CHESTER — The Queen Anne’s County Commissioners voted 3-2 to approve “re-including” 101 acres of property on Piney Creek Road owned by Chesterhaven Beach Partnership, LLP back into the Chester Growth Area.
Chesterhaven Beach Partnership, LLP submitted a Reconsideration Comprehensive Rezoning Request to add (Tax Map 57, Parcel 25) to the Chester Growth Area and to rezone it to Chester Master-Planned Development when comprehensive rezoning was addressed.
The property is classified in the Neighborhood District and has a Resource Conservation Area designation for Critical Area purposes, according to County Administrator Todd Mohn.
According to a May 2022 memo prepared by QA Planning and Zoning officials, Chesterhaven Beach was granted 180 lots in a 1959 plat. Though the property was removed from the Chester Growth Area in 2007 when the Chester/Stevensville Community Plan was adopted, the commissioners granted the owners sewer space in 2011, for which the owners have paid a 20% nonrefundable deposit.
According to Amy Moredock, director of planning and development, the Chesterhaven property was the only development held open for future consideration from the Comprehensive Plan.
“This is the fifth time this particular case has been before you since May of 2022,” Moredock said.
Citing concern for legal density, the Commissioners previously rejected the project proposal in May 2022. At that time the applicant was asked to seek a declaratory judgement or equivalent court ruling to establish the grandfathering of the property lots for review at a later date.
There has been much correspondence since that point, Mohn noted.
At a public hearing in October, the applicant amended the public works agreement to reduce the number of allocations on the property from 180 to no more than 90, he said.
Within the last month the applicant has requested the Commissioners reconsider putting the property into the growth area, which would allow them to pursue public water in addition to the public sewer already established on the property, he said.
The county record is clear on the history of the case, and while there is “definitely a difference of legal opinion in the interpretation of these court cases,” the scope of request was not for an approval of a development or for a reduction of lots on a plat, but to replace the property that was once in the growth area back in where it already received sewer allocation, Moredock said.
“For 20 plus years it has been the legal guidance of counsel, both planning attorney and the county attorney, that the lots are valid and that the court cases that were rendered were not specific to the number of lots and the grandfathering of those lots. Those cases were focused on merits of the Board of Appeals decision,” she said.
Former planning attorney Chris Drummond had stated his official legal opinion that the county has recognized the plat as lots of records for 30 years and would be difficult to reverse courts at this point, she said.
Addressing the “lots of record” issue, a letter dated Oct. 24, 2023 from Drummond to the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners was read, stating, originally, 186 lots were created when the Chesterhaven Beach plat was recorded in 1959 and at the time, Queen Anne’s County did not have a zoning ordinance or subdivision regulations, according to Drummond.
ln 1962-1963, the owners of Chesterhaven Beach secured a Certificate of Exemption from Queen Anne’s County which recognized the lots as valid, he said. In his opinion, Drummond said Planning and Zoning has treated Chesterhaven Beach as “lots of record” for decades. A complete copy of Drummod’s letter to the County Commissioners is available on the county website.
In the vote with Commissioners Chris Corchiarino and Patrick McLaughlin opposed, the commissioners accepted the comprehensive rezoning request from Chesterhaven Beach Partnership, LLP, for inclusion back into the Chester Growth Area, with a 90 lot restriction and without the need for growth allocation that the recaptured sewer allocation (22,500 gallons) be reserved for commercial and institutional uses.
Corchiario stated he would have liked to have seen a further reduction of proposed units and remained hopeful that with the review process ahead, those further reductions will occur.
Noting basic property rights, Commissioner Jack Wilson said he had issue “taking something from someone and really having no final judgement that it should have been taken,” that being said, Wilson also noted he was never in favor of 180 homes and that 90 would be a fair compromise to the owners property rights existing since 1959 and extending the water to those areas.
“At the end of the day, based on 60 years of toiling with it, I think this is a fair compromise for the owner,” he said.
The county commissioners take each property at face value, said Wilson, noting commissioners aren’t afraid to deny developments when it doesn’t suit the needs of the area, such as the condominium complex proposed near the area of Libby’s Coastal Kitchen originally requesting over 300 homes before the commissioners held the line for 32.
Commissioner President Jim Moran called resubmitting the property into the Chester Growth Area, “the right thing to do,” in order to clear it out of the county’s coffers and welcomed public comment as it moves along to planning and zoning.
Looking at the development’s timeline, “The same kind of deal could have been struck in 2005 and we wouldn’t be sitting here today,” Wilson said.
During public comment, citizens particularly of Gibson Grant’s, located just adjacent to Chester Beach, voiced opposing the potential community housing development, noting a frustration in developments and traffic congestion increases.
Jay Falstad, executive director of Queen Anne’s Conservation Association urged the commissioners to collect more information and revaluate the potential project.
Letters of concern were received from Chesapeake Wildlife Heritage, Queen Anne’s Conservation Association and the Chair of the Critical area commission expressing concern about the validation of the lots and whether or not the lots exist as platted in the 1959 plat, according to Moredock.
The Chair of the Critical Area Commission in particular expressed concern that proceeding with the re-subdivision and development application would trigger their consideration to take legal action they feel necessary, she said.
Moredock reiterated the July 9 motion was specifically about the growth area and the Commissioners approval only allowed the proposed project to start the development phase over again and still has to pass requirements including traffic studies and future planning and zoning meetings.
“This just clears the way to actually move forward with it,” Wilson said.
The Queen Anne’s County Commissioners will next meet July 23 at 5:30 p.m.
Most Popular
Comments / 0