacted. MDE has since been overseeing all aspects of the removal and remediation of the tanks in addition to all associated environmental issues on the site.

The access way located between the W.L. Gore plant and the elementary school has been designated as an emergency access into this project only, not a full County road. It is their belief that the access points off of Old Cherry Hill Road, Leeds Road and Black Snake Road are adequate provisions of access to the property. He requested that the issue of emergency access versus County road be decided at the Preliminary Plat stage; therefore, allowing it to be studied in combination with the traffic issues associated with this project. They asked that approval at the concept level be granted, allowing them to move forward to perform the needed studies, document and demonstrate the issues that they believe to be true.

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 589 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Guckert, President of The Traffic Group, stated they have undertaken approximately 5000 traffic studies for both Government and the private sector over the past 20 years including studies for the Cecil County Government as well as development opportunities within this County. They have reviewed a number of age restricted communities throughout the mid-Atlantic area for many years. Both he and his peers have conducted their own studies at several communities and have obtained information from other sources as to what type of traffic would be generated. This type of community with approximately 749 units traffic will function as a community of 350 homes. The traffic generated by an age restricted community is about half, sometimes less, of what you would find generated by a single family detached home. The age that has been set in place characteristic and the fact that there are no children present to be transported to and from various functions, in addition to no older children driving separate vehicles, are some of the reasons why the traffic is much less than a traditional residential community. If and when this plan is approved, the applicant will meet with both the County and State to discuss the type of impact study that will be required. The four access point, which include the potential emergency access are in excess of what is required. The amount of traffic generated by this community could be handled by two accesses but they will be spreading the traffic out over three access points. This developer will make all improvements generated from the impact study at his own expense, at no cost to the taxpayers or County. It is Mr. Guckerts opinion that this proposal will generate a significantly small amount of traffic, a lot less than under the normal circumstances. The access points are more than sufficient to accommodate the movement of traffic and it is possible that they will be making offsite road improvements as dictated by both the County and State Highway Administration.

Mr. Young stated Mr. Meiskin indicated there had been a number of meetings with citizen groups, general public and TAC had lead to modifications to the plan. As Mr. Guckert indicated the developer is responsible for mitigating the traffic impact and will have to make a lot of these improvements at the developers cost. He does not want to create the false impression that there is a lot more unit elimination or berming that could be done.

Mr. Williams questioned what the underground storage tanks that were located contained. Mr. Meiskin stated the tanks contained heating oil. They have been working with MDE.

Mr. Williams asked if there was any sign of leakage. Mr. Meiskin stated that was part of the current investigation.

Ms. Kilby questioned the contamination of the adjacent W. L. Gore site located on Route 213. Mr. Meiskin asked if she was referencing the TCE. Ms. Meiskin stated when this project had come before the County Commissioners, prior to the purchase of the property; there was an issue of potential contamination from the adjacent W. L. Gore site. Mr. Meiskin stated, What you are referring to is tetrachloride, its TCE is what is typically known as. It is offsite. It is not on the site. It is on the Gore property yes and as it relates to development of the property, it doesnt have impact to it as long as we are not affecting the water table immediately adjacent to that plume. Ms. Kilby asked if the applicant was in possession of a letter stating this. Mr. Meiskin replied no. Ms. Kilby asked if a letter could be obtained. Mr. Young stated he supposed they could, but the issue is there is a contamination that MDE has not indicated that there is any contamination on our site. A comment was made during TAC that if the development was developed without public utilities there would be a possibility of drawing that plume from its current area of contamination. Public utilities would prevent any drawing of the plume from the adjacent property. If MDE would give them such a letter they would be happy to try to get one. It doesnt exist.

Ms. Kilby asked why the applicant had not obtained an amendment to the water and sewer plan prior to the Concept Plat. Mr. Meiskin replied the concept plat approval would supply the number of units required prior to requesting an amendment to the water and sewer plan. Mr. Pugh stated that normally the amendment to the Master Water and Sewer Plan had occurred prior to Preliminary Plat and not prior to Concept Plat. Secondly without knowing the number of units it is difficult to generate the feasibility study so that you can approach

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 590 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 the question of amending the Master Water and Sewer Plan in an intelligent way.

Mr. Williams questioned the calculations for expenses to the County, asking what kinds of services were used to come up with the $792,000 figure. Mr. Meiskin replied it was taken from a limited fiscal impact study. He stated he had taken the calculations and used coefficients and plugged the number in. The impact to the school system was not included because there were no children. Mr. Williams stated it would be helpful to review the complete break out, if possible. Mr. Williams believes the expenses to the County were under estimated based on EMS alone. This is an age restricted community over the age of 55. Age restricted communities are EMS demanding. Mr. Meiskin stated the numbers of responses for EMS are the same as the age category with children. The residents age group will be 55-75, many of which are quite healthy well beyond 75. Mr. Williams stated he would like to see the report because his personal experience had been the of the contrary. Once you hit 60 and up its a much busier place.

Mr. Williams asked if the commercial development would be part of the current proposal or something that might happen in the future. Mr. Pugh stated it was on the plat as an indication of their future intentions. Mr. Williams recommended references to the possible impact that the commercial part be removed. Mr. Young stated it was a catch 22. The applicants wanted to be up front about their intentions of commercial development. Mr. Williams stated it was a great concept, but the commercial piece is not before the Planning Commission and any positives associated with the residential should be eliminated; an example being 400 new permanent jobs being created from the commercial component.

Mr. Brown asked if the intention was to supply plantings behind W. L. Gore, school, and adjacent properties although they didnt appear on the plat. Mr. Meiskin replied yes.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was RM and VR.

The RM zone permits a maximum base density of two (2) dwelling units per one (1) acres, or 6/1 with community facilities, 12/1 for townhouses, and 16/1 for apartments.

The VR zone permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per one (1) acre in areas without community facilities. A maximum density of four (4) dwelling unit per one (1) acre is permitted in areas with community facilities.

Both the VR and RM zones permit certain office commercial activities, for example, as a Special Exception. If that course of action is proposed, then the Special Exception must be obtained prior to Final Plat review and/or Site Plan approval. If the VR acreage is rezoned to RM, then all business establishments proposed shall conform to the provisions of §s 29.7 and 31. If any of the VR acreage is rezoned to BG or BL, then §s 32 & 31 shall apply, respectively.

If the commercial component is to remain zoned VR, then, pursuant to §28.2.a, the Site Plan should be approved as part of the regular subdivision process. Otherwise, it should be approved under the Site Plan approval process, consistent with §291 and Appendix A.

Similar Concept Plats, proposing 978 and 753 dwelling units, were reviewed by the TAC in July and August 2004, respectively, but neither was subsequently reviewed by the Planning Commission.

This Concept Plat proposes 749 dwelling units (198 single family lots, 171 townhouse lots, 54 twin lots, and 326 condominiums) on 180.04 acres, for a proposed density of 4.16/1.

The proposed higher density townhouses and condominiums are proposed closer to the Board of Education and Gore properties than to existing nearby single family residences.

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 591 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Discounting the 12.23 acres proposed for commercial development, the proposed density is 4.46/1.

Further discounting all the 31.24 VR-zoned acres and the 54 proposed twins, the proposed overall density is 4.68/1. The proposed density of the VR-zoned portion is 1.73/1, including the 12.23 ac. commercial portion, or, 2.84/1 without, which is permissible in the VR zone, with community facilities. The plats stated duplex density of 4.5/1 is incorrect and must be changed.

The purpose of the VR (Village Residential) zone is to provide for the protection of existing villages by allowing limited development consistent with the character of these villages.

Sketch Plan Note # 8 cites the potential future rezoning of the Delancy property, currently zoned VR. Even if any of that property is successfully rezoned to BL and/or RM, §28.1 nevertheless stipulates that: The essential historic and aesthetic character of villages should be reflected in the development within this district. This classification is meant to be applied in the immediate environs of the existing village and the extent of the Village Residential District is to be limited to an appropriate area adjacent to the existing village centers.

Therefore, Landscape Plan approval for those portions of the property adjacent to the VR zone will be a function of consistency with §s 28.1 & 28.2.c, rather than §29.5 or §31.3 & §31.4.

Sketch Plan Note # 7 indicates the invocation of the provisions of §6.1 of the Cecil County Subdivision Regulations regarding residential cluster development.

In addition, §29.1 of the Zoning Ordinance states that: The purpose of the Multifamily Residential zone is to provide areas for relatively high density residential development with the opportunity for a compatible variety of housing types, limited commercial and service-oriented uses and suitable open spaces. A variety of housing types are encouraged within a particular development. It is further intended to permit flexibility in lot and yard regulations to encourage innovative and creative design to the extent that a superior and harmonious living environment and an efficient overall use of land is achieved.

Per §6.1.1 (e) of the Subdivision Regulations, this Concept Plat has shown estimated staging of construction.

A boundary line survey must be done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes.

Since a portion of this project is a condominium project, that portion will have a different review process than the normal subdivision process to be applied to the single, twin and townhouse portions. The TAC and the Planning Commission will review the Concept Plat as a whole. If approved, then the applicant will next submit a Preliminary Plat/Site Plan for the condominiums for TAC review and Planning Commission review

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 592 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 and approval. The requirements of §291 and Appendix A of the Zoning Ordinance must be adhered to.

Upon approval of the Preliminary Plat/Site Plan, building permits may be issued. Once the units and clubhouse are built, then the developer shall apply for as built Final Plat review by the Planning Commission. If approved, then condominium plats may then be recorded.

For all other proposed sections, no building permits shall be issued prior to subdivision Recordation or final Site Plan approval for the commercial component.

Sketch Plan Note # 12 indicates that all dwelling units are to be restricted as an active adult community. If any of the dwellings are intended as a retirement housing complex, then a Special Exception must be obtained, and that portion must conform to the provisions of §82.

A number of proposed lots are shown to consist, at least partially, of steep slopes. Dwellings or impervious surfaces shall not occur on slopes with a grade of 25% or more covering a contiguous area of 10,000 ft2 or more. On slopes between 15 and 25%, good engineering practices shall be used to ensure sediment and erosion control and slope stabilization before, during and after disturbance activities.

Slopes greater than 25% must again be shown on the Preliminary Plat.

The approved FSD shows one intermittent stream to be a perennial stream. In addition, the approved FSD shows areas of wetlands not shown on the Concept Plat. These details must be made consistent on the Preliminary Plat and the PFCP, as well as the JD. In addition, the Preliminary Plat must accurately show all floodplain limits, as well as stream and wetland buffers.

A 25 buffer is required around any non-tidal wetlands and intermittent streams present. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland and stream impacts prior to recordation. A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) must be done prior to preliminary plat review by the Planning Commission for the subdivision, and prior to Preliminary Plat/Site Plan review for the condos.

The habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided. A Phase 1 Bog Turtle Survey was conducted on 8/27/04; a Phase 2 Survey must also be conducted on site.

This proposal satisfies the common open space provisions of the RM and VR zones. 20% is required, respectively; 44.87% is proposed.

Access to common open space between and beside lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

If active recreational amenities are intended in the common open space, then they must be included in the Public Works Agreement.

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 593 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 20% landscaping of the development envelope is required in the VR zone. 25% is required in the RM zone, where a minimum 25 Bufferyard C shall be provided around the perimeter of the tract. No parking areas, roadways, or accessory structures are permitted in the 25 planted bufferyard.

In addition, §29.3.d stipulates that in the RM zone: All areas not occupied by buildings, roads, parking areas, or other required or permitted uses, including open spaces and usable recreation areas shall be landscaped by lawns, trees, shrubs, gardens, or other suitable ground cover.

Sidewalks are recommended on both sides of all internal roads. This proposal, in keeping with the creative and innovative designs encouraged for cluster development, includes sidewalks and walking/bike paths, as well as walking and biking space on all roads. The details and locations of these proposed amenities must appear on the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Plat/Site Plan.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of Black Snake and (westerly portion of) Leeds Roads. The Bufferyard along Singerly Road and the easterly portion of Leeds Road, because of the location of the Village of Cherry Hill, shall conform to §s 28.1 & 28.2.c, as noted (# 4 & # 5).

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

The FSD for Villages at Cherry Hill (the Milburn property) has been approved. All parcels associated with the proposed subdivision now have an approved FSD.

However, the wetland, stream, and buffer locations shown on the FSD do not match those shown on the Concept Plat. As stated earlier the details of the Preliminary Plat and the Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) must in facts reconciling one another. The SWM proposed pond near proposed Lots 344-346 is proposed within a large wetland complex. These problems must be rectified in conjunction with the preparation of the PFCP and the Preliminary Plat and possibly the Preliminary Plat/Site Plan.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat. The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat, except for the proposed condominium portion, where they must be approved prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat/Site Plan.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

A Homeowners Association for maintenance of common open space, the recreation center, bike paths and walking trails must be established with $50 per recorded lot or condo unit placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation. Note # 9 indicates that the alleyways will be maintained by the HOA; however, no alleys are depicted on the plat.

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 594 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) must be submitted prior to the submission of the Preliminary Plat for TAC review and site plans submitted for staff review. It should include a signal warrant analysis at the proposed MD 213 entrance, and it must assume the potential full build-out impacts of the proposed commercial portion.

The plat does not clearly delineate the limits of the proposed Topaz Way and Lady Nancy Drive.

Fire hydrant locations should be selected in consultation with the Department of Public Works and the Singerly Volunteer Fire Company.

The maximum townhouse height is 35. Condominium buildings shall be set back at least 20 from all parking areas and internal roads.

No building shall be constructed closer to any other building than a distance equal to the height of the higher of the two buildings. The space between two buildings can be reduced to a distance equal to half of the taller of the two buildings provided that the spacing is approved by the Emergency Services representative to the TAC, consistent with §29.4.c (1-4).

All condominium owners must become members of the condominium association for maintenance of the buildings, parking areas, private roads, landscaping, and common elements, as well as the Homeowners Association for maintenance of the recreation center, common open space, bike paths and walking trails.

All residents and guests will have access to the recreation center, open space, bike paths and walking trails. Mr. DiGiacomo asked if only condo residents have access to the condo common areas? Mr. Pugh replied no everyone will.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the Condo Instruments for these proposed condominiums must be accepted by the Maryland Secretary of State prior to recordation.

The water and sewer service sources must be determined prior to Preliminary Plat or Preliminary Plat/Site plan reviews by the TAC.

The Master Water and Sewer Plan must be amended to include this site prior to Final Plat review, except for the condominium and commercial sections.

The Master Water and Sewer Plan must be amended prior to the condominium Preliminary Plat/Site Plan review by the Planning Commission and prior to Site Plan approval(s) for the commercial section (sewer component only: from S-2 to S-1).

Per §175.1, a controlling authority for community sewerage service approved by MDE shall be designated by the Board of County Commissioners. The abovementioned amendment to the Master Water and Sewer Plan must reflect the establishment of a community sewerage system service area.

Per §175.2, such a community sewerage system thus approved and constructed shall remain in private ownership of the development being serviced.

Per §175.3, such a controlling authority thus approved, designated, and appointed must operate and manage the system.

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 595 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Per §175.4, the Office of Planning and Zoning in conjunction with the Department of Public Works and the Health Department shall develop a policy manual which will set forth procedural requirements relative to the development review process for this proposed project.

Written verification of water allocation and sewer capacity must be received for the condominium units and recreation center prior to the issuance of building permits (or Preliminary Plat/Site Plan review by the Planning Commission).

Written verification of water allocation and sewer capacity must be received for the single, twin, townhouse sections prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Final Plat.

If the water source is an on-site private system, then verification that the proposed water system is capable of serving these proposed lots and recreation center must be received from MDE prior to Preliminary Plat/Site Plan and Final Plat reviews. Documentation of all approvals for the system and the operator required by the Public Service Commission must be submitted prior to Preliminary Plat/Site Plan and Final Plat reviews. Therefore, the water source must be determined prior to the Planning Commissions Preliminary Plat/Site Plan review.

The Final/Record Plats shall contain a statement signed by the Health Department approving authority; to the effect that use of the community water supply and community sewerage system is in conformance with the Master Water and Sewer Plan.

The Final/Record Plats shall also contain a statement, signed by the owner, to the effect that such facilities will be available for all condominiums and lots/houses offered for sale.

The proposed recreation center must be served by water & sewer systems approved by the Health Department. The site plan-specific details of the recreation center must be submitted with the Preliminary Plat submitted for TAC review of phase 2.

Mr. Smith questioned a discrepancy concerning the bufferyards along Leeds Road

Mr. Orr stated a SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan, Sanitary Sewer Plan, Water Distribution Plan, and a Mass and Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, and Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.)

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 596 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 County SWM Ordinance.

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the countys SWM Ordinance. This analysis must include the culvert under Leeds Road adjacent to the Lands of Cherry Hill Plaza. Access must be provided to each SWM facility on site.

The TIS must address the internal traffic flow distribution throughout the development. The June 2004 traffic counts conducted by the Department indicate a 7-day average ADT of 3564 for Leeds Road east of Black Snake Road and 2998 west of Black Snake Road. Black Snake Road itself had an ADT of 289 near the intersection with Leeds Road.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the owners expense.

Sight distance measurements will be required at the Loring Lane/Black Snake Road intersection and the Santa Rose Drive/Leeds Road intersection. These locations must be marked in the field.

Regardless of phasing, the Department will not accept the internal roads until 80% of all the lots are complete, unless the developer includes a separate, dedicated construction entrance beyond the first phase of construction or provide a Maintenance bond of 50% of the roadway construction costs.

The requirements of Section 3.07.15 of the Road Code will be extended in this case and the developer can anticipate off-site road improvements on Black Snake Road and Leeds Road. We anticipate that these will include substantial upgrades to Black Snake Road from Loring Lane to Leeds Road and to Leeds road from Black Snake Road to MD 213 at a minimum. However, the Department will not be able to make final determination until the TIS and a Road survey are complete.

The developer will be required to provide a decel lane on Leeds Road (west bound) at the Black Snake intersection as well as on Black Snake Road at Loring Lane.

The developer must survey the current condition Leeds Road from MD 213 to Blue Ball Road. This survey must include coring the existing pavement a minimum of 20 down at the center line and 1 in from both edges every 250 from MD 213 to 100 west of the intersection with Black Snake Road. Also required for this section of Leeds Road is a description of road width, surface conditions, horizontal/vertical curvatures, shoulder and general drainage conditions every 50. This same level of survey must be conducted on Black Snake Road from Leeds Road to 100 north of Loring Lane. The remainder of Leeds Road must be surveyed for width, surface condition, shoulders and drainage. This survey can address the road in 1,000 sections giving generalized descriptions.

The 30 ROW For Spring Crest Drive, Star Fire Way, and Glenelg Way must be changed to 50. These roads must be designed to Road Code Standard R-6 (Minor Road).

The results of the TIS analysis of internal traffic distribution will be used to assess what Road Code Standards will apply to each street. Preliminarily the Department will require that Elberta Boulevard, from the intersection of Route 213 past the points of curvature with Santa Rose Drive, shall be built to Standard R-10 which is a Commercial Industrial Major Collector.

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 597 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The remainder of Elberta Boulevard into the site would be a Standard R-8, Residential Major Collector. Loring Lane should also be designed to a Minor Collector Standard R-7. The three intersections with existing County streets should be customized during the design process to the Departments satisfaction, emphasis lane control and turning movements.

The Emergency Access Road must be shown as HOA ownership. Appropriately design breakaway barriers shall be required at each end.

Topaz Lane should be removed and simply referred to as Lady Nancy Drive. All internal roads must be closed section. All sections of road containing islands or medians must be built to Road Code Standard R-12.

All driveways must be paved at least to the right of way and this must be so indicated on the Lot Grading Plan.

All lots must access the least major road frontage. All lots along Loring Lane except for Lots 209-213 will be denied access to Loring Lane. This must be indicated on the Preliminary/Final Plat. Lots 109-213 must have driveways configured to allow for vehicle turnaround and so noted on the Final Plat as well as the Lot Grading Plan.

The entrance and parking lots for the condos must be private and as such will be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association or similar organization for maintenance and repair. A statement to this effect must be included on the Final Plat.

The DPW recommends connectivity from internal streets to Parcel C.

Any applicable Road Code Variance must be requested prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat approval.

There is no public water service available for this site.

All but the Delancy Parcel of this development is outside of the Master Water & Sewer Plan and therefore an amendment to the plan must be obtained from the County Commissioners.

Sewer allocation must be requested. This request must include the usage rates for the proposed commercial operations on Parcel C.

The Delancy Parcel is within the existing Cherry Hill WWTP sanitary sub district. The sanitary sewer loading generated by the 753 dwellings proposed is approximately 200,000 gpd and is beyond the capability of the Cherry Hill WWTP. This does not include loading from commercial development on Parcel C, which is indeterminate at this stage.

The above notwithstanding, the developer must provide a sanitary sewer feasibility study to identify the type of treatment facility proposed and sewer main routing that maximizes the use of gravity sewer and limits the use of pump stations.

DPW requests that the applicant submit a general layout prior to Preliminary Plat review by the TAC.

DPW requests the finalized feasibly study be submitted prior to Preliminary Plat review of the Planning Commission.

The location of any and all planned infrastructure (i.e., Well locations and WWTP location) on site must be readily accessible for maintenance and inspection and must be showed on the Preliminary Plat.

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 598 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Any sanitary sewer lines running outside of County ROW must be ductile iron and located in a utility easement of sufficient width to allow access.

Any Tot Lots or active recreational areas required by the Planning Commission must be included in a PWA and have approved construction plans.

A PWA is required for the Roads and Storm Drains. A PWA will also be required for the Sanitary Sewer. An I&M Agreement is required for SWM facilities.

Verify that all fire hydrant locations are positioned within the subdivision in accordance with the ten states standards and the Cecil County Department of Public Works Standards & Specifications.

Mr. Carter stated the comment that the 30 ROW for Spring Crest Drive, Star Fire Way, and Glenelg Way be changed to 50 in their review will be able to recognize it as townhouses and therefore the 30 and 38 ROW are probably correct.

Mr. Smith read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. Brown stated comments had been received up start the Planning Commission Meeting. He distributed the comments to the members to review.

Wayne Lockwood, 432 Jackson Hall School Road, appeared in favor of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. He stated there were a lot of good things in relation to this project. If done correctly, this project could be something Cecil County could be proud of. There are a number of seniors in the County that would enjoy living in a community such as the proposed one.

Owen Thorne, 20 Hillwood Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Thorne stated he and the other members of Cherry Hill Alliance for Responsible Growth and Expansion (CHARGE) were representing both themselves and neighbors as a group of concerned citizens regarding the transformation of the Milburn peach orchard into a mega development of 749 units. The approval of this Concept Plat would set a precedent allowing out of state developers to come here chose the location, size and density of their projects, then tell us how to manage our public water and sewage systems which would clarify the laws; even when our planning, long range plans and our community oppose such bad development. It is Mr. Thornes opinion that by allowing a small city to be built on what Mr. Meiskin referred to as a little village is not a responsible action. The land in question is miles from the development district and is within the Rural Conservation District as pointed out by Mr. Pugh. The orchard is outside of the area planned for public sewer or water service over the next decade as specified in our brand new Master Water and Sewer Plan. The Planning Commissions approval of Mr. Meiskin Concept Plat would send a message that such high density, though totally out of character with existing community and completely at odds with our Comprehensive Plan, is somehow a good idea. Nothing could be further from the truth, and we have citizens ready to speak on subjects that specifically impact this high density. These topics include addressing this projects negative impact on schools, roads and infrastructures. We have been approving bedroom communities much faster than we can generate new jobs; and, as we all know, residential development uses services costing tax dollars faster than it generates new tax income for County. This puts the County further in a hole and comes at the expense of our long term strength and our strategic vision of the future. We will also talk about the inadequate public facilities in place to support such a huge development. Population pressures age restricted communitys issues and the precious rural character of the existing community. Additional concerns in an area less than one mile from environmentally sensitive Grammys Run and Fair Hill Preserve include past, present and future contamination of our steams and aquifer in the bay. We will hear of new pavement, resulting lack of recharge of our wells, run off, pollution, endangered species, wetland locations, a adjacent super fun site, a huge new strip mall in the County with plenty of empty retail

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 599 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 space and this developers track record and the what if. What if things do not go as these gentlemen promise us they would? In conclusion on behalf of all CHARGE members, I look to our Planning Commissioners to insure that a development in our community and throughout our County is completed as responsible growth and expansion, not leaving serious problems behind. CHARGE hopes these presentations will help you with the decisions to be made. Mr. Thorne submitted signed petitions containing nearly 1000 County neighbors, voters and taxpayers. He asked if the comments faxed and emailed to OPZ from citizens unable to attend todays meeting had been provided to each member and would if they would be read into the record today.

Mr. Thorne read a letter on behalf of Eva Walker, 644 Jackson Hall School Road. The letter stated CHARGE had a few key questions that they felt needed to be answered prior to the Planning Commission votes. We have observed that work on the site has already been initiated and while we do not know what is being done or who is doing it we wonder if all the right permits and approvals have completed. This is in addition to the tanks being removed. Does anyone here know why such high density housing is out beyond the available public water and sewer systems when suitable lands exist in the development district? Why should the citizens of a small and historic community located in farm county be asked to suddenly absorb what amounts to a small city in their midst? This is unsound planning policy and why would we even consider such a scenario. What happens when the developer does not sell all the lots to over 55ers? Wont he then turn around and ask his County Commissioners to sell his townhouses and duplexes to anyone who has the cash, thus clogging our schools system and upsetting the delicately balanced apple cart of taxes and services in the community? Other 55 and older communities have already followed this part and what is to prevent that here. What more must be spent to support our already overburdened sheriffs department , fire companies and EMS services with an additional 700 new families to look out for? What about the impact of 1000s of additional daily trips in cars which will clog narrow Country roads and further overburden commuter Routes 213 and 277 stretching east towards Delaware? Once the ink is dry on over 700 mortgages, will Mr. Meiskin then return to rebuild those roads once we are swamped with that new traffic? What will be the fate of beautiful historic old homes that have survived so long along those winding country paths that would have to be widened to make this possible? What will happen 10 or 15 years from now when The Villages at Cherry Hill community association falls apart or cant take care of the business and taxpayers have to pick up the bill for internal road repairs, parking lots, lights, water and sewer and other infrastructure as it wears out like in the Highlands? Will Mr. Meiskin be around then to blame? I dont think so. Once the precedent for such high density is established outside the development and suburban district what will prevent the rest of the rural conservation zone from succumbing and turn the whole County over to the greed of developers. I urge you, Mr. Chairman, to put these questions to Mr. Meiskin and his representatives before you consider a vote. While I am sure they will have answers ready to toss out to you I ask you, listen to your neighbors who have prepared these presentations and are now prepared to go forward.

Vito Papagno, 285 Black Snake Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. He stated back in 1993 the citizens of Cecil County made a mistake. To use as a basis of this comment was a quote made by Ed Cole, President of the County Commissioners in 1993, when the decision was made to convert the Milburn property to Multi Residential; Yes now I feel a mistake was made. We the citizens of Cecil County, in all fairness to Ed Cole and the Commissioners at that time, also have to take some of the responsibility for that mistake. As the lawyer pointed out earlier we had vehicles available at the time to combat that mistake but didnt know. Another statement by Mr. Cole at the same meeting, I remember a couple of meetings were 5, 8 or 11 people came and that was it. We have modified our behavior because we do not want it to happen again. As you can see you now have more then 5, 8 or 11 participants present. In some places fair business practice is defined as developers seizing upon a mistake and capitalizing on it. We can not allow this mistake to be compounded with another mistake of rezoning the Delancy parcel. There are already too many commercial properties not being utilized. Mr. Papagno acknowledged various commercial lots that were vacant including a space located across from the proposed project. He said do not compound the error made back in 1993 by making the same decision that the Planning Commission made back in 1993, not to change the zoning on the Milburn property.

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 600 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Lisa Kaminski, 157 Black Snake Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. She spoke on behalf of Ed Cole concerning the rezoning that occurred in 1993, stating the application to rezone to high density had been requested by the Milburn family. There were no provisions for notification to adjacent property owners at that time and it is unknown how the public was notified of this meeting. The Planning Commission, referencing the Comprehensive Plan, recommended disapproval of the project, but the County Commissioners were swayed. There were very few public members present to speak in opposition. The current Comprehensive Plan specifically states that consideration will be given to the zoning of adjacent property owners. The adjacent property is zoned Village Residential. This was not a defined growth area then, nor is it now. To date public water and sewer are not available to this property. She stated all had remained quite for 11 years and one might speculate that this allowed for the stature of limitation to run out. To allow this zoning mistake which is strictly in opposition of the Comprehensive Plan would be a travesty. This is the densest development in any part of Cecil County and it is not located in the designated growth area. Please defer to the Comprehensive Plan and do not profligate this mistake. Any approvals to this project would conflict with the May 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment. There are no adequate public facilities or infrastructure to support this project. This project is not located in a designated growth area. There are no ground water resources and a long term waste water supply is the central tenant of the Comprehensive Plan. Careful, prudent consideration of the Comprehensive Plan violations is seriously warranted.

Lisa Kaminski, 157 Black Snake Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal expressing concern of the impact The Villages at Cherry Hill would have on the Cecil County Public School system, specifically Cherry Hill Middle and Kenmore Elementary School. She currently serves on the School Improvement Team at Kenmore Elementary, the Alliance of Student, Teachers and Parents for Cecil County Public Schools and the Maryland State Parent Involvement Council. She stated Mr. Meiskin would have you believe that his over 55 development will not impact the school system. Council will have to advise how local authorities supercede federal rules and regulations. Under the Fair Housing Act grandparents who will live in The Villages at Cherry Hill may provide before and after school care to their relatives. As are any maintenance personal who work and live at the complex are excluded from the over 55 mandate. With a city the size of the village development a staff of 20 maintenance and administrative personnel may be required to maintain the buildings, grounds and administrative functions of the complex. According to the U.S. Census report the average family in Cecil County is 3.12 people with 1.12 children per family. That would be an additional 22 children at Kenmore or Cherry Hill. In addition, according to the Fair Housing Act an age restricted development must follow the 80/20 Plan. Eighty percent of the community must average the age of 55 years or older, the remaining 20% can be 55 years and under. Houses vacant over one year, with the 80% not being met, may be filled by tenants 55 and under, including children. Will there be an expiration of the restricted covenant and stipulations? A vigorous legal review is required before consideration of this project. At no time in the future could those people be asked to move even if there was someone over 55 and willing to move into the homes. Please do not rely on the age restriction to protect our County schools. If the demand for over 55 housing isnt there, then we could end up with a community of families there. A grand total of 331 students could be generated from this development if you factor in Cherry Hill Village employees, the 20% of under the age 55 and relative/grandparent daycare. The current capacity for Kenmore is 110%.

Joe Zolpa, 11 Black Snake Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. He stated contrary to the idea of building a retirement village would impact our community less; it is his belief that it could have a greater negative impact. To prevent housing discrimination in 1988 Congress amended the Fair Housing Act. There are exceptions to the FHAA for older persons. The 55 or older exception is most prominently used in a development of private sector age-restricted communities. Although there is a recognized need for communities for older persons there is still a highly protected goal of preventing housing discrimination. Communities designed and intended to supply housing for older persons must meet all of the HOP requirements and therefore these communities must allow children. This is the 80/20 rule. To be 100% compliant as the developer has stated they would need only 80% of the community to

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 601 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 be 55 or older. Senior homes are now springing up across Maryland. In Baltimore County these developments have cropped up in Catonsville, Carney, Towson and Pikesville. Mr. Zolpa listed several age restricted developments. With the many age restricted housing in the area what is the assurance that this one will be filled. Has a market feasibility study been completed and presented to the Planning Commission for review? If seniors do not fill this project nothing in the federal mandate states it must remain that way. With the uncertain economy there is a risk that the development may not be filled with seniors. This is a risk that our community faces, not the developer for he has the option of selling the homes to families with children should the senior housing concept not fit the bill. A big developer in Bethesda, Maryland does not want to build an entire age restricted development at this point. Profit for the developer, wheres the profit for the County. The density for age restricted developments is greater than that of traditional residential developments because the houses are smaller. The developers plan to build two story houses that will be easier to concert to family dwellings. Seniors prefer to live in single story dwellings. We ask that the Planning Commission disallow this density. If the community is to be 55 or older the 80/20 rule applies. Twenty percent of 749 equals 149 units that can be sold to families with children.

Mary Lagarelli, 938 Leeds Road appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. She holds a masters degree in business administration and is an ASQC certified engineer. The developer has implied that this age restricted communitys traffic will be equivalent to 350 homes. Does he not believe that some of these residents will not work? If you look at the U.S. Department of Labor Census 2000 and articles published in the Monthly Labor Review to see that true picture. The employment rate for persons 55 and up has steadily increased since 1994. Ms. Lagarelli reviewed several graphs speaking on financial stability of person 55 and over. A copy of Ms. Lagarellis presentation is attached.

Carmen Lararelli, 938 Leeds Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. He stated if this project is approved, despite the age the restriction, the Village of Cherry Hill will probably add an influx of new students from 442 households to our burdened school system. A total of 150 housing units, required by the law in accordance with the Fair Housing Act, resulted in 292 children below the 18 being cared for by their grandparents. Non resident children are allowed to enroll in the Cecil County school system given their caregiver resides in the County. Deed restrictions do not apply to caregivers. What assurance has Mr. Meiskin given us that he will prohibit his residents from providing daycare for their grandchildren and how this restriction would be enforced? If this age restricted community does not attract older buyers, given the provision of the Fair Housing Act, the developer may sell any units which have not sold within one year to the general public. That being said, how will the County handle students from an additional 749 households when Cecil County children are currently share text books and set in trailers during school hours?

Ed Cairns, 104 Jackson Hall School Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. He stated it was appropriate to consider traffic impact before setting density by approving the concept plan since the traffic generated by a development is directly related to the number of units on density of the proposed development. The Adequate Public Facilities §2.7 of our Subdivision Regulations states, In pursuit of its responsibility to provide for the health, safety, and general welfare of existing and future residents the Planning Commissions may disapprove the subdivisions if it is found that either off-site road access will be hazardous and unsafe or water and sewer is inadequate. So now when you are setting density is the time to evaluate both of these impacts. It makes more sense to follow logical order than past practices. Mr. Cairns served seven years on WILMAPCO regional council dealing with transportation issues in New Castle County, Delaware, Cecil County, Maryland and Salem County, New Jersey and during that tenure he worked with traffic engineers from both DELDOT and MDDOT on the technical analysis of traffic impacts. He considers himself to be a well informed non-professional in this field. This evaluation basically analyzes traffic count data and he has both graduate academic training at the University of Delaware and professional experience with Dupont in data analysis. Counting vehicles is not

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 602 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 complicated and it was ably done on eight weekdays over July and August by various volunteers during the morning and evening peak travel hours. As you can see, Joe Volpe and his Committee did a very admirable job. This data was checked against counts made by County and State road officials. Data is presented from four intersections with major impact from this proposal. The other intersections and roads located near Delaware that were impacted by this development but with time constraint could not be covered were Elk Chapel Road/Route 13, Lanzi Circle, Route 279/Route 213 and Leeds Road/Black Snake Road with particular interest in Lanzi Circle. Mr. Cairns reviewed the annual analyzed daily traffic, a copy is attached. Predicted traffic from this proposed development is based upon the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation manual which projects, 5.9 trip ends per day per unit for townhouses, duplexes and condos. Eight trips ends per day per unit were used for a similar retirement community near Silview as the ITE charts on this are lacking enough data to be significant. Only six observations are in the ITE tables and one is so large as to completely distort the curb. These give a total projection of 4830 added trip ends per day which will tax capacity at several locations, particularly Lanzi Circle. Most of the increase will use Lanzi Circle. Once the proposed internal roads are defined a more accurate prediction can be made. He pointed out that the number off to the side of 6020 predicted trip ends was not included in these figures, as it was what the commercial section would add to the project traffic increase should it be approved as described. If you consider that the 6000 figure from the shopping center would probably add to the Lanzi Circle it would almost double the traffic at Laniz Circle. Its somewhat questionable as to when the Lanzi Circle becomes overloaded. One measure is the wait time for the entering traffic to get into the circle. We measured current wait during evening rush hour and the average was 13 seconds with a maximum of 60 seconds. Doubling traffic would likely quadruple the wait time. If the Commercial land is considered, and well it should be, its added 6020 trips ends per day would increase the present traffic loads by 100%. It would be unfortunate to overwhelm the Lanzi Circle. Its a solution to accident problems at that intersection when all other means failed. It works because the present wait time is minimal but with the increases this proposed development will produce the aggressive driver gets impatient and pushes into the circle with disastrous results. There are too many unanswered questions, specifically what will happen with the Commercial section and how will the internal roads be configured to assess the traffic impact accurately. Until these issues are settled, setting density is premature and impossible to do with any justification certainty.

Robert Fritz, 39 Black Snake Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. He stated the applicants and on gentlemen that spoke in favor of the project would have you believe the people at 55 stay home and lay in bed all day and go out to the store once a week. Mr. Fritz stated he was 57 and planned to work at least another four years, possibly longer. He was not against development and had always felt the Milburn property would be developed someday but not at this magnitude. This development is out of character for this area. He question if the Planning Commission had viewed this property as becoming another New Castle County. There are currently 1094 dwellings within a 1½ mile radius of the proposed development. According to information obtained from the taxation office at 2.8 individuals per household based on the 2000 Census figure for this County it would place population in this area at 2063. The proposed Villages at Cherry Hill would add an additional 2097 residents to the area. In addition 312 units are slated for various other proposed subdivisions. In using the 2.8 individuals per household it is an additional 876 residents, which totals over a 144% increase in the population totaling 5036 people in that 1.5 mile radius. This would make Cherry Hill the 2nd largest populated area in Cecil County, only behind the Town of Elkton which currently has 11,893 residents and Perryville would be 3rd with 4000 residents based on the current Census figures. Without adequate and existing facilities in place as required by the Countys Comprehensive Plan this proposed project would no doubt create a hardship on the existing community resources and wildlife. If upon considering all that I and others have said today this small city is approved, please increase the 50 buffer that the developer has proposed on Black Snake and Leeds Road to a minimum of 100 and eliminate the access on Black Snake Road so the rural character can be maintained.

Paul Hyde, 320 Potters Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law, and testimony followed. He stated in the interest of time he would abbreviate his comments, amplifying on

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 603 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Fritz comments regarding the cumulative affect of the Planning Commission decisions upon the residents of Cherry Hill. Today the Planning Commission has been presented with an overwhelming amount of commercial area dwelling units for The Villages at Cherry Hill, but the real planning task involves a much larger picture. Plans are already in progress for over 300 additional dwelling units within close proximity which have previously been described. He asked the Planning Commission to do the necessary planning to avoid the irreversible negative consequences that would be created by more than 1000 dwelling units in Cherry Hill. If you take a look at the plan you will see it is not a cute new little town which would be one of the largest in Cecil County, and a town intrastate does not exist in Cherry Hill. The VR zoning law forbids this level of commercial growth, public facilities are not in place for needs of this scale and the County has not planned for this anywhere near Cherry Hill. The Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate a town in this part of the County. The Master Water and Sewer Plan does not account for this type of proposal. The developer has been quoted in the Cecil Whig as saying this is the whole in the donut. We must consider what that might mean. We are being offered dense tracts of housing and super sized commercial area. Please remember that most of us have chosen to live here away from the staggering scale development being proposed here today. Please do not treat this as just another development to send through the familiarities of the planning but instead send a clear and strong message that Cecil County Government will uphold its Comprehensive Plan.

Paul Hyde, 320 Potters Road appeared in opposition, reading a letter for Greg Birney, 90A Beauchamp Road stating he was a concerned citizen of Cherry Hill and the manager of Cherry Hill Liquors. There were specific points that he wanted to address. These issues included the intersection of Leeds Road and Maryland 213; SWM Plan that would have a direct impact on our properties behind Cherry Hill Plaza; proposed entrances to this development as they pertain to this plaza entrance to Leeds Road; loitering and destruction of the properties in the neighborhood; as well as the proposed 140,000 commercial facility. Cherry Hill Plaza is currently zoned for an additional 15,000 ft² of commercial activity, something that has not been done to this point. Four realtors have all tried to bring businesses into this plaza since 1989. However, between drug stores, dollar stores, gas stations and banks not a single business has been interested in the 15,000 ft², even though we are willing to negotiate a favorable lease. It should be noted that if we cannot fill 15,000 ft² than how can this developer hope to fill a 140,000 ft²? It is entirely out of place in Cherry Hill. It is actually 2/3 the size of Big Elk Mall. This new space will end up as an eyesore to the community, setting empty like the shopping centers built on Fletchwood Road. At TAC the developer proposed an entrance leading out onto Leeds Road near the circle and the entrance to Cherry Hill Plaza. This idea is psychotic in its proximity to the circle as well as its dangerous nature in the winter time with ice and snow. The proposed entrance is situated on a blind hill.

Roger Boguski, 47 Black Snake Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. He spoke on an issue that appeared over 71 times in the Cecil County Comprehensive Plan. In a letter from Joshua Brown to President Bolender in which Mr. Brown stated, I believe that everyone on our board agrees that the Comprehensive Plan is an important governing document and as such it is crucial that we received as much input from the public as possible. Mr. Boguski stated he agreed with this statement. In conclusion to his letter Mr. Brown stated, The plans current density levels were set as part of this negotiation and further change will degrade the goodwill of the original proposal. Both the planning board and the board of Cecil County Commissioners should focus not on reestablishing the density levels but in following through with the Comprehensive Plans entire application. In a letter from Carl Walbeck to the board of Cecil County Commissioners date May 26, 2004 he stated, Our recommendations contain several elements concerning the protection of agriculture lands and the preservation of rural character both of which are required in the current Comprehensive Plan. It seems to me that everyone and everything referrers to the Cecil County Comprehensive Plan which went into effect on 12/1/90 after being prepared by a 30 member Comprehensive Plan Committee. After purchasing the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Boguski state he read it in great detail three times. The very first paragraph under Introduction in the Comprehensive Plan states, §3.05 of Article 66b of the annotated code of the Maryland requires that Cecil

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 604 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 County Planning Commission to make an approval plan to guide the public and private decisions and to ensure the development of public and private property in appropriate relationships. The first goal under Land Use, on page 2 states, achieve quality growth of the County by maintaining desirable existing community characteristics in new development in recognizing existing settlement patterns in rural areas and providing for appropriate expansion. Under Physical Environment point 8 on page 3 states, maintain the rural character of the County by planning for the preservation of prime agriculture and open space and forest. The exact statement is found on page 10, 14, 20, 26 and 30 under Town Village, Rural Resource and Mineral Districts. The only two missing from that list are Development and Suburban of which they are neither. The word character or characteristics appears in the Comprehensive Plan over 71 times in just about 70 pages. Although the word character is not defined in the planning and zoning book, but Webster Dictionary defines it the word character as the distinctive quality of a thing. As you consider the seven districts in Cecil County for growth you may have to ask yourself what is the distinctive quality, the major characteristic of that district. It is up to the local residents and local County Government to decide.

Ken Wiggins, 504 Black Snake Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law, and testimony followed. He stated the proposed Villages at Cherry Hill borders the designated village district as well as including a designated Village Residential zoning in part of the proposed plat. The purpose of a village district is to recognize and protect the essential land use and the character of traditional cross roads and the values they foster. The creation of the village district is primarily to provide for their protection and secondarily to allow for limited protection within their boundaries consistent with their essential character. Protection will be achieved by defining village boundaries and allowing balanced development of mutual supporting land uses that are consistent with their essential land use historic and esthetic character. Mr. Wiggins read an excerpt of the Comprehensive Plan. Another goal is to control development in sensitive and critical resource areas, protecting natural resources and maintain the rural characteristics of the County by planning for preservation of prime agriculture land, open space and forest. Single and two family dwellings are appropriate houses for this area with a density of 1/1 or up to 2/1 if clustering and community septic is available. The Villages of Cherry Hill border the village district and go against it goals to maintain their character.

Alice Arbuckle, 42 Matthew Bathon Court, appeared in opposition of the proposal and was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. She stated the concept consideration of cramming 749 dwelling units on 180 acres of unsuitable soil was folly. To enable the Planning Commission majority vote against the Villages at Cherry Hill she has explored the portable water question and has provided each board member with a printout of my sources for reassurance. The baseline daily water supply usage will equal 164,031 gpd. This figure does not include the proposed recreation and commercial centers or the National Fire Department Association requirements. While Mr. Pugh was Director of the Cecil County Department of Planning and Economical Development he proposed a study of water and sewer needs in the Cherry Hill/Fair Hill areas. Completed in 1988 by Maryland Tatman and Lee Associates, this $20,000.00 study was apparently ignored by the 1993 County Commissioners when they approved the Milburn rezoning request. The previously mentioned source file before you included many pages of this study. Of especial relevance is pages 30, 40, and E-43. The 1988 Maryland Geological Survey Bulletin #34 states the following: The total water available in Cecil County on a renewable basis is approximately equal to the run-off, which is estimated to be about 20 inches per year. Groundwater pumped that is not returned to the system is ultimately derived from storage, with declining water levels, or runoff with reduced stream flow. It is Mr. Meiskin hope that onsite wells supplying 164,031 gpd lie between a crystalline rock of the Piedmont and fractured and weathered hard place. My own homes well is drilled into Piedmont hillside and produces 3 gpm at 330 ft. The concept plat clearly shows that the recharge areas for the subsurface unconsolidated weathered material will be made impervious by all the roads, sidewalks and roofs. How about the concept of hooking into Manchester Parks CECO utilities? Exhibit D is a copy of the MDEs issue water appropriation and use permit. The Molitor Road, Pines of Cherry Hill, will add 90 more single-family homes to the system. The withdrawn proposed Wyndale Farms of 126 single-family homes named CECO on its concept plat for water and sewer. The cost of CECO

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 605 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 water is $9.36 per 1,000 gallons flat rate on individual meters. Cecil County is now holding public hearings to increase its metered water to $3.77 per 1,000. Would semi-retired people buy into the Villages of Cherry Hill at CECOs water rates? A telephone conversation with MDEs Chris Carski revealed a questionnaire in his files dated 8/2/03. There were numerous questions left blank, however, the biggie question can future 10 year old demand be met by the current system, was answered no. Mr. Carski was unsure if this was written by Mr. Sposato or an MDE person. Note that CECOs water appropriation and use permit expired 8/1/04. Chester Water Authority from Chester, PA has recently undergone discussions with the Cecil County Commissioners regarding the possibility of providing water to the County in the future. The County would be responsible for extending the water main from the State border to the service area and for maintaining all water systems components. This option presents the problems of obtaining water outside of County control. Finally, exhibits E and F address the water needs of fire protection. The Technical opinion of Mr. Ernie Little was that a 100,000 gallon water tank would provide adequate fire protection. His qualifications include being a level 2 instructor for the State. The Town of Elktons Blue Ball Road water tower is currently being refurbished to the tune of $276,000. The long term expensive consequences of more impervious sprawl are a concept as appetizing as using rancid fat for frying donut holes.

Diane Rebertus, 435 Black Snake Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law, and testimony followed. She asked if a joint applicant, wetland report and map showing the surveyed, wetland boundaries applications form and package been sent to the MDE and US Army Corp of Engineers to arrive at a potential maximum density for this land. All areas of wetlands and any buffers required by the County and State must be deducted from the usage acreage. Has an environmental audit, site assessment, Phase 1 audit or do diligence been performed to discover any potential environmental problems. A Phase 1 study uncovers potential problems that exist on this land in regards to any contamination from spills, general contaminations from former or current land use practices, etc. The Phase 1 study of the peach orchard will show that the land has been used as an orchard and thus likely to have soils contaminated with arsenic. A Phase 2 study is then necessary which includes chemical analysis for anilities that are likely to occur from the orchard use. One such important probable contaminant is arsenic. Agriculture applications of arsenic compounds to soils include the use of lead arsenic as insecticides and fungicides from the 1800s through the 1960s. Such applications were frequent such thus making an orchard land use of special concern in accessing the potential for environmental problems with the site to be converted to residential use. The Phase 2 study must be properly designed to reveal the arsenic in the soil. Until the results of this study show otherwise the peach orchard should be assumed unsafe for residential development. Removal of the contaminated soil will likely require treatment as hazardous waste. Topsoil to replace the contaminated soil will be expensive.

Luke Arbuckle, 42 Matthew Bathon Court, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law, and testimony followed. Mr. Arbuckle stated he was a 7th grader at Cherry Middle School. He was here on behalf of his generation and the receiving stream for the Cherry Hill Sewage Plant. This unnamed stream flows through my neighborhoods open space, which runs behind my house. The Academy Hill and Chippendale kids meet there and play. It empties into the Little Elk Creek. I have caught snakes, turtles, minnows, frogs and crayfish; deer, skunk, fox and beaver have been seen. There are plenty of trees and the water flows all year long. This July my Mom and I tried to walk the stream and take measurements. We began at the culvert under Leeds Road, by the Cherry Hill Plaza. It was often blocked by branches and sticker bushes. Each picture shows me holding the measuring stick marked every six inches by tape. On 9/11/04 Mr. Arbuckle and his mother followed the stream to the north trying to find its source. There was no outlet from the pond to the stream. The numbered red X on the plat corresponded to the number of photos. The progression of photos shows how narrow and shallow the water is plus #4 shows orangey brown water, which might be iron. Photo #1 showed the end of the waters visible path. The overlay soil map and plat show the slopes of the Delancy Parcel. The GeC2 sections are 8-15% slopes, the CeBn, GnB2 and BaB sections are 3-8% slopes, the BaA section is a 0-3% slope. If townhouses and stores and parking lots are built on these slops the resulting impervious surfaces will surely destroy the underground water system that feeds the

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 606 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 wetlands, and maybe disrupt the water supply for the unnamed tributary. A flyer put out by Save Our Streams explains that the dry weather flow of steams is fed by rain falling upon the surrounding land, soaking into the earth and emerging in the channel by seeping through the bed or issuing from nearby springs. When surrounding land is developed; the quantity of runoff increases and the amount of water soaking into the soil decreases. Thus groundwater recharge is reduced and dry weather stream flow decline. In conclusion, the chart attached to the upper left side of the plat is data measured from satellite images, a copy is attached. Quoted from the July-August 2004 Bay-Journal, officials have agreed to use the amount of rooftops, pavements and other solid surfaces as measured through satellite images as a proxy to measure the rate of sprawl. After more debate, state officials agreed to define harmful sprawl as the conversion of farmland and forest to developed lands? Mr. Arbuckle stated, My generation will thank you to please use your votes today to say NO to more impervious surfaces on our county.

Linda Sheesley, 193 Black Snake Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law, and testimony followed. She and her husband moved to Cecil County from Delaware in search of land and water with a beautiful environment. They settled on 10 acres along the Little Elk Creek. She is present today with the intent of preserving her land. She spent hours on the telephone with Robert Sanchez, remedial project manager for Galaxy Spectron Site gathering the current cost of clean up for this stream, $13 million. Add an addition $10 million for containment, totally over $30 million after completion is reached. What are the Federal Government and State criteria for the Little Creeks MPDES? How will run off (chemicals, toxic waste) from the new development from recontamination the Little Elk Creek, which is below this development, be prevented? The Spectron Group recently incorporated Record of Decision (ROD). Ms. Sheesley spoke on this issue, a copy is attached. In conclusion this is an environmental issue. We cannot expect the Federal Government to clean up pollution that could be prevented. Our County Officials must insist on proper guidelines.

John McDaniel, 2068 Singerly Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law, and testimony followed. He stated he lives in the Village of Cherry Hill. Cherry Hill sewer has a design capacity of 250,000 gallons per day. Presently there are 198 accounts that create a flow of 140,000 gallons per day, leaving 110,000 gallons to be allocated. Presently the County estimates the average living unit uses 219 gallons of water per day which would indicated there are 502 units left to be allocated. He spoke of a letter received from the Health Department in 1986. Two projects have been approved for a total of 109 elu hookups, equaling 55% of the present accounts. This will leave a remainder of 108 elu hookups. A TIS has not been recommended for Elk Mills Road.

Gina Blankenship, 1276 Leeds Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law, and testimony followed. She reiterated on Mr. Arbuckles comments, submitting pictures for the Planning Commission to review. The pictures showed problems with runoff and impact of the drainage in the area. She also submitted a letter, for Lara Shanahan, 120 Beauchamp Road who was also in opposition of the project, copy attached.

Carol Mackie, 1203 Leeds Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law, and testimony followed. She stated her house located on 10 acres of land was nearly 300 years old. Her property surrounds the proposed development. She has lived at this address for over 30 years. In 1993 John Milburn requested a change in zoning. According to his application the reason for the change was the RM zoning adjoining Cherry Hill. There was no RM zoning in Cherry Hill and the only was several farms being developed into single family homes, not high density. Ms. Mackies property is located immediately adjoining the Milburn property along with the Hodges, Thompson, W.L. Gore, Cherry Hill and Kenmore schools. There are many homes nearby, none of which are high density. Very little has changed in this community over the years. Per her uncle, who served 18 years on the Planning Commission, the Cherry Hill Sewage Plant was proposed to serve only the Cherry Hill homes of which many had out houses. The plant was never intended to serve high density developments. Although the zoning is not the issue, a mistake was made

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 607 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 when the zoning was changed. How can anyone justify taking a mistake and building on it?

Leona Papagno, 285 Black Snake Road, appeared in opposition to the proposal and was duly sworn according to law, and testimony followed. She stated as the owner of 100 acres of lands off of Black Snake Road bordering the creek, her family has lived there for over 30 years and after Isabel the creek overflowed 300 yards reaching their driveway. The proposed homes will be built above the Elk Creek Valley in which she has a concern with the run off.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated as the emergency access road is proposed to be a private road owned by the Home Owners Association, it will be among the list of responsibilities previously cited. If the roads in the Condominium Association are to be owned by the Association, a Variance will be required for all dwelling units to be created on a private road.

GENERAL DISCUSSION:

Motion made by Smith, seconded by Murray withdrawn.

Motion made by Smith, seconded by Murray and unanimously carried to approve the task of the Planning Commission members individually generating a list of criteria for the two TAC positions in order to discuss at the November meeting; at which time the ad for the replacement of Clay McDowell and the vacancy for the Home Builders of Cecil County representative will be published.

ITEM B DECISIONS

1. Aston Pointe, Jackson Hall School Road and Rte 273, Rescind Condition #5 (Sensitive Species Survey), Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., Fourth Election District Motion made by Smith, seconded by Mortimer and unanimously carried to approve the request to rescind condition #5 of the 4/19/04 Concept Plat approval, conditioned on: 1) All other conditions of the 4/19/04 Concept and the 5/20/04 Revised Concept Plat approvals remaining in effect.

2. Glennas Heights, Lots 1-28, Johnson Road, Preliminary Plat, Campbell & Noland Associates, Third Election District Motion made by Smith, seconded by Murray and unanimously carried to approve with conditions: 1) Health Department requirements being met; 2) DPW requirements being met; 3) All sensitive species protective buffers being shown on the Final Plat; 4) The FCP and Landscape Plan being approved prior to Final plat review; 5) The details on the Final Plat and the FCP and Landscape Plan matching up; and 6) Per §174.1(a), no SWM facility outfall areas being located in any stream buffers.

3. Francis H. Otenasek et ux. (Lands of), Cassidy Whaft Road, Preliminary/ Final Plat, Michael Scott, Inc., First Election District

WITHDRAWN

4. The Villages at Cherry Hill, Singerly Road (Rte 213), Leeds Road and Black Snake Road, Concept Plat, Glackin Thomas Panzak, Inc., Third Election District

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 608 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Motion made by Smith, seconded by Murray to approve with 21 conditions.

Motion made by Prickett, seconded by Murray to amend conditions to include 22 conditions.

Murray, Prickett and Smith in favor. Williams opposed. Mortimer recused.

Original Motion made by Pricket, seconded by Murray to approve with amendment to 22 conditions:

1) A boundary line survey being completed in conjunction with the preparation for TAC review of the Preliminary Plat, or the condominiums Preliminary Plat/Site Plan, for density calculation purposes; 2) A Phase 2 Bog Turtle Survey being completed prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat or the condominiums Preliminary Plat/Site Plan; 3) A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) being completed prior to the TACs review of the Preliminary Plat or Preliminary Plat/Site Plan and staffs review of any site plans; 4) The JD being completed prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat or the condominiums Preliminary Plat/Site Plan; 5) Health Department requirements being met prior to the Planning Commissions review of the condominiums Preliminary Plat/Site Plan; 6) DPW requirements being met prior to the Planning Commissions review of the condominiums Preliminary Plat/Site Plan; 7) The proposed Condominium portions Preliminary Plat/Site Plan adhering strictly to the requirements of §291 and Appendix A; 8) The Master Water & Sewer Plan being amended to include the condominium portion of this project prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat/Site Plan; 9) Written verification of water allocation and sewer capacity being received for the condominium units prior to Preliminary Plat/Site Plan Review by the Planning Commission; 10) The metes and bounds description of the FRA being shown on the Condominium Preliminary Plat/Site Plan; 11) The proposed clubhouse portions Site Plan adhering strictly to the requirements of §291 and Appendix A; 12) The Master Water & Sewer Plan being amended to include at least the proposed recreation centers portion of this project prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Final Plat; 13) Written verification of water allocation and sewer capacity being received for the recreation center prior to Final Plat Review by the Planning Commission; 14) The water source being determined prior to Preliminary Plat review by the TAC, and if the water source is an on-site private system, then verification that the proposed water system is capable of serving these proposed lots and recreation center must be received from MDE prior to Preliminary Plat/Site Plan review; 15) Documentation of all approvals for the water system and its operator required by the Public Service Commission being submitted prior to Preliminary Plat/Site Plan and Final Plat reviews; 16) The sewer service provider being determined prior to Preliminary Plat review by the TAC; 17) The PFCP being approved prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat and/or the Preliminary Plat/Site Plan; 18) The details of the Preliminary Plat and/or the Preliminary Plat/Site Plan consistently matching up with those of the PFCP; 19) The FCP and Landscape Plan being approved for the condominium portion of this proposal prior to the Planning Commissions review of the Preliminary Plat/Site Plan; 20) The details and locations of the bike/pedestrian amenities appearing on the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Plat/Site Plan; 21) A Variance being obtained for the condominiums being situated on a private road prior to the Planning

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 609 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Commission review of the Preliminary Plat/Site Plan for the condominiums; and 22) Obtain a legal opinion on weather a 100% age restriction note could validly be added to the plat in regards to the Fair Housing Act.

Brown, Murray and Smith in favor. Prickett and Williams opposed. Mortimer recused.

There were no further comments.

Meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.

NEXT MEETING: November 15, 2004 at 12:00 p.m. in the County Administration Building

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa A. Jones

October 18, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 610 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 15, 2004, 12:00 p.m. (Subdivisions)

PRESENT: Brown, Campbell, Carter, DiGiacomo, Kilby, McDowell, Moore, Mortimer, Murray, Orr, Prickett, Sennstrom, Williams, Woodhull, and Jones

ABSENT:

MINUTES: Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Murray, and unanimously carried to approve the October 18, 2004 minutes as mailed.

Mr. Brown announced that Tim Smith had resigned from the Planning Commission. The Cecil County Commissioners are receiving applications for this seat. Mr. McDowell, the alternate member, will temporarily fill this position.

1. Pat McClary presented Francis H. Otenasek et ux. (Lands of), Cassidy Wharf Road, Preliminary/Final Plat, Michael Scott, Inc., First Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. McClary stated the owners’ intent is to subdivide their property into three lots. Although their three children are small, it is their dream that their children will someday build their homes on this property. This subdivision is not for commercial purposes.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was SAR and RCA. The SAR zone permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per eight (8) acres. Bonus density is not being sought.

The Concept Plat, proposing four (4) lots on 95.965 acres, for a proposed overall density of 1/23.99, was approved on 1/22/04, conditioned on: 1) A boundary line survey being completed prior to completion of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes; and 2) A JD being completed prior to the Planning Commission’s review of the Preliminary Plat.

The proposal’s acreage has increased to 96.417 acres – as the result of the boundary line survey’s having been done.

88.584 acres (was 86.274) are designated RCA. The RCA zone permits a maximum density of 1/20. The proposed density for the Critical Area portion is 1/22.15 (was 1/21.57).

This Preliminary/Final Plat proposes a density of 1/24.10. It is consistent with the approved Concept Plat, but there has been past deviations that make it inconsistent with the details of the approved Environmental Assessment.

On slopes between 15 and 25%, good engineering practices shall be used to ensure sediment and erosion control and slope stabilization before, during and after disturbance activities.

Slopes greater than 15% have been shown.

A 110’ perennial stream buffer is required from all perennial streams present. This buffer shall be expanded to include contiguous areas of hydric soils, highly erodible soils, and soils on slopes greater than 15% -- to a maximum distance of 160’.

A 25’ buffer is required around all non-tidal wetlands and intermittent streams present. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland impacts prior to recordation. The pond depicted by the vicinity map on proposed Lot 3 is also depicted on the official wetlands maps and the USGS quad map. The JD has been done.

The habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided. The Blue Heron Colony’s protective zones have been depicted.

No open space is required.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the SAR zone. As Cassidy Wharf Road is a local County road, a Bufferyard Standard C is not required.

Bufferyard Standard A is required along the lot lines of proposed Lots 1 and 3 to buffer adjacent agricultural uses. It has been shown.

Rows of street trees with 10’ planting easements are required, outside the right-of- way, along both sides of the proposed mini-road. Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements.

A 110’ tidal wetland and tidal waters buffer shall be established in natural vegetation. This buffer shall be expanded to include contiguous sensitive areas featuring hydric soils, highly erodible soils on slopes greater than 15%, or areas of impact including streams, wetlands, or other aquatic environments.

2 No more than 15% of the surface area can be converted to impervious surface in the RCA.

No more than 20% of the forest or developed woodland may be removed.

In the critical area, no structure shall exceed 35’ in height.

The formerly proposed piers were inconsistent with the Concept Plat and the Environmental Assessment. The piers have been removed, but the walkways remain. Any pier plans must adhere to §’s169 and 198 of the Zoning Ordinance.

A revised environmental assessment was submitted due to the proposed piers and walkways. Neither was included in the original, approved Environmental Assessment. In addition, the acreage of the proposed Cassidy Wharf Road extension was not reflected in the Environmental Assessment. The expanded acreage of the proposed Cassidy Wharf Road extension was not reflected in the most recent Environmental Assessment.

The area inside the Critical Area is exempt, per §3.2.B, of the Forest Conservation Regulation as noted. The FSD and FCP were approved on 10/31/03. Revised versions were approved on 12/23/03. The Landscape Plan and Environmental Assessment were also approved on 12/23/03. However, a revised environmental assessment must be submitted due to the forest clearing associated with the proposed walkways’ not being included in the approved assessment. Additionally, the size of the proposed extension of Cassidy Wharf Road has been increased without being reflected in the environmental assessment. In addition, there are yet other discrepancies between the details of approved plans and the details of the Preliminary-Final Plat.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The mini-road name has been approved. A Mini-road Maintenance Association must be established w/ all lot owners becoming members.

Mr. Woodhull stated the SWM, Road & Storm Drain, and the Mass & Final Grading Plans are technically approved. However, DPW was awaiting a response to their August 5, 2004 requested for revised engineer’s cost estimates associated with the PWAs for the proposed cul-de-sac and the proposed private mini-road. The Public Works Agreements must be executed prior to Final Plat recordation.

Mr. Williams read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

3 Mr. McClary stated in view of the inconsistencies that had been brought to his attention he would like to revise his request to seek preliminary approval only. He would return seeking final approval at a later date.

Mr. Mortimer stated he was going to raise that issue.

Mr. Brown questioned the plat being submitted as both.

Mr. Sennstrom stated it was submitted as a Preliminary/Final Plat and therefore the Planning Commission could decide during deliberations to only approve at the preliminary level.

Ms. Kilby questioned if Preliminary Plat only approval would work with the list of problems. Mr. DiGiacomo replied yes.

2. Michael McAllister and Robert Grier presented Robert A. & Kathleen Tobin Grier, Route 272, Preliminary Plat, Michael S. McAllister, Fifth Election District

The applicants were duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. McAllister advised that this project consisted of one 5.84 acre lot. It is in his opinion that all comments from TAC have been addressed. The two parcel property was created by an 15 acre add-on subdivision to the existing 10 acres totaling 25 acres. The plat shows the proposed house, perc test, well and septic. The perc test was located by field survey. The building restriction lines, preliminary forest retention area, deed references, density, Bufferyard C along Route 272, and a small area of non-tidal wetlands all of which are shown on the plat. A favorable letter from SHA was received in reference to access of the proposed driveway. There are also two proposed SWM areas shown on the plat, based on the grade and the feasibility which are mentioned in Note #16.

Mr. Mortimer questioned the possibility of one entrance/driveway versus the current proposal that showed one driveway almost on top of the other driveway. Mr. McAllister replied the Grier’s to maintain a private and separate driveway. The applicants have requested a response from the SHA concerning this issue.

Mr. Mortimer asked if the State was in approval of this issue. Mr. McAllister replied yes and that he had received a letter substantiating this.

Mr. Mortimer asked if the remaining 19 acres proposed to be reserved would be deed restricted. Mr. McAllister replied it would not be deed restricted.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated zoning was NAR which permits a maximum base density of one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres. Bonus density eligibility carries with it a permitted density of 1/3. This Preliminary Plat proposes one (1) lot and remaining lands on 25 acres, for a proposed density of one (1) dwelling unit per 12.5 acres.

4 §4.0.1 of the Subdivision Regulations eliminates the need for a Concept Plat for projects involving fewer than 10 lots and less than 25 acres.

A boundary line survey has been done.

The habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided.

No open space is required for this proposal.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the NAR zone.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of MD Rte 272.

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) and PFCP and Landscape Plan were all approved on 11/3/04.

The details of the approved PFCP and the Preliminary Plat do not match up. Of particular concern are the intermittent stream and its buffer that are not depicted on the Preliminary Plat. It appears from the PFCP that one of the possible locations of stormwater management improvements would be in the stream buffer. This was not mentioned at the 11/3/04 TAC review because the PFCP was then not yet approved (The revised PFCP was not submitted until 11/1/03.).

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat. No detail discrepancies between the FCP and the Final Plat can exist for a recommendation of approval of the Final Plat.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

Mr. Woodhull stated a SWM Plan and a Mass & Final Grading Plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans. (“A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, and/or Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.”)

The Lot Grading Plan must include the standard note addressing the limits of construction. (“No clearing or grading is permitted beyond the limits of disturbance show hereon. Any expanded clearing and/or grading in the absence of an approved revised lot grading plan may be considered non-compliance with Chapter 251 of the Cecil County Code and either or both the developer and/or builder may be subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein.”)

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the county’s SWM Ordinance.

Special consideration must be given to the existing swale directing onsite runoff on to the Lands of Gollehon. The Lot Grading Plan must address this issue to the Departments satisfaction.

An I&M Agreement will be required for any SWM facilities.

Mr. Williams read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. McAllister asked if the Groundwater Appropriation Permit would or would not be required. Mr. Williams replied the Health Departments notes stated it would be required. Mr. Moore state there was an omission, and it should state “would not require” a permit.

6 Mr. McAllister stated he felt the 50’ buffers could be 25’ buffers if they were not in the forest retention area. There are 25’ buffers in the proposed SMW area.

Mr. Mortimer asked Mr. DiGiacomo if there was a stream not depicted. Mr. DiGiacomo replied a stream was partly labeled as wetlands. Both wetlands and depicted streams require a 25’ buffer. There is a concern that the SMW improvements not occur within the buffer, steam or wetland, but the SWM improvements have not been determined to be necessary, so it may be a moot point. The major concern will be that the details on the Final Plat and Forest Conservation Plan match up.

Mr. Mortimer stated that prior to Mr. Grier arriving he had asked if the two driveways could be combined. Mr. Grier replied they would like to keep the two driveways separate.

No one appeared either in favor of or in opposition to the proposal.

7 GENERAL DISCUSSION:

Motion made by Murray, seconded by Williams and unanimously carried to approve William Mortimer as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission.

Amendments to Cecil County Planning Commission Rules of Procedure:

Motion made by Murray, seconded by Mortimer and unanimously carried to approve the change as amended in §I, correction of spelling “County”.

Motion made by Murray, seconded by Mortimer and unanimously carried to approve the change as amended in §II to read, “Once this position is selected another Commissioner may be used as an alternate in the event that the chosen Ex-officio member cannot attend. This member is expected to come to the meeting with the understanding that they have already familiarized themselves with the applicant’s plat, the TAC minutes and other information that they received prior to the meeting.”

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Prickett and unanimously carried to approve the two changes as amended in §IV, (1) revise heading/title to read Legal Counsel; and (2) sentence revised to read “The Commission shall be supported by legal counsel from the Board of County Commissioners of Cecil County.”

Motion made by Murray, seconded by Mortimer and unanimously carried to approve §V as written.

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Williams and unanimously carried to approve the changes as amended in §VI, deleting §B, Special Meetings in its entirety and replacing it with §G, Public Hearing revised to read, “In addition to those required by law or directed by the Board of County Commissioners of Cecil County, the Planning Commission may hold public hearings to carryout the duties outlined in Article XVI, Section 295 - Paragraph 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Commission shall meet monthly and at other times at the call of the Chairman. If the Chairman calls a special meeting there will be adequate advanced notice”.

Motion made by McDowell, seconded by Mortimer and unanimously carried to approve the changes as amended in §VI.H.6 to read, “At the conclusion of each agenda presentations, the staff will provide recommendations, and the Commission will vote on each agenda item”. (Note: Conduct of Business lettering changed to “G.6” per previous motion.)

Motion made by Williams, seconded by Murray and unanimously carried to approve the changes as amended in §VI,J.2 revised to read “Members of the public who wish to speak will be requested to register at the meeting on designated speaker sign in sheet”; and §VI.J.3 revise to read, “After the applicant, staff and Commission members have had the opportunity to speak, the public will be invited to address questions or comments to the Commission in the order that they registered, and all

8 others as recognized by the Chair. (Note: Public Participation lettering changed to “I” per previous motion.)

Motion made by Murray, seconded by Mortimer and unanimously carried to approve all changes as amended in §VI.

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Murray and unanimously carried to approve §VII as written.

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Murray and unanimously carried to approve §VIII as written.

Motion made by Prickett, seconded by Murray and unanimously carried to approve the correct roman number IX as amended in §IX.

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Williams and unanimously carried to approve §Annex A as written.

Mr. Brown discussed the requirements for the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Public Representative Position draft, generated by Mr. McDowell, with the Planning Commission members. Mr. McDowell spoke on his experiences, background and relationships with the public while holding this position.

Motion made by Prickett, seconded by Mortimer and unanimously carried to approve the draft with the addition of the applicant being a resident of Cecil County and serving a three year term limit.

Mr. Brown stated the opening would be advertised, solicited and at the conclusion of next month’s meeting, or possibly a special meeting may be held to make a decision on the interview process. Members discussed the interview process and decided to form a committee which will be made up of Brown, McDowell and Williams. A public meeting will be forthcoming.

After discussing the Builders Representative for the Technical Advisory Committee the Planning Commission members decided to draft a letter to the Home Builders Association notifying them that the Ordinance reserves a position for a Home Builders Association representative on TAC and asking if they would like to poll some of their members within the County in search of a participant.

The members discussed the makeup of the Golf and Public Subcommittees. The Golf Subcommittee will be made up of Mortimer, Prickett and Williams. The Public Notice Subcommittee will be made up of Brown, Mortimer and McDowell.

Motion made by Murray, seconded by Prickett and unanimously carried to adjourn.

9 ITEM B DECISIONS

1. Francis H. Otenasek et ux. (Lands of), Cassidy Wharf Road, Preliminary/ Final Plat, Michael Scott, Inc., First Election District Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Prickett and unanimously carried to approve for PRELIMINARY PLAT ONLY with conditions.

1) Health Department requirements being met; 2) DPW requirements being met; and 3) All details of the Forest Conservation Plan, Environmental Assessment and the Final Plat matching up.

2. Robert A. & Kathleen Tobin Grier, Route 272, Preliminary Plat, Michael S. McAllister, Fifth Election District Motion made by Murray, seconded by Mortimer and unanimously carried to approve with conditions.

1) Health Department requirements being met; 2) DPW requirements being met; 3) All details of the Forest Conservation Plan and the Final Plat matching up; 4) All streams and stream buffers being depicted on the Final plat; and 5) No stormwater management improvements being located in any stream or wetland buffers.

There were no further comments.

Meeting adjourned at 2:00 p.m.

NEXT MEETING: December 20, 2004, time TBD, in the County Administration Building

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa A. Jones Administrative Assistant

10 December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m.

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Subdivisions)

PRESENT: Brown, Campbell, Carter, DiGiacomo, Kilby, McDowell, Moore, Mortimer, Murray, Orr, Prickett, Sennstrom, Woodhull, and Jones

ABSENT: Williams

MINUTES: Motion made by Murray, seconded by Mortimer, and unanimously carried to approve the November 15, 2004 minutes as mailed.

1. Joseph Brueckner presented Village of Cecil Woods, Preliminary Plat, Trilogy Investments, Request for one year extension of Preliminary Plat Approval, Fifth Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Brueckner stated the key group has been pursuing an expansion of Cecil Woods. They are seeking at this time an extension of the deadline as they are awaiting the Route 40 sewer line to be constructed.

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the current zoning was MH and OS. The MH, or Manufactured Home, District permits a maximum base density of 2 dwelling units per 1 acre, or up to 6 dwelling units per 1 acre if a manufactured home park, as stipulated in §’s 30 and 78 of the Cecil County Zoning Ordinance.

The Concept Plat was approved on 11/18/01, conditioned on:

1) Road names being approved by the County 911 Emergency Center prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat, and

2) A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) being completed prior to TAC review of the Preliminary Plat.

This Preliminary Plat was approved on 2/19/02, conditioned on:

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 611 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) Department of Public Works requirements being met;

3) Sites 207-213 being referenced regarding an adjacent agricultural operation;

4) A modification to the bufferyard D requirement at the “Wetland/Buffer Crossing” location being granted, to reduce the width to 10’ and to shift the road 5’ toward the eastern property boundary;

5) The Cecil County Master Water & Sewer Plan being amended prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission;

6) The sewer capacity to serve these proposed sites being verified by the Department of Public Works prior to Final Plat review;

8) The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan being approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat;

10) Receiving verification from MDE prior to Final Plat review that the proposed water system is capable of serving these proposed sites;

12) The title block indicating that this is a manufactured home park prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission; and

13) All references to lots being changed to sites prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission.

§4.1.17 of the Subdivision Regulations provides that Preliminary Plats shall be valid for two years from date of approval. Therefore, the Cecil Woods Manufactured Home Park’s Preliminary Plat approval, which would have expired on 2/19/04, was granted a one year extension on 1/22/04. Unless a subsequent one year extension is now granted, Preliminary Plat approval will expire on 1/22/05. An extension of approval would prolong Preliminary Plat validity for one year or 12/20/05.

If approved by the Planning Commission, then this development will require that the existing Manufactured Home Park license be amended to include the additional 103 sites.

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 612 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) has been completed.

§4.1.18 of the Cecil County Subdivision Regulations stipulates, “The Planning Commission may, at their regular monthly meeting, grant an extension of the Preliminary approval upon application of the developer. In connection with such request, the Commission shall consider the following: a) Change of adjoining land use. b) Change in street or highway plan. c) Change in zoning or subdivision regulations.”

Staff hereby advises the Commission that there have been no such changes.

Mr. Woodhull stated The Department of Public Works has no objection to the Planning Commission granting a one-year extension to the Preliminary Plat approval for this project.

The SWM Plan, Road & Storm Drain Plan, and the Sanitary Sewer Plan are currently under review and must be approved by the DPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval.

The Route 40 pump station has no more capacity and sewer allocation cannot be made until it is upgraded. Mechanics Valley LLC is currently in the process of conducting the required upgrades that if successfully completed, will provide build-out capacity for the area identified by the Department as the MD Route 40 corridor. The project’s completion is targeted for February 2006.

MDE is primarily responsible for the water system approval. However, a submittal must be copied to DPW for review, prior to Final Plat submittal; given the paternal relationship that MDE may create for the County should the developer ever fail to adequately operate the system.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

A PWA will be required for internal streets, stormdrains, sanitary sewers, and any private utility improvements.

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 613 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. Mortimer read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

Mr. Brown asked if the extension was from today or the expiration date. Mr. DiGiacomo replied today. Mr. Brown stated so it would be the 20th of 2006? Mr. DiGiacomo replied yes.

Mr. Mortimer questioned the three requirements; change in the land use surrounding the area, changes in the streets and roads and around the area and change in zoning? Mr. DiGiacomo or subdivision regulations. Mr. Mortimer asked, none of those have happened. Mr. DiGiacomo correct.

Mr. Mortimer asked what the reason for the delay was. Mr. Brueckner replied they were awaiting the pleasure of various approvals at this point within the County.

Mr. Brown asked is this was the second extension that had been requested. Mr. DiGiacomo replied if granted yes.

Mr. Mortimer questioned the reason for the delay. Mr. DiGiacomo replied the implication of the sewer infrastructure.

No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

2. David Dodge, Donald Sutton and Dennis Clower presented The Mews at Northeast Creek, Lots 1-205, Route 40 & Mechanics Valley Road, Concept Plat, McCrone, Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. Mr. Sutton stated the revision being submitted today show 205 lots with a second access off of Route 40 which has been agreed upon by Ms. Mabel Futty. Other adjustments to the layout include providing a loop road system per pervious request from the Planning Commission. Quite a number of lots have been pulled off the railroad ROW, providing a landscape buffer up against it, in areas that it does not currently exist. Tract 2 would be conveyed to the adjoining land owners

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 614 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Mr. DiGiacomo stated the SR zone permits a maximum base density of 1 dwelling unit per 1 acre, or 2 dwelling units per 1 acre with community facilities. This Concept Plat proposes 205 lots on 171.0 acres, for a proposed density of 1.2/1.

Concept Plats for this property were previously reviewed by the TAC and the Planning Commission under the names “Valley Vista Estates” and “Winnfield,” as well as “The Mews at Northeast Creek.”

This layout differs from some previous ones in that the proposed Vista Creek and South Falls Drives form an interior loop road and Vista Creek Drive extends to US 40 – creating a second point on ingress and egress in addition to the one proposed on Mechanics Valley Road..

The boundary line survey has been completed, as indicated in Note #14.

Slopes greater than 25% must be shown again on the preliminary plat. Steep slopes have been depicted.

A 25’ buffer is required around all non-tidal wetlands and intermittent streams present. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland impacts prior to recordation. A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) must be done prior to preliminary plat review by the Planning Commission.

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 615 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Consideration should be given to exploring possible greenway and hiking trail linkages, especially in the open space along the Northeast Creek. Such linkages could include the East Coast Greenway and the Mason Dixon Trail.

The Comprehensive Plan identifies a greenway along the Little Northeast Creek. In accordance with §’s 178.2 and 182 of the Zoning Ordinance, land proposed as open space along the Little Northeast Creek should be set aside as an access easement or fee simple dedication.

How will safe access to the forest conservation area to the north of the CSX rail line on Tract 2 be accomplished?

Tracts 2 and 3 are shown as “to be conveyed to adjoiners.”

Protective fencing is recommended around the stormwater management areas – especially those near designated recreation areas. Such protective fencing should be included in the Public Works Agreement.

With respect to those recreation areas, if playground equipment is proposed, then it, too, must be included in the Public Works Agreement.

A notation on the plat indicates that the AT&T easement will be relocated to align with proposed roads.

20% landscaping of the development envelope is required in the SR zone.

Sidewalks are recommended on at least one side of all internal roads, the names of which all have been approved (including Cottage Court).

At the TAC review it was indicated that each dwelling unit was proposed to have 2 off-street parking spaces.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the frontages on Mechanics Valley Road and the Pulaski Highway. Note #17 indicates that a waiver of the Bufferyard C requirement is being requested. This relates to sight distance issues.

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 616 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Rows of street trees are required with a 10’ planting easement, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of all internal roads. Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements. In areas with community facilities, no street trees shall be planted within 20 feet of sewer laterals and cleanouts.

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

The Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) was approved 12/5/03. The site is not home to any rare, threatened, or endangered species.

The Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan (PFCP) must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Preliminary Plat (§6.2.B(1), Cecil County Forest Conservation Regulations).

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments.

A Homeowners’ Association for maintenance of common open space and common facilities must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

The Master Water & Sewer Plan must be amended to include this site as W1 and S1 areas prior to the Planning Commission’s review of the Final Plat.

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 617 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Verifications of sewer capacity and water allocation must be obtained from the Cecil County DPW and the Town of North East, respectively, prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission.

The revised TIS must be further revised to account for the subsequent increase in the number of proposed lots (to 205) and the additional access to/from US 40.

Previous comments received from the North East Fire Company expressed concerns about only one access point – now moot. In addition, there was concern regarding the availability of placement of hydrants – which will be addressed in the Preliminary Plat review.

Fire hydrant/standpipe locations must be shown on the Preliminary Plat, and they should consistent with DPW regulations and recommendations by the North East Volunteer Fire Company.

Mr. Woodhull stated it should be noted for the record that the Department understanding that the Town of North East will own the water distribution system in this development. The CCDPW recommends that the water distribution system including fire hydrant locations be designed to meet or exceed the County’s standards. We also recommend that the Town request that the serving fire company review fire hydrant spacing and locations.

The water lines must be reflected on the sanitary sewer plans and as-builts. All easements for the water lines must be reflected on the final plat.

A SWM plan, Road & Storm Drain plan, Sanitary Sewer plan and a Mass and Final Grading plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans, which will appear in the minutes but will not be read at this time. (“A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, and Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.”)

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 618 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The Lot Grading Plan must include the standard note addressing the limits of construction, which will appear in the minutes but will not be read at this time. (“No clearing or grading is permitted beyond the limits of disturbance show hereon. Any expanded clearing and/or grading in the absence of an approved revised lot grading plan may be considered non-compliance with Chapter 251 of the Cecil County Code and either or both the developer and/or Builder may be subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein.”)

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the county’s SWM Ordinance.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the Owner’s expense.

Any applicable Road Code Variance must be requested prior to submittal for Preliminary Plat approval.

The phasing of this development will significantly impact the competency of the roadways in completed sections because of the potential for large amounts of construction traffic accessing later sections. Subsequently, a phasing plan must be submitted, at Preliminary Plat review, for use in developing a plan for when internal road sections will be accepted by the County and the magnitude of maintenance bonds that will be required as well as the time frame over which they will be held.

The Department strongly recommends that the Planning Commission condition their approval of any phasing, that Phase One contain all four (4) stream crossing permits required for this subdivision layout.

All lots must front Minor Roads wherever possible.

The driveway locations for Lots 3 & 86 must be reviewed at the time the road Plan and the lot grading plan are submitted to avoid creating traffic conflicts with the Collector roads they access.

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 619 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 All driveways must be paved at least to the right of way and those accessing Valley Vista Drive, Vista Creek Drive, and South Falls Drive, must be provided with turnaround capability. The driveway paving must be complete for all lots at the time when the surface course for the internal roads is installed. The Developer/Contractor must establish the driveways for any lots not built –out at that time. In addition any driveway in excess of 5% up-gradient-slope must be paved to the crest and the Developer/Contractor will be responsible for this at the time of surface course installation. If the development is phased this requirement will apply to each phase when 80% of the lots are built-out. All of this must be so indicated on the Lot Grading Plan.

Lot frontage dimensions dictate that closed section road is used. Modified curb and gutter may be used internally, but standard 7” curb will be required for the entrance(s) from at least the PCs.

The Department has concerns in regards to headlight impacts on the dwellings proposed for Lots 47 & 75. Property line adjustments should be considered to reduce this impact.

The Department believes that the village greens, proposed with this layout, are a great idea for active recreational use. However some type of decorative barrier, to prevent children from running into traffic, must be installed along their road frontages.

The Department recommends that the TIS be revised to address the existence of a second entrance into the development and how this may impact internal traffic distribution as well as trip distribution onto Mechanics Valley Road and U. S. Route 40.

A Protocol 1 Road condition Survey, as identified in the Department’s Road Code Guidance Manual, will be required for Mechanics Valley Road from 250’ north of the entrance to the Maryland SHA owned part of the intersection with U.S. Route 40. The Consultant must propose survey scope prior to the Preliminary Plat submittal to TAC.

Significant road improvements will be necessary to Mechanics Valley Road and possibly the intersection with U.S. Route 40. Improvements may include acceleration and deceleration lanes, a bypass lane on Mechanics Valley Road, and/or vertical alignment corrections at several locations along Mechanics Valley Road and/or full upgrade of Mechanics Valley Road.

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 620 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The Route 40 pump station has no more capacity and sewer allocation cannot be made until it is upgraded. Mechanics Valley LLC is currently in the process of conducting the required upgrades (in accordance with their agreement with the BOCC) that if successfully completed, will provide build-out capacity for the area identified by the Department as the MD Route 40 corridor. The project’s completion is targeted for February 2006.

The Department recommends that the Town require a PWA for the water line and all water line easements required must be reflected on the final plat.

The County will require PWAs for the internal streets & storm drains and sanitary sewer work as well as an I&M Agreement for all SWM facilities.

_____ read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

RECOMMENDATION:

APPROVAL, conditioned on;

1) A JD being completed prior to the Planning Commission’s review of the Preliminary Plat;

2) The Bufferyard C requirement on Mechanics Valley Road being modified to accommodate sight distance issues;

3) The TIS being updated prior to the TAC’s review of the Preliminary Plat;

3. ___ presented Montgomery Springs, Lots 15-16, Razor Strap Road, Preliminary Plat, McCrone, Inc, Fifth Election District

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 621 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. ______stated

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the RM zone permits a maximum base density of 2 dwelling units per 1 acre without community facilities. This Lots 15-16 Preliminary Plat proposes 2 lots on 1.027 acres for a density of 1.95/1 for this section.

The Montgomery Springs Lots 5-14 Final Plat was approved on 11/18/96 and recorded on 4/23/04. The area involving the current subdivision to create Lots 15 and 16 is listed on the record plat as remaining lands for future development.

Technically, the original Concept Plat, approved on 7/17/95, has expired. However, §4.0.1 of the Subdivision Regulations eliminates the need for a Concept Plat for projects involving fewer than 10 lots and less than 25 acres.

Lot 16 must be denied access to Razor Strap Road – as noted on the plat.

The record plat shall contain a statement signed by the Health Department approving authority, to the effect that use of community water supply or community sewerage system is in conformance with the Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan.

Water allocation for one lot must be confirmed prior to final approval.

Per MDE, a GAP in not required for 1 lot.

Sewer capacity for 2 lots must be confirmed by CCDPW prior to Final Plat review.

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 622 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 A 110’ perennial stream buffer is required from all perennial streams present. This buffer shall be expanded to include contiguous areas of hydric soils, highly erodible soils, and soils on slopes greater than 15% -- to a maximum distance of 160’.

A 25’ buffer is required around all non-tidal wetlands present. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland or stream impacts prior to recordation. John Roop has indicated that the details on the plat are correct, and that documentation of the JD will be forthcoming.

Open space requirements have been fulfilled through the Montgomery Springs 5-14 subdivision.

25% landscaping of the development envelope is required in the RM zone.

Sidewalks are recommended along Stoney Run Creek Road.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of Razor Strap Road.

Rows of street trees with 10’ planting easements are required along both lot frontages on Stoney Run Creek Road. Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements. In areas with community facilities, no street trees shall be planted within 20 feet of sewer laterals and cleanouts.

The FSD and PFCP were both approved on 12/7/94. (The FSD was approved without a Natural Heritage Letter.) The Final FCP and landscape plan approved on 1/7/97 did not account for these lots, and thus, a revised FFCP and landscape plan must be submitted. A revised FFCP and landscape plan have been submitted, they are currently under review, and they must be approved prior to the Planning Commission’s review of the Final Plat.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

Lot 15 and 16 must become members of the established Homeowners’ Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow prior to recordation, for improvements.

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 623 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

A 30’ road widening strip along Razor Strap Road is required to be dedicated fee simple to the Cecil County Board of County Commissioners.

Mr. Woodhull stated it should be noted for the record that the Department understands that the Town of North East will own the water distribution system servicing Lot 16 and that Lot 15 will be served by a private well. Please update us on the possibility of Lot 15 being served by Town water.

The CCDPW recommends that the water distribution system for Lot 16 be designed to meet or exceed the County’s standards.

The Developer must provide proof of Water Service Agreement with the Town of North East prior to Final Plat approval.

The water lines must be reflected on the sanitary sewer plans and as-builts.

The Town’s water line must be moved out of the public sewer easement.

A SWM plan, Sanitary Sewer plan, and a Mass & Final Grading plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans, which will appear in the minutes but will not be read at this time. (“A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, and/or Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.”) The standard note must replace the lot grading note already on the plat.

The Lot Grading Plan must include the standard note addressing the limits of construction, which will appear in the minutes but will not be read at this time. (“No clearing or grading is permitted beyond the limits of disturbance show hereon. Any expanded clearing and/or grading in the absence of an approved revised lot grading plan may be considered non-compliance with Chapter 251 of the Cecil County Code and either or

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 624 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 both the developer and/or Builder may be subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein.”)

The CCDPW has a serious concern about potential srormwater runoff form this site on the down-gradient property adjacent to the east side of Lots 15 & 16. The Lot Grading Plan as well as the SWM Plan must address how runoff from Lots 15 & 16 will be directed away from this adjacent property.

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the county’s SWM Ordinance.

The Sanitary Sewer cleanouts must be located at the edge of the property and the the Publicly Owned utility will end at the property line.

The house set back from the utility easement on Lot 15 must be a minimum of 15’.

Please update us on the driveway for Lot 1 been relocated as required by the previous project final plat?

A PWA will be requires for the Sanitary Sewer house connections for Lots 15 & 16.

An I&M agreement will be required for any SWM facilities associated with these two (2) lots.

The Department recommends that the Town of North East require a PWA for the Water Main service to Lot 16.

_____ read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 625 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

RECOMMENDATION:

APPROVAL, conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) The Landscape Plan being approved prior to the Planning commission’s review of the Final Plat;

4) The FCP being approved prior to the Planning commission’s review of the Final Plat;

5) Documentation of the completed JD being provided prior to the Planning commission’s review of the Final Plat;

6) Written documentation of water allocation from the Town of North East being provided prior to the Planning commission’s review of the Final Plat;

7) Documentation of sewer capacity being provided prior to the Planning commission’s review of the Final Plat;

4. ___ presented The Barry Montgomery Company, Inc., (formerly Pascot), Lot 5, Frenchtown Road & Cokesbury Road, Concept Plat, McCrone, Inc., Seventh Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. ______stated

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the SR zone permits a maximum base density of 1 dwelling unit per 1 acre, or 2/1 with community facilities. This Concept Plat proposes 4 new lots on 4 acres, for a proposed density of 1/1.

A boundary line survey must be done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes. Minor Sub # 2375 indicates that the acreage is > 4 acres.

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 626 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 All 4 proposed lots exceed the recommended 3:1 length-to-width ratio contained in §7.4.2 of the Subdivision Regulations.

All 4 proposed lots are designed to directly access Frenchtown Road contrary to §’s 7.2.12.B and 7.2.12.F of the Subdivision Regulations.

Sidewalks are recommended on at least one side of all internal roads in the SR zone. In this case, no internal roads are proposed.

The details have yet to be worked out pertaining to Lot 7 and 8 gaining access to Frenchtown Road, as they do not appear to have actual road frontage. Has it been determined who owns the strip of land between this site and Frenchtown Road?

Slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the preliminary plat.

A 25’ buffer is required around all non-tidal wetlands and intermittent streams present. Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland and stream impacts prior to recordation. A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) must be done prior to preliminary plat review by the Planning Commission.

The habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided.

No common open space is required for major subdivisions of fewer than 10 lots.

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 627 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

A minimum of 20 % landscaping of the development envelope is required in the SR zone.

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of Frenchtown Road.

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

An FSD has been submitted, but is deficient per review comments dated 12/7/04. Receipt of the Natural Heritage letter is one of the items that must be addressed prior to approval.

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

Mr. Woodhull stated A SWM plan and a Mass and Final Grading plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans, which will appear in the minutes but will not be read at this time. (“A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, and Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.”)

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 628 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 If stormwater discharge is directed off of the site on to adjacent property it is the responsibility of the Developer to obtain appropriate easements from the affected property owners per Section 251-13 of the Cecil County SWM Ordinance.

The downstream conveyance of storm water must be analyzed in accordance with Section 251-9 A. (5) of the county’s SWM Ordinance. This analysis must address the drainage ditch along the site’s Frenchtown Road frontage to determine its ability to adequately convey runoff.

Please discuss why a private mini-road was not considered for this development? It appears that with a reconfigured lot layout utilizing an internal access for the lots would address not only the Department’s concerns but might also address concerns that the Planning Commission will have in regards to how this development meets the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. The Applicant should address the Planning Commission with reasons substantiating the fact that a private mini-road was not proposed and that this layout is the best solution to developing this site.

If sufficient justification exists, in the Planning Commission’s view, for accessing these lots via separate driveways the Department will require that the proposed access points be located as indicated on the plat conditioned on obtaining adequate sight distance for each.

Sight distance measurements must be provided for all driveways/access points onto Frenchtown Road and their centerlines marked in the field to allow for review prior to Preliminary Plat review by TAC.

An I&M Agreement will be required for any SWM facilities.

_____ read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

RECOMMENDATION:

DISAPPROVAL, w/ the recommendation that the plat be resubmitted once:

• The FSD has been approved; • The proposed lots no longer exceed the recommended 3:1 length-to width ratio; and • An internal road design, consistent with §’s 7.2.12.B and 7.2.12.F, has been proposed.

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 629 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 APPROVAL, conditioned on:

1) The JD being completed;

2) The ownership of the strip of land between the site and Frenchtown Road being determined:

5. ___ presented Francis H. Otenasek et ux. (Lands of), Cassidy Wharf Road, Final Plat, Michael Scott, Inc., First Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. ______stated

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the SAR zone permits a maximum base density of 1 dwelling units per 8 acres. Bonus density eligibility is not being sought.

The Concept Plat, proposing lots on 95.965 acres, for a proposed overall density of 1/23.99, was approved on 1/22/04, conditioned on:

1) A boundary line survey being completed prior to completion of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes; and

2) A JD being completed prior to the Planning Commission’s review of the Preliminary Plat.

The proposal’s acreage increased to 96.417 acres – as the result of the boundary line survey performed prior to Preliminary Plat review.

The Preliminary Plat was approved on 11/15/04, conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met; and

3) All details of the FCP, the Environmental Assessment, and the Final Plat matching up.

88.584 acres are designated RCA. The RCA zone permits a maximum density of 1/20. The proposed density for the Critical Area portion is 1/22.15.

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 630 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

This Final Plat proposes a density of 1/24.10. It is consistent with the approved Concept and Preliminary Plats.

On slopes between 15 and 25%, good engineering practices shall be used to ensure sediment and erosion control and slope stabilization before, during and after disturbance activities.

Slopes greater than 15% have been.

The habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided. The Blue Heron Colony’s protective zones have been depicted.

No open space is required.

No landscaping of the development envelope is required in the SAR zone. As Cassidy Wharf Road is a local County road, a Bufferyard Standard C is not required.

Bufferyard Standard A is required along the lot lines of proposed Lots 1 and 3 to buffer adjacent agricultural uses. It has been shown.

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 631 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Rows of street trees with 10’ planting easements are required, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of the proposed mini-road.

No more than 15% of the surface area can be converted to impervious surface in the RCA.

No more than 20% of the forest or developed woodland may be removed.

In the critical area, no structure shall exceed 35’ in height.

The Critical area Commission staff has recommended that a note be added to the plat to the effect that there can be no further subdivision of Parcel 14. OPZ does not completely agree: if approved, the creation of these four lots will exhaust the permitted RCA density of the Parcel, but proposed Lot 1’s 8 acres outside the Critical Area has the potential for one additional lot. Therefore, a note to the effect that there can be no further subdivision in the Critical Area portion of Parcel 14 would be acceptable.

Previous detail discrepancies between the revised environmental assessment and the Preliminary Plat have been resolved. 2.65 acres of reforestation area should have been shown on the Final Plat and must be shown on the Record Plat.

The area inside the Critical Area is exempt, per §3.2.B, as noted.

The FSD and FCP were approved on 10/31/03. Revised versions were approved on 12/23/03. The Landscape Plan and Environmental Assessment were also approved on 12/23/03.

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 632 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

The mini-road name has been approved.

A Mini-road Maintenance Association must be established w/ all lot owners becoming members.

Mr. Woodhull stated The SWM, Road & Storm Drain, and the Mass & Final Grading Plans are technically approved. However, the response to our August 5th, 2004 request for revised engineer’s cost estimates associated with the PWAs for the proposed cul-de-sac and the proposed private mini-road was not received by the Department until December 2, 2004. It still must be reviewed and the PWAs must be executed prior to Final Plat recordation.

_____ read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

RECOMMENDATION:

APPROVAL, conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) A Mini-road Maintenance Association being established prior to recordation w/ all lot owners becoming members.

4) Deed restrictions for the long-term protection of the Forest Retention/Afforestation Areas (FRAs) being recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation, with the metes and bounds description of the FRA being shown on the record plat;

5) The Landscape Agreement being executed prior to recordation;

6) The missing 2.65 acres of reforestation area being accurately shown on the Record Plat;

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 633 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 7)

6. ___ presented Bay View Woods, Old Bayview Road, Preliminary Plat, American Engineering & Survey, Inc., Fifth Election District

The applicant was duly sworn according to law and testimony followed. ______stated

Mr. DiGiacomo stated the DR zone permits a maximum base density of 1 dwelling unit per 1 acre. With community facilities, a density of 4/1 is permitted.

The Concept Plat, proposing 36 lots on 12.27 acres was approved on 7/19/04, conditioned on:

1. A boundary line survey being done in conjunction with the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density calculation purposes; 2. A JD being completed prior to the Planning Commission’s review of the Preliminary Plat; 3. The details of the PFCP and the Preliminary Plat matching up; and 4. Adequate consideration being given to the inclusion of TOT lots and/or active recreational amenities as part of the common open space.

Has the boundary line survey been completed, as indicated in density calculations section?

Mr. Roop of the US Army Corps of Engineers indicated at the November TAC meeting that he had walked the property and all details appeared correct. Has the JD documentation been received?

This Preliminary Plat proposes 36 lots 12.27 acres, for a proposed density of 2.934/1.

This preliminary plat is generally consistent with the approved concept plat.

On slopes between 15 and 25%, good engineering practices shall be used to ensure sediment and erosion control and slope stabilization before, during and after disturbance activities.

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 634 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

Permits are required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland or stream impacts prior to recordation.

15% is common open space required; 27.22% is proposed.

Those thresholds must be calculated and included on the Preliminary Plat. They currently are not listed.

20% landscaping of the development envelope is required in the DR zone.

Sidewalks are recommended on both sides of all internal roads.

Rows of street trees with 10’ planting easements are required, outside the right-of-way, along both sides of all internal streets. Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard and street tree requirements. In areas with community facilities, no street trees shall be planted within 20 feet of sewer laterals and cleanouts.

An FSD for this site was approved on 10/11/02 and the PFCP was approved on 10/27/04.

According to the Natural Heritage Service, the site contains FIDS habitat, but it is not home to any rare species.

The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan must be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat (§6.3.B(1)(a), Forest Conservation Regs).

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation.

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 635 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

General Notes # 6 and 7 are not sufficient: The Record Plats shall contain a statement signed by the Health Department approving authority; to the effect that use of the community water supply and community sewerage system is in conformance with the Master Water and Sewer Plan. The Record Plats shall also contain a statement, signed by the owner, to the effect that such facilities will be available to all lots offered for sale.

Written verification of water allocation and sewer capacity must be received prior to Final Plat review.

Have the number and locations of the proposed fire hydrants been reviewed by the North East Volunteer Fire Co?

The proposed road names have been approved.

A Homeowners’ Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation.

The zip code for Childs, MD listed in the owner title block is incorrect and must be revised to 21916.

An apparent typo exists under General Note #5, as the second “on file at the Office & Zoning” should be removed.

Mr. Woodhull stated The Department understands that water supply for this site will be provided and owned by the Town of North East. The CCDPW recommends that the water distribution system be designed to meet or exceed the County’s standards. We recommend that the Town request that the serving fire company review fire hydrant spacing and locations. The water lines must be reflected on the sanitary sewer plans and as-builts. And all easements required for the water lines must be reflected on the final plat.

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 636 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 The sanitary sewers will be owned and maintained by Cecil County.

A SWM plan, Road & Storm Drain plan, Sanitary Sewer plan, and a Mass & Final Grading plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading Plans, which will appear in the minutes but will not be read at this time. (“A lot grading plan has been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, and/or Reforestation will require a consistency review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.”)

The existing sediment trap on the Lands of Aston Woods drains across this property. The existing and future impacts of this flow must be considered in the SWM plan and redirected accordingly.

Bay View Woods Lane, as shown, extends to and provides access for the adjacent lands of Barry Montgomery. Connectivity between this parcel and Montgomery Oaks, through the remaining lands of Montgomery, appears substantially feasible and should be strongly encouraged. Only if the Planning Commission endorses the connectivity concept should Bay View Woods Lane be ended in a Tee Turnaround. Otherwise it should be terminated in a cul-de-sac.

At Concept Plat review we identified an area of discrepancy with the plan submitted for Montgomery Oaks in regards to location of the existing sanitary sewer line, stream, and connection site. Have the sewer line and stream locations shown been physically verified in the field?

No Road Code Variance requests have been received to date.

The Final Plats should include a note indicating that sidewalks maintenance will be required of the adjacent property owner, as required by the Cecil County Road Code.

Sight distance measurements have been provided to the DPW and appear to be acceptable.

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 637 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 Entrance upgrades must be in accordance with Section 3.07. 15 of the Road Code.

Acceleration, Deceleration, & Passing Lanes required by the Road Code must be included in the Engineering submittal. The Developer is responsible for any ROW acquisition required. Have any needed ROWs been obtained yet?

The 15’ radius curb returns as shown for Old Bayview Road entrance are not allowed for subdivision streets. See the Road Code matrix in Section 3.07 for required dimensions.

All driveways must be paved at least to the right of way. The driveway paving must be complete for all lots at the time when the surface course for the internal roads is installed. If the development is phased this requirement will apply to each phase when 80% of the lots are built-out. All of this must be so indicated on the Lot Grading Plan.

Where determined necessary by the utility companies, the owner, the designer, or DPW, utilities poles must be relocated at the Owner’s expense.

The sanitary sewer main indicated on the plat must be extended to provide service to Lots 22 & 23.

The location of sanitary manholes must be in accordance with the spacing requirements of Section 02710, Part 3, A.6. of the Standard Specifications for Water & Sewer Mains.

The applicant must provide as-built information of the connecting sewer (rim and invert elevations, pipe sizes and types) and engineering calculations to demonstrate total and available capacity from Manhole #493 to Manhole #476 of the Stony Run Interceptor (North East Sanitary Sewer Extension ‘A’)

All cleanouts [and water meter vaults] must be designed to be outside of all paved or concrete areas on each lot.

A utility easement must be provided across Lot 21 and the COS to allow for possible adjustments required when the proposed development on the Lands of Montgomery is interconnected to this development. Please indicate that this easement is outside of the FRA.

All easements required to access the existing sanitary sewer main must be provided prior to submittal for Final Plat approval. The easement for the sanitary sewer cannot be located in any Forest Retention Area (FRA). Therefore please indicate that the sewer easement shown at the western property line is outside of the FRA

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 638 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

The Department recommends that the Town of North East require a PWA for the Water Main.

A PWA will be required for internal streets, storm drains, sanitary sewers, and any private utility improvements.

An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities.

_____ read the Health Department comments, a copy attached for reference.

No one appeared in favor of the proposal.

RECOMMENDATION:

DISAPPROVAL, with the recommendation that the plat be resubmitted once:

1) the North east Volunteer Fire Co. has had a chance to review and comment on the number and locations of fire hydrants,

2) the common open space sensitive areas thresholds have been calculated and included on the plat, and

3) documentation of the JD has been received.

APPROVAL, conditioned on:

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) Documentation of the JD being received;

4) The common open space sensitive areas thresholds being calculated and included on the plat;

5) Written verification of water allocation being received from the Town of North East;

6) Written verification of sewer capacity being received from CCDPW;

7) The correct zip code for Childs, MD (21916) being listed in the owner information block;

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 639 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 8) General Note # 6 being replaced by a statement, to be signed by the owner on the Record Plat, to the effect that the community water supply and community sewerage system will be made available to all lots offered for sale.

9) General Notes #7 being replaced by a statement, to be signed by the Health Department, approving authority, on the Record Plat, to the effect that use of the community water supply and community sewerage system is in conformance with the Master Water and Sewer Plan.

10) The North east Volunteer Fire Co. having had a chance to review and comment on the number and locations of fire hydrants;

11) The Forest Conservation Plan has been approved;

12) The Landscape Plan has been approved;

13) All typos having been corrected;

14)

GENERAL DISCUSSION:

Motion made by ____, seconded by ____, to ______. Motion unanimously///// carried.

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 640 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

ITEM B DECISIONS

1. Village of Cecil Woods, Preliminary Plat, Trilogy Investments, Request for one year extension of Preliminary Plat Approval, Fifth Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by McDowell and unanimously carried to approve the request for a one-year extension of the Preliminary Plat

2. The Mews at Northeast Creek, Lots 1-205, Route 40 & Mechanics Valley Road, Concept Plat, McCrone, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Murray, seconded by Mortimer to approve with three conditions.

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Murray carried to amend previous motion to approve with six conditions.

1) A JD being completed prior to the Planning Commission’s review of the Preliminary Plat;

2) The Bufferyard C requirement on Mechanics Valley Road being modified to accommodate sight distance issues;

3) The TIS being updated prior to the TAC’s review of the Preliminary Plat consist with the specific comments made by the DPW;

4) The monumental boulevard entrance configuration be extended back to Valley Vista Drive;

5) The current four stream crossing permits for Phase 1 be submitted to DPW prior to Preliminary Plat review; and

6) Protective fencing be constructed to prohibit pedestrians access to the railroad prior to Final Plat review.

Brown, Mortimer and Murray in favor

McDowell and Prickett opposed

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 641 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004

3. Montgomery Springs, Lots 15-16, Razor Strap Road, Preliminary Plat, McCrone, Inc, Fifth Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Murray

Motion made by McDowell, second by Mortimer and unanimously carried to amend pervious motion to approve with seven conditions.

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) The FCP Plan and Landscape Plan any modifications there to being approved prior to the Planning commission’s review of the Final Plat;

4) Documentation of the completed JD being provided prior to the Planning Commission’s review of the Final Plat;

5) Written documentation of water allocation from the Town of North East being provided prior to the Planning commission’s review of the Final Plat;

6) Documentation of sewer capacity being provided prior to the Planning commission’s review of the Final Plat; and

7) Waive the 25’ buffer requirement.

4. The Barry Montgomery Company, Inc., (formerly Pascot), Lot 5, Frenchtown Road & Cokesbury Road, Concept Plat, McCrone, Inc., Seventh Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Pricket to disapprove with the one recommendation.

Motion made by Pricket, seconded by Mortimer and unanimously carried to disapprove with the two recommendations.

1) The plat be resubmitted once the FSD has been approved; and

2) The access issues being resolved.

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 642 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 5. Francis H. Otenasek et ux. (Lands of), Cassidy Wharf Road, Final Plat, Michael Scott, Inc., First Election District

Motion made by Prickett, seconded by Mortimer and unanimously carried to approve with conditions.

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) A Mini-road Maintenance Association being established prior to recordation with all lot owners becoming members;

5) The Landscape Agreement being executed prior to recordation; and

6) The missing 2.65 acres of reforestation area being accurately shown and labeled on the Record Plat.

6. Bay View Woods, Old Bayview Road, Preliminary Plat, American Engineering & Survey, Inc., Fifth Election District

Motion made by Mortimer, seconded by Murray and unanimously carried to approve with conditions.

1) Health Department requirements being met;

2) DPW requirements being met;

3) The common open space sensitive areas thresholds being calculated and included on the Final Plat;

4) Written verification of water allocation being received from the Town of North East;

5) Written verification of sewer capacity being received from CCDPW;

6) The correct zip code for Childs, MD (21916) being listed in the owner information block on the Final Plat;

7) General Note #6 being replaced by a statement, to be signed by the owner on the Record Plat, to the effect that the community water supply and community sewerage system will be made available to all lots offered for sale.

8) General Notes #7 being replaced by a statement, to be signed by the Health Department, approving authority, on the Record Plat, to the effect that use of the community water supply and community sewerage system is in conformance with the Master Water and Sewer Plan.

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 643 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2004 9) The North East Volunteer Fire Company having had a chance to review and comment on the number and locations of fire hydrants;

10) The Forest Conservation Plan has been approved;

11) The Landscape Plan has been approved;

12) All typos having been corrected; and

13) A creation of a tot lot fund to be administered by the HOA.

There were no further comments.

Meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m.

NEXT MEETING: January 18, 2005 at TBD in the County Administration Building

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa A. Jones

Administrative Assistant

December 20, 2004, 12:00 p.m. 644