WHEREAS,
on June 9, 2000 K. Hovnanian of Maryland, Inc. a Maryland corporation (“Petitioner”)
did file with the County Commissioners of Queen Anne’s County (“County
Commissioners”) a Petition requesting that 293.25 acres of land more or
less located on the property known as the Bittorf, Tanner and Cousin’s
L.L.C. properties be redesignated in accordance with the Code of Public
Laws for Queen Anne’s County, Environmental Article from Resource
Conservation Area (RCA) to Intense Development Area (IDA) and that 79.55
acres of land more or less located on the lands known as the Tanner, Bittorf
and Bell properties be redesignated in accordance with the Code of Public
Laws for Queen Anne’s County, Environmental Article from Limited
Development Area (LDA) to Intense Development Area (IDA). The Bittorf,
Tanner, Cousin’s LLC and Bell lands are hereinafter collectively referred
as the Subject Property;
WHEREAS,
on April 26, 2000 the Planning Commission for Queen Anne’s County (the
“Planning Commission”) approved a sketch plan depicting the development
scheme for the Subject Property, consisting of a planned unit development
of 1,006 active adult, age restricted dwellings, 300 apartment units, 150
condominiums, approximately 95,000 square feet of commercial space
and an assisted living facility collectively known as Four Seasons on Kent
Island (hereinafter referred to as the “Four Seasons”).
WHEREAS,
on July 13, 2000 the Planning Commission did recommend that the County
Commissioners approve the Petitioner’s request growth allocation, specifically
finding that the Four Seasons is consistent with the Queen Anne’s County
Comprehensive Plan because: the Subject Property is located in the Chester
and Stevensville growth areas; the Subject Property was rezoned SMPD (Stevensville
Master Planned District) and CMPD (Chester Master Planned District) to
accommodate higher density development in accordance with the recommendations
of the Stevensville Community Plan and Chester Community Plan; the SMPD
and CMPD zoning designations are inconsistent with the RCA density limitations;
all of the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area (“Critical Area”) land on the Subject
Property is pre-mapped for growth allocation; the County previously awarded
79.55 acres of growth allocation to a portion of the Bittorf, Tanner and
Bell properties as part of the County’s initial Critical Area program and
mapping; and the Subject Property can easily be connected into the existing
public water and sewer system.
WHEREAS,
the Planning Commission’s favorable recommendation concerning the Growth
Allocation Petition was conditioned on the following:
| 1. The Petitioner
must enter into a legally binding Developers Rights and Responsibilities
Agreement with the County. The Planning Commission must find the
Agreement:
2. The 100 foot and 300 foot shore buffers be measured from the State tidal wetlands or the mean high water lines that are field verified during preliminary subdivision design, 3. The Petitioner shall maintain a minimum of 20 feet separation between lot lines and stormwater management ponds, 4. The Petitioner shall provide a wooded buffer and security barrier between the Castle Marina subdivision and the Queens Landing condominium project and the proposed development of the Bell property, 5. The Petitioner shall provide woodland screening along the Cross Island Trail where necessary, 6. All buildings and structures be constructed in a manner substantially similar to the architectural style presented, 7. All long term protected woodlands be located in the community open space, 8. Woodland clearing on the individual cluster lots is the minimum necessary to construct a home, 9. All required mitigation for woodland clearing is provided on site, 10. The 293.25 acres of growth allocation be utilized for the project proposed which shall be substantially similar in design to the sketch plan presented to the Planning Commission, 11. Any changes in the density must be approved by the Planning Commission, 12. Any significant changes in the subdivision design must be approved by the Planning Commission, 13. The Petitioner shall satisfy the Planning Commission that the proposed commercial shopping center, and the mix of retail uses therein, is consistent with the goal of the Chester Master Planned Development that commercial uses be “neighborhood-scaled and be in association with larger residential developments,” 14. The Petitioner shall provide plat notes showing the possibility of connecting the project to any future northern connector road as referred to in the Stevensville Community Plan, if and when a regional traffic plan for the area requires the community to be linked to such a northern connector road and / or Benton Road and / or other points to the north and west, 15. The applicant shall provide for the Cross Island Trail Park dedication and easements for the 5.5 acres of land as depicted on the sketch plan, and 16. The applicant shall stabilize the shorelines of the Chester River and Macum Creek as required and allowed by the appropriate governing agencies, and shall remove from the Concept Plan the proposed piers on Macum Creek. |
WHEREAS,
on July 25, 2000 the County Commissioners granted “conceptual approval”
to the Petition and forwarded the same to the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area
Commission (“Critical Area Commission”) for its approval;
WHEREAS,
after extensive review, on December 6, 2000 the Critical Area Commission
approved the Petition for Growth Allocation with the following conditions:
| 1. The new IDA shall
be located at least 300 feet beyond the landward edge of tidal wetlands
and tidal waters adjacent to Cox Creek and Macum Creek. The 300 setback
shall not be used for structures, roads, parking, utilities, active recreation
area or storm water management except as shown on the site plan approved
by the [Critical Area] Commission. It may be used for passive recreation.
This setback shall be established in multilayer forest vegetation.
2. A fully forested 100-foot Buffer shall be established from the landward boundary of the structural erosion control measure on the Chester River. The Buffer shall be established in multi-layered forest vegetation. 3. A fully forested 150-foot setback shall be established from the edge of tidal or nontidal wetlands around the tidal pond (adjacent to the Chester River) in order to provide habitat protection. The edge of tidal and nontidal wetlands from which the 150-foot setback will be established shall be delineated in the field and approved by the Commission Staff. In addition, all Phragmites in the area of the tidal pond shall be eradicated and the area established with appropriate native species. 4. A fully forested 100-foot Buffer shall be established on each side of all tributary streams, and the stream crossing and any development activity within the Buffer area shall be eliminated. 5. The Commission shall coordinate with the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regarding the assessment of the environmental impacts associated with a community pier and compliance with the standards set fourth in the Critical Area Criteria. The applicant agrees to ensure that these standards are met and to comply with the recommendations and/or conditions of approval of MDE and DNR regarding the community pier. The applicant also agrees to comply with MDE regulations for community marinas in COMAR 26.24.04.03G. 6. Best Management Practices for stormwater shall be located outside of the 100-year flood plain or shall be designed in such a way that a flood event would not inundate the ponds or detention structures causing pollutants to be flushed out unless staff determines after a review of detailed stormwater engineering plans that a superior water quality or habitat benefit can be achieved through other techniques. 7. At least half of the site shall incorporate Best Management Practices for stormwater that provide habitat benefits in addition to water quality benefits. Best Management Practices that provide habitat benefits include bioretention, shallow marsh, extended detention, wetlands, and pond/wetland systems. 8. Shoreline access within the approved setback and/or Buffer shall be designed and constructed to minimize impacts to the 100-foot Buffer and to maintain the “Resource Conservation Area” character of the setback and/or Buffer. Pathway widths shall be limited to six feet in width (including the path itself and associated clearing) within the setback and should be constructed of pervious or semi-pervious materials wherever possible. Tree canopy shall be maintained over pathways. Prior to recordation of any subdivision plats or final approval of any site plans, building permits, or grading permits, a Buffer management Plan for the entire Buffer and/or setback area of the project shall be reviewed and approved by the full Critical Area Commission. 9. Structural shore erosion control measures shall be limited to those that currently exist on the site. If additional erosion control measures are warranted, non-structural measures shall be used. 10. The final plan for the Fours Seasons at Kent Island growth allocation request that is approved shall contain each of the conditions of this approval and shall be submitted for review by the Critical Area Commission. |
WHEREAS,
in accordance with County Code, Section 14-177, Environmental Protection,
on February 27, 2001 a public hearing was held on the Petitioner’s growth
allocation request, at which time the County Commissioners heard over five
hours of testimony;
WHEREAS,
the County Commissioners have carefully reviewed the entire record of the
February 27, 2001 public hearing, including but not limited to the following
information: the testimony and all written information provided by the
public at the hearing and prior to the close of the record; all plans,
charts and text provided by the Petitioner during its February 27, 2001
presentation; the Petition for Growth Allocation filed June 9, 2000; the
Planning Commission Staff Report for Original Concept/Sketch Plan, April
13, 2000; the Planning Commission recommendation, findings of plan consistency,
Minutes from April 13, 2000 and April 26, 2000 meeting; letter from Michael
Klebasko to Larry Duket (Chairman Critical Area Commission Panel on Four
Seasons); the applicable provisions of the Chester Community Plan; the
applicable provisions of the Stevensville Community Plan; the Draft Declaration
of Covenants and Restrictions provided by the Petitioner; the Chesapeake
Bay Critical Area Commission Panel Report, December 6, 2000 and notification
letter regarding Growth Allocation Amendment Approval, with conditions,
December 20, 2000; the Queen Anne’s County, Chesapeake Bay Critical Area
Program, Growth Allocation Pre-mapping for Chester and Stevensville; the
Certification of Compliance of Michael C. Whitehill; the Letter from Harriet
Tragoning, Secretary Maryland Department of Planning to Mark Stemen, President,
K. Hovnanian Properties of Maryland, Inc.; the Chesapeake Bay Critical
Area Environmental Assessment, May 1999, Environmental Regulations, Inc.;
Maryland Department of Natural Resources letter, October 18, 1999, recommendation
for habitat protection and enhancement; the Shoreline Buffer Study, April
2000; the Michael J. Klebasko Certification of Compliance; the Executive
Study, Northern Stevensville Connector Road, August 1999; Department of
Planning and Zoning Memorandum, October 1, 1999; the Fiscal Impact Analysis,
June 8, 1999; the Fiscal Impact Analysis, January 17, 2001; Certificate
of Compliance, Len Bogorad; and, Stemen Letter to Kent Island Volunteer
Fire Department, February 5, 2001, as well as various other materials and
information
included in the “Record” of the public hearing;
WHEREAS,
the County Commissioners are concerned with some of the proposed uses and
the intensity of development on the Subject Property as depicted on the
Concept/Sketch Plan approved by the Planning Commission on April 26, 2000,
specifically the 300 apartment dwellings and 150 condominiums (both
of which were originally proposed to be non-age restricted) located in
the portion of the Subject Property owned by the Bell family (“Bell Property”)
and the approximately 95,000 square feet of commercial space;
WHEREAS,
the Petitioner has stated on the Record of the February 27, 2001 hearing
that it will agree to delete the 300 apartments, 150 condominiums and 95,000
square foot shopping center from the Four Seasons, and replace the same
with age-restricted single-family homes and condominiums, thereby having
no more than 1,350 total dwellings in the entire Four Seasons community;
WHEREAS,
County Code, Section 14-177, Environmental Protection, specifically
provides that the County Commissioners may approve a “petition [for growth
allocation] which changes or departs” from the recommendations from the
Planning Commission;
WHEREAS,
the Petitioner has agreed to provide various improvements or amenities
as part of the Four Seasons community in cooperation with various neighborhood
groups adjacent to the Four Seasons, all of which will be conditions of
approval of growth allocation;
WHEREAS,
the Subject Property is currently designated S-1 and W-1 in the County
Master Water and Sewer Plan;
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County Commissioners make the following
findings of fact, supported by substantial evidence in the Record as referred
to herein:
| a. The Four Seasons
Concept/Sketch Plan as approved by the Planning Commission with the Conditions
established herein is consistent with the Queen Anne’s County Comprehensive
Plan, the Queen Anne’s County Critical Area Program, the Chester Community
Plan and the Stevensville Community Plan; and meets all applicable
requirements of the Queen Anne’s County Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations,
and Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Act. The basis for this finding
is described in the Staff Report for the Planning Commission meeting on
April 13, 2000, and is further summarized and explained in the Certificate
of Compliance by Michael C. Whitehill as follows:
b. The Four Seasons Concept/Sketch Plan as approved by the Planning Commission with the Conditions established herein is of substantial economic benefit to Queen Anne’s County for the reasons stated below.
c. The Four Seasons Concept/Sketch Plan as approved by the Planning Commission with the Conditions established herein enhances water quality, resource and habitat values of the area resulting in additional planting of forest cover in the buffer and the implementation of best management practices for the reasons stated below.
d. In addition to the reasons previously discussed herein, the Growth Allocation Amendment Petition is consistent with the purposes of the Queen Anne’s County, Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Protection Program (County Code 14-177(f)(2)(i) for the following reasons:
|
rental apartments from the project.
|
BE
IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Commissioners hereby refer this
proposal to approve the Four Seasons Petition for Growth Allocation with
the conditions contained herein back to the Planning Commission, for the
following purposes: review an Amended Concept/Sketch Plan for the Subject
Property which reflects, where applicable, the conditions contained herein;
to make any further recommendations concerning the Amended Concept/Sketch
Plan that the Planning Commission believes appropriate; and, to take any
other action the Planning Commission believes appropriate, including but
not limited to, approval of the Amended Concept/Sketch Plan for the Four
Seasons.
BE
IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Commissioners hereby refer this
proposal to approve the Four Seasons Petition for Growth Allocation with
the conditions contained herein back to the Critical Area Commission for
review and approval.
|
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: _____________________________ |
___________________________
George M. O’Donnell, President ____________________________
_____________________________
|
![]()
| The 300 apartments and 150
condos were originally NOT age restricted.
KIDL Web Guy asks regarding number 2 below: what is status of "a complimentary health care related use must be agreed to prior to the execution of the Development Rights and Responsibilities Agreement. " If this issue was not taken care of, is DRRA invalid? Should it have ever have been signed? " 2. Make all reasonable efforts to retain the 80-bed assisted living facility within the proposed project, or an equivalent assisted living facility or comparable use be provided off site. Should this condition be unachievable, a complimentary health care related use must be agreed to prior to the execution of the Development Rights and Responsibilities Agreement. " end quote Note the words MUST and
PRIOR. COMPLIMENTARY is an interesting word too.
|
If You Have A Comment or Concern...
Send Email To The QAC
Commissioners With Your Opinion!
qacc@qac.org
Return Home |
Send Email to KIDL |
Site by:
AmericanWebPageDesign
Stevensville, MD