← All documents

centreville planning commission meeting minutes

Minutes June 15, 2022 · 3 page(s)

View original PDF ↗ Meeting

Full extracted text

The document's complete text, exactly as extracted — not a summary. Use “Summarize this document” above for the short version.

Centreville Planning Commission
June 15, 2022
7:00 p.m.
MINUTES
The June 15, 2022 Centreville Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Kara Voight, Chair, in
the Liberty Building, second floor meeting room. The following members and staff were present: Kara Voight, Chair;
Tim Zuella, Vice Chair; Mitchell Delaney, Secretary; Pat Fox and Nancy Emerick, Members; Steven K. Kline, Town
Council President; Chris Jakubiak, Town Planner; Paige Tilghman, Economic Development Manager and Betty Jean Hall,
Administrative Assistant.
Review of Minutes from Previous Meetings
a. Ms. Voight moved to approve the May 18, 2022 Planning Commission meeting minutes as amended. Mr. Zuella
seconded the motion, which passed with 4 ayes, and one abstention.
b. Ms. Voight moved to approve the June 1, 2022 Planning Commission work session minutes as submitted. Mr.
Delaney seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Citizen’s Comments
• No citizens provided comments.
New Business
a. 2021 Annual Report
• Mr. Jakubiak stated the Land Use Article of the State of Maryland Code requires towns and counties to
submit an annual report to the state and to the local legislative body every year. For communities that
have issued fewer than 50 dwelling units, the annual report is a very simple completion of a form.
• Mr. Jakubiak formulated the form into a letter that was distributed in member packets. Number 5 in the
letter should be changed to yes prior to sending to the Office of the Secretary at the Maryland Department
of Planning.
Unfinished Business
a. Comprehensive Plan Discussion – Chapter III Municipal Growth
• Typographical changes should be made to the second sentence in paragraph two on page 6 of 7 to read:
The 2020 updated Growth Area is larger because it includes the roughly 220 acres previously planned as
a “County Business Park” located on the west side of U.S. Route 301 and MD Route 304.
• Mr. Jakubiak stated everything that is in the growth area, beyond the town’s current boundaries but in the
growth area, is eligible for annexation. The Town Council decides whether to annex a property or not and
it is purely discretionary. The Comprehensive Plan may have to reference the only exception to the rule
is to annex land for the purpose of developing it as land application even when it is outside of the growth
area. There needs to be some sort of policy statement that links those parcels that might be beyond the
growth area to the town so that amending the comprehensive plan would not be necessary.
• Mr. Jakubiak also stated the development potential within the town is more than what is likely to happen
in terms of total development over the next 20 years. All that growth could be accommodated within the
current town boundaries principally on the 5 large parcels shown in the exhibit on page 3. That is
premised on the current zoning. If there are any reservations or implications about that growth, such as
traffic, we should think through those and possibly change the zoning of the parcels. However, the State
will not fund a wastewater system upgrade if the Town has squeezed out any development potential of all
the infill parcels. The Comprehensive Plan must embrace the growth.
• Rather than looking at one projection and looking at the possible impacts of it, what is needed is to have
an evaluation of all three. What if the town grew at this higher rate or at the very low rate? How many
pupils are generated from each and how are the enrollments impacted relative to the schools’ capacities?
Page 1 of 3

What is the general trip generation for traffic impacts? The level of emergency services that would have
to be increased for that growth must also be established.
• Develop the impacts, do an evaluation of the key facilities by each of the growth scenarios and show the
historic growth and traffic on Rt. 213 reported by State Highway. Also, make projections of the growth
over time and describe how that is related to population. That will provide some context for making some
of the land use decisions. Then the question is what the Town does with some of the implications of that.
It may be that different land use recommendations for the infill parcels are developed, or keep them the
way they are, or be very clear that they are not eligible for growth and development in the future as
previously envisioned. The Planning Commission could also state that the Town only embraces those
parcels that contribute to the walkable community in downtown.
• Mr. Jakubiak stated a site plan is not discretionary, it is administrative. The Planning Commission
ensures that the standards of the code are met and not make judgement about whether it ought to be or
not. If the Town Council approved the Growth Allocation, the planned unit development will be sent
before the Planning Commission and would be reviewed like any site plan; do they provide enough open
space, have they provided the correct setbacks. The review is administrative at that point and the
Planning Commission would be reviewing a plan that someone has an entitlement to. The time for
raising concerns about whether this should be a mixed development with commercial in the front and
small houses has passed.
• Connecting the municipal growth discussion to potential growth allocations and current water and sewer
challenges the Town Council has always retained the authority to decide whether an application will
connect to water and sewer, which is ultimately a backstop, and the growth allocation is fundamental.
The approval of the growth allocation is a signal that the project would move forward. Mr. Jakubiak’s
understanding is that the Town Council is holding the final card as to whether it makes the allocation
decision. It cannot be withheld unreasonably. He stated that he understood the Council has decided that
it would pursue the process knowing that it could withhold the water and sewer capacity necessary for the
development which is part of why he did not want to go into a more detailed, refined planning that is
evolving to say resize these developments if the Town is concerned about the ability to provide water and
sewer. The Council still has the operating authority of whether to extend water and sewer. The Town
Council can deny the final plan, but their review decisions are then more on if the traffic impact is
mitigated or not. If the traffic study shows that the traffic would be mitigated by a signal or a turning
lane, then the decision is approval. On a matter of principal whether any member wants this development
or not, that decision making criteria is really getting narrowed. Once growth allocation is approved, its all
about operations and how to guide the development through the process to ensure this plan complies with
the Town’s laws. If it complies with the laws, it is an affirmative decision.
Miscellaneous Business/Correspondence
The July 6, 2022 work session was canceled.
Citizen Comment
• No citizens provided comments.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mr. Zuella moved to adjourn the June 15, 2022 Planning Commission meeting. Ms.
Voight seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:41 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Jean Hall
Administrative Assistant
Page 2 of 3

Action Items
• Approved the May 18, 2022 Planning Commission meeting minutes as amended.
• Approved the June 1, 2022 Planning Commission work session minutes as submitted.
Page 3 of 3