INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM

HARLES COUNTY GOVERNMENT Department of Planning and Growth Management Melvin C. Beall, Jr., P.E., Director INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Denise Ferguson, Clerk to the County Commissioners THRU: THRU: FROM: Chuck Beall, PGM Director Reed Faasen, Acting Planning Director Shelley Wagner, Program Manager DATE: June 17, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM: Zoning Map Amendment #07-31 Jenkins Property Public Hearing (Chaney Enterprises) Please find attached three (3) copies of the above referenced documents for public BoardDocs. This agenda item is currently scheduled for June 25, 2008 at 6:30 An electronic copy has been forwarded and may also be found on the R drive under Commissioners' Agenda Items for June 25, 2008. If you have any questions, please contact Shelley Wagner at #2608. Attachment cc: Chuck Beall w/attachment

Report to the County Commissioners Zoning Map Amendment, ZMA #07-31 Chaney Enterprises, Inc. Jenkins Property SUMMARY The applicant, Chaney Enterprises, Inc., the owner of the subject property, requests an amendment to change the AC, Agricultural Conservation Zone and the RV. Village Residential Zone to IH, Heavy Industrial Zone for a portion of the property located on the south side of Prince Frederick Road (Route 231) in Hughesville. The subject property is also known as Tax Map 24, Grid 1, Parcel 46. The subject property is west of the Hughesville Post Office and the Brookleigh Woods Subdivision and east of the Hughesville Industrial Park. The applicant presented a case for a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood and mistake as defined by Article 66B of the Annotated Code of Maryland and the Charles County Zoning Ordinance. BACKGROUND The request for the above referenced Zoning Map Amendment was heard at a Public Meeting by the Planning Commission at the regularly scheduled meeting of March 17, 2008. At the public meeting, testimony was provided by four (4) speakers for Chaney Enterprises. An additional thirty-nine (39) Hughesville residents and members representing the American Red Cross and the College of Southern Maryland (CSM) spoke. Other than those representing the Red Cross and CSM, the majority of the speakers were opposed to the map amendment. During the open record period, the Planning Commission received fifty-two (52) comment letters/emails. Seven (7) were in support of the rezoning with the remaining letters in opposition. At the May 5, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, a work-session was held. At that meeting, the Planning Commission voted 5-2 to recommend approval of ZMA 7-31 on the grounds of change in the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Creelman and Mr. Detig opposed.. FACTS AND FINDINGS The Planning Commission made the following findings and conclusions for granting a rezoning of the Property: 1. The Applicant, Chaney Enterprises, Inc., is seeking a rezoning of the property identified as Tax Map 36, Grids 16 and 23, Parcels 47, 99, and 217, containing 149.56+ acres, and located in the 9 th Election District of Charles County, Maryland (hereinafter The Property ). Parcels 99 and 217 are zoned Agricultural Conservation (AC) and Parcel 47 is zoned both AC and Village Residential (RV). 2. On March 17, 2008, the Charles County Planning Commission held a public meeting to consider the Application. The meeting was properly advertised on February 29, 2008 and March 5, 2008 in the Maryland Independent, a newspaper of general circulation in Charles County. The record was held open until close of business on April 16, 2008

to allow ample opportunity to the public County staff and the Applicant to comment and submit additional information. At the public meeting, the Planning Commission considered the application, staff analysis and all written and oral testimony. 3. The Planning Commission held a work session on May 5, 2008 to consider the application, all testimony, documents, and exhibits offered therein by way of oral, written or referenced material and matters of public record of which official notice was taken. At the meeting, a motion was made, duly seconded and approved by a vote of 5-2 to recommend to the County Commissioners approval of the rezoning request based on a finding of Change in Character of the Neighborhood. The Planning Commission did not made a recommendation to the request for a finding of Mistake. 4. According to both oral and written testimony, the Property is located on Prince Frederick Road (Route 231) just west of the Hughesville Post Office and the Brookleigh Woods Subdivision and east of the Hughsville Industrial Park Property adjoining the Property is zoned IG (General Industrial), RV (Village Residential) and AC (Agricultural Conservation). 5. The Property is not located within the Hughesville Subarea Plan study area, but is adjacent to it. 6. The Hughsville area has undergone economic and physical changes with the planning and building of the Hughesville By-Pass. There has been an increase in traffic from St. Mary's County with the expansion of the Patuxent Naval Air Station. The business community in the Village of Hughesville has been negatively impacted by the buyout of the tobacco industry. In addition, the establishment the Harley-Davidson dealership and the expansion of the Everything Amish site are examples of changes to the neighborhood. 7. The neighborhood, as defined by the applicant, is acceptable. 8. The proposed rezoning supports the Comprehensive Plan. Dissenting Opinion The two Planning Commission members voting against the rezoning request felt that a case was not made for either a Mistake or Change in the Character of the Neighborhood. There have been changes in the Hughesville area, however, these changes did not impact the Property. Nor did they agree with the definition of the neighborhood as defined by the applicant. CHARLES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Raymond Detig, Chairman

Report to the Planning Commission Base Zone Amendment ZMA#07-31 Chaney Enterprises, Inc. Jenkins Property Public Meeting January 7, 2008 This report is submitted pursuant to Article XXVII, 297-448 of the Charles County Zoning Ordinance. The report includes a summary of the requested change, history of the subject property, and findings as to change in the character of the neighborhood and mistake. Requested Change The applicant, Chaney Enterprises, Inc., the owner of the subject property, requests an amendment to change the AC, Agricultural Conservation Zone and the RV, Village Residential Zone, to IH, Heavy Industrial Zone, for the property located on the south side of Prince Frederick Road (Route 231) near Hughesville. The subject property is also known as Tax Map 36, Grids 16 and 23, Parcels 47, 99 and 217. The subject property is west of the Hughesville Post Office and the Brookleigh Woods Subdivision and east of the Hughesville Industrial Park. Property to the north of the property is currently undeveloped. The applicant has presented a report (Application-attached) which proposes a finding a substantial change and mistake as defined by Article 66B of the Annotated Code of Maryland and the Charles County Zoning Ordinance. History of the Property The subject property consists of 149.56+ acres and is currently zoned AC Agricultural Conservation and RV Village Residential per the existing Charles County Zoning Maps and Zoning Ordinance. The subject property is currently being used for gravel operations. The subject property received a Special Exception (#1069) on January 28, 2003 for gravel mining. The mining of the subject property has been completed and is currently being reclaimed. Substantial Change Rationale Requirements of Article 66B: Test for a Finding of Change or Mistake Article 66B, Section 4.05(a) of the Annotated Code of Maryland describes two situations in which a zoning map amendment may be granted: 1) based upon a finding that there was a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood where the property is located; or 2) that there was a mistake in the existing zoning classification. The applicant claims that there has been a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood and that a mistake in the existing zoning classification was made. Summary of the Applicant s Assertion Regarding a Substantial Change in Character: Applicant states that a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood has occurred due to the decline of the tobacco agricultural industry and the impact this loss has had on the businesses located in Hughesville. Prior to this decline, the location of Hughesville as a hub for the Tri-County Area, the Tobacco Warehouse Barns, and other supporting businesses, made Hughesville a vibrant area. Most of the businesses that existed to support the tobacco farmer and activities that support the farming 1

community have closed. In addition, the applicant states that in the past, the vast amount of commuter traffic using Maryland Route 5 through Hughesville has added to the decline of the village and local businesses as the heavy volume of traffic and inadequate roads have prevented the public from accessing these local businesses. With, however, the completion of the Hughesville Bypass, the village is now free of the constant everyday traffic and the village is now able to expand and to encourage new business to come into the Hughesville area. Furthermore, the building of the Harley Davidson motorcycle dealership and the expansion of Everything Amish are businesses that have developed over the past few years that are examples of how the Village of Hughesville has changed and is expanding. Summary of Applicant's Assertion of Mistake The applicant states that the County did not anticipate nor properly consider the need to provide for business expansion areas for Hughesville during the 1992 Comprehensive Rezoning process. In light of the limited commercial development in Hughesville and the inclusion of industrial zoning, the subject property would have been a logical expansion of the neighboring Hughesville Industrial Park. Comprehensive Plan Compliance: Consistency with County Plans Applicant states that the rezoning from Agricultural Conservation and Village Residential to Heavy Industrial zoning would be consistent with the Charles County Comprehensive Plan because the use of the subject property furthers the goals of the Comprehensive Plan by not having an impact on schools or recreation space. The applicant feel that Maryland Route 231 can handle traffic generated by an industrial use and at time of site plan, an APF Traffic study requirements will comply with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan (1997). Furthermore, the applicant states that the rezoning of the subject property complies with the Comprehensive Plan's goals of strengthening the County's economic base through improvement of existing businesses and industry (2006 Comprehensive Plan, 4-2) and by providing sufficient improved business and industrial land relative to market needs to provide for flexibility and reduced cost in site selection (2006 Comprehensive Plan, 4-10). Staff Finding: The applicant's statement that Maryland 231 is capable of handling any additional traffic that may be generated is not supported by the application. Since MD 231 has only one through lane in each direction, it has a limited capacity. With an existing average daily traffic volume of approximately 17,000 vehicles per day, MD Route 231 experiences the highest traffic-volume of any two-lane state roadway in the county. A traffic study would need to be submitted in order to determine if the level of development of an IH Zone could be supported by this roadway. State Highway Administration: Any further development that may be approved on this property, which results from the Zoning change to a higher use, will be required to provide frontage improvements along MD 231 to mitigate the increased traffic volume. Staff Finding: Hughesville Village is a designated Village in the Comprehensive Plan. The vision for villages is to preserve and enhance their present character so that they may continue to act 2

as rural service areas and to serve their traditional roles in county life. The Comprehensive Plan discusses several functions and characteristics of, and recommends for, the villages that make the proposed rezoning a subject of concern and additional review. These include the following: Generally, villages should remain small in physical area. Villages are primarily residential in character. The Comprehensive Plan states that the broad range of non-residential uses that are permitted in villages is a concern. Villages should continue to provide limited, highly localized commercial services and limited employment opportunities. Staff Finding: The Comprehensive Plan states that the Village of Hughesville serves regional as well as local populations. The proposed industrial rezoning would fit into that scenarios, however the issues of size, scope and impacts of the project on the Village of Hughesville would need to be reviewed in detail. Staff Finding: The subject property is located adjacent to, but outside of, the study area for the 2007 Hughesville Revitalization Plan. The proposed rezoning would effectively expand the amount of industrial land in the general area surrounding the Hughesville Village Study Area in the Plan. The Build-Out Analysis for the Plan indicates that there is existing underutilized industrial land within the Village of Hughesville. Industrial or commercial development outside of these underutilized areas may have the effect of drawing needed infill development from the Village proper and expanding the Village beyond what is recommended by the Comprehensive Plan and the Hughesville Village Revitalization Plan. If, however, it can be shown that the proposed industrial use would generate a significant number of jobs for the area, this could have the effect of generating more people to support the businesses within the Village. Economic Development Department: The application supports the Comprehensive Plan's goal of providing sufficient improved business and industrial land relative to market needs to provide for flexibility and reduced cost in site selection. Based upon 2006 Tax Map data base, there are 28 IH parcels (954 acres) in the County, 167 parcels (670 acres) in the PUD, and 21 parcels (192 acres) in the Town of La Plata. Rezoning the subject property to IH would be an expansion of an adjoining industrial area (zoned IG). Charles County Zoning Ordinance: The Charles County Zoning Ordinance states that the objective of the Industrial Zones zones is to strengthen the economic environment of the county by recognizing existing industrial uses and promoting industrial development in order to broaden the county's tax base and create new jobs. The Heavy Industrial Zone as an area that provides appropriate locations for larger scale or intensive processing which may generate substantially more impact on surrounding properties than intended in the General Industrial Zone. Staff Findings: The applicant's application does not provide information as to how this proposed map amendment fulfills the objectives of the Industrial Zone in general and the Heavy Industrial (IH) Zone in particular. Information provided speaks to general zoning requirements that have to met by any use that might be introduced to the IH Zone. 3

Patuxent River Policy Plan (1984, update 1997) Staff Findings: The application does not appear to be fully consistent with the 1984 Patuxent River Policy Plan and the 1997 Update, which the Charles County Commissioners approved by Resolutions 1984-18 and 2000-77. Land use, forest cover and living resources are the specific areas of of inconsistency. For example, the proposed IH zoning allows an impervious surface ratio of 60%. This impervious surface ratio would have detrimental impacts to headwater streams. Additional Information The subject property is located in the vicinity of historic resources, such as the George J. Chappalear property (CH-468) and the Gerhard King property (CH-486). Staff Evaluation of Request As stated in the Charles County application for Local Map Amendment-Base Zones, if the applicant contends that a change in the character of a neighborhood has occurred, the applicant must include information sufficient to prove that neighborhood character changed by providing a description of the changes which have occurred since the original or last comprehensive rezoning and explaining how these changes justify the amendment and is compatible with existing and proposed development in the area. If the applicant asserts that a mistake has been made, it must be established by the applicant that at the time of the last comprehensive rezoning, the County failed to take into account then existing facts, projects, or trends in making the decisions regarding the zoning of the property. Staff Findings as to a Substantial Change in Character: 1. The 149.56 acre subject property,located on Tax Map 36, Grids 16 and 23, Parcels 47, 99 and 217, is currently zoned Agricultural Conservation (AC) and Residential Village (RV). 2. The property located on the south side of Prince Frederick Road (Maryland Route 231), to the west of the Brookleigh Woods Subdivision and the the east of the Hughsville Industrial Park (zoned IG). 3. The property is not within the limits of the Hughesville Revitalization Plan. 4. The property is not served by public water and sewer. 5. The proposed map amendment does support the Comprehensive Plan (2006) goal of providing sufficient improved business and industrial land relative to market needs to provide for flexibility and reduced cost in site selection". 6. The proposed map amendment does not support the Comprehensive Plan (1997) goals for transportation. 7. Insufficient information was provided to show how the proposed rezoning supports the goals of the industrial zones in general and the heavy industrial zone in particular. 8. A traffic study for Adequate Public Facilities will need to be completed to determine the impact a heavy industrial use will have on Maryland Route 231, Route 5 and the Hughesville By-Pass. 4

9. The applicant does not appear to be fully consistent with the 1984 Patuxent River Policy Plan and the 1997 Update. Staff Findings as to Mistake 1. Insufficient information was provided to determine a mistake. Recommendations Should ZMA #07-31 be approved, staff recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. A full traffic study be preformed prior to Special Exception application, if necessary, or Site Development Plan if a Special Exception is not necessary. 2. A Bufferyard "E" be provided around the property to screen any heavy industrial use from adjoining residential uses and to shield any adjacent historic properties on the Maryland Inventory. Prepared By Reviewed By 5

Supplemental Report ZMA 07-31 Jenkins Property Traffic Analysis A traffic study was submitted on February 29, 2008 by the applicant. The Planning APF staff has provided a cursory review of the document and have the following comments: 1. The applicant states on page 27 of the analysis that this transportation analysis is for informational purposes only and was prepared to show that improvements to the area road network could be accomplished to support the requested zoning of the subject site. 2. The analysis assumes the land used of Research and Development, Recreation Community Center and Satellite Community College. These uses will be reviewed at time of Special Exception or Site Development Plan submission for use appropriateness. 3. The conclusions include that under the above land use assumptions, the two (2) land Maryland Route 231 in front of the site would not be able to handle the existing traffic plus the hypothetical site development traffic (i.e. The road would be over-capacity per County regulations), and would likely need to be widened from two (2) to five (5) lanes. The analysis also states that the site access at MD Route 231 would not meet APF standards, and that mitigation in the form of a traffic signal would likely be required. 4. Since the above potential improvements involve a state-owned and maintained facility, and insufficient time did not allow for a State Highway Administration (SHA) review of the Transportation Analysis, staff finds that when the applicant for the subject site applies for either a Site Development Plan or Special Exception application, a traffic study which reflects proposed/allowed land uses shall be submitted at that time (with study parameters determined by PGM Planning APF Section and all traffic counts be no older than 12 months old), and that if be appropriately reviewed by the State Highway Administration. Fiscal Impact Study Fiscal Impact Study was received on March 5, 2008 and insufficient time was given for review and comment by the Budget Director. Those comments, if any, will be presented to the Planning Commission at their worksession, if one is held.