february 19 2025 planning commission packet

Exactly as extracted, unformatted — for checking against the original. The readable version is easier to read.

CENTREVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
February 19, 2024
Liberty Building - 2nd Floor
107 North Liberty Street
7:00 p.m.
A G E N D A
I. CALL TO ORDER – Kara Willis – Chair
II. Chair’s Announcements
III. Review of Minutes from Previous Meetings
a. January 15, 2025 meeting minutes
b. February 5, 2025 work session minutes
IV. Opening Statement
V. Citizen Comment (Citizens are requested to keep their comments to three minutes)
VI. Public Hearing - CANCELLED
a. Town of Centreville Comprehensive Plan: 2040 Proposed Amendments
VII. Appearances
a. Amended Final Minor Site Plan for GTI Maryland, LLC Outdoor Grow, 152 Comet Drive,
152 Comet Drive, LLC, Owner; Kevin J. Shearon, P.E., LEED AP, DMS & Associates,
LLC
b. Amended Final Site Plan for YMCA Pool Pavilion, 210 Vincit Street; Kevin J. Shearon,
P.E., LEED AP, DMS & Associates, LLC
VIII. New Business
a. Ordinance 02-2025 – Moratorium Extension – for review and recommendation to Council
IX. Old Business
a. Comprehensive Plan Amendments
X. Zoning Issues – Discussion
XI. Miscellaneous Business / Correspondence
a. Approved Building Permit list issued January 2025
XII. Citizen Comment (Citizens are requested to keep their comments to three minutes)
XIII. Council Member Report
XIV. Adjournment

From: Laura Johnson
To: Be�y Jean Hall
Subject: GTI Support
Sent: 1/16/2025 8:27:16 AM
Good Morning,
I would like to offer my support for GTI's request for expansion within the Town. Please forward my comments to the Commission and request that
they endorse the request.
Thank you,
Laura Johnson

From: Madison Jasick
To: Be�y Jean Hall
Subject: GTI
Sent: 1/15/2025 6:14:49 PM
I would like to offer my support for GTI's request for expansion within the Town. Please forward my comments to the
Commission and request that they endorse the request.
Madison Heck

From: Brenda Fornos
To: Be�y Jean Hall
Subject: Input for GTI's request
Sent: 1/16/2025 7:09:14 PM
Dear Town of Centreville,
I would like to give my input, which I hope is read and taken into consideration as I was not able to be there for the
meeting the other night as I have cancer and just got another chemo treatment and I was not feeling well.
From what I understand, GTI made an agreement with the town to reduce the smell/horrible odor of what they are making
by 50%. I can attest to the fact that this has not occurred and nothing is being done to fine or make them accountable for
this agreement. They have requested expansion and I can't imagine why this would be approved when they are in violation
of the last agreement. I hear so many people say, oh its agriculture, funny! Then why do you not see a chicken, cow or pig
farm in the middle of centreville? These have to be in land that is zoned for this and not downtown a city/town. I still can't
believe that this was approved in the place you allowed it if its considered agricultural. Please do the right thing and deny
this request and make them move to the countryside to the smells and vaporize with the chicken, cow and pig farms if this
is really agriculture. Oh, by the way, this is hurting the town in terms of people wanting to move to Centreville,
especially on this smelly side of town. All realtors can attest to this. Thank you for taking the time to read and have a
wonderful day! Don't let money be your motivating factor. Thank you for all you do for our town.
Respectfully
Brenda Fornos
QA Co & Centreville resident for 30 years.

95 South Tenth Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15203 LBA-LA.com 412.488.8822
February 5, 2025
VIA EMAIL (bjhall@townofcentreville.org)
Centerville Town Hall
c/o Betty Jean Hall, Town Clerk
101 Lawyer’s Row
Centerville, Maryland 21617
Re: Planning Commission’s Work Session on February 5, 2025 Response to TND Discussion
Dear Ms. Hall:
I am writing to you in response to the ongoing review of Centreville’s TND zoning by the Centreville Planning Commission.
Since 1980, LBA Landscape Architecture (“LBA”) has been master planning and designing new towns and neighborhoods
based on the principles of New Urbanism. We plan and design projects both nationally and internationally. We have
worked with Green Development on the Carter Farm site for several years. We have worked collaboratively with Urban
Design Associates in the Eastern Shore region on Gibson’s Grant and Easton Village from master planning though various
stages of project implementation.
The idea of the Transect is the basic core tenet of New Urbanism. We strive to apply that concept in all of our new
communities, but the reality is that each site brings its own context and dynamics on how a town’s physical framework is
realized. Topography and natural features can and should dictate street patterns. We have worked on communities that
have tight, regimented grids and others that are more organic. In both, the same core principles can be realized:
walkability, access to nature, houses fronting public streets, and shared address that give a sense of place (squares, mews,
parks, etc.). Another factor in our town designs is the ideal configuration of the open space framework. This has impact
on how we design streets and create addresses within the plan.
We note that the Transect concept typically is applied to developments that are much larger than the Carter Farm site.
Nevertheless, we believe the current proposed plan for Carter Farm expresses the Transect approach since there are a
variety of housing types and densities proposed to provide a diverse range of affordability and lifestyle and as you move
through the site from the settled town context to the buffer zone natural resource area.
Development patterns can also be impacted by the size, dimensions, proximity to natural features and configuration
of a site. This goal is to create a coherent plan that reads as a place with complete addresses. In many of our plans, this
amounts to a mix of front- and rear-loaded lots, as well as configurations in which the garage is not a prominent feature.
In particular, townhomes often lend themselves to rear-loaded lots, while courtyard homes provide a home façade that is
free of the garage presentation.
We note that front facing garage visual impact can be significantly lessened by architectural solutions, such as aligning the
facade of the garage back from the façade of main home, as well as visual screening of the garage door with trellises. We
also note that rear-loaded lots significantly increase lot coverage and impermeable area as well as restricting the usability of
the rear yard which is such an important space for the residents especially families. As such, we are concerned regarding
location restrictions on front loading residential garages within the TND district.

The best New Urbanist plans conform to each site’s constraints and opportunities. In fact, the most compelling towns
build on the organic nature of the ideal American small town—a dense core within a tight grid that transitions to more
organic and natural features. The Carter Farm site has a highly irregular perimeter due to its location along the buffer
zone and water. This restricts the ability to plan a highly regimented grid pattern on the site so the plan becomes more
organic and begins to embrace natural features and the site’s unique setting as it moves toward the buffer zone and
water features.
We have many other examples of our planned communities that we can share with you to illustrate these points. As the
Planning Commission continues its review of the TND standards, we look forward to providing further comments and
appreciate the opportunity to do so.
Sincerely,
Frederick Bonci, RLA, CLARB, ASLA

Please see comments below regarding the below document CF.
Outline of TND 170-29.1 Sections and issues to review for TND-CN-PUD updates
February 3, 2025
A) Minimum Criteria
B) Review procedures and guidelines.
1) Tentative Sketch Plan and Concept Plan Review
2) Preliminary Plat
3) Phasing
4) Growth Allocation process if needed
5) Sewer Allocation process and procedure, especially re updated Sewer Allocation Policy?
6) Ability to vary that (currently PUD Overlay), may wish to allow for it through 2 step
approval with burden of proof on applicant –PC only? Or PC first (BOA or Town
Council.
C) Permitted uses. Especially – Ag uses ; (table format)
CF – We suggest that small scale agriculture, less than 5 acres, be permitted in a TND district
to encourage the promotion of locally produced food and increased employment in the
agricultural industry.
1) Accessory uses = R-2
CF – Please provide any information as to proposed changes in the current TND
regulations relative to the above category. .
D) Special Exception Uses
E) Density and Dimensional Standards
1) Number of DU permitted
a) Min and max density
b) Secondary du s
c) Res units above retail and service units
2) Total Floor Area
3) Retail and Service Buildings
CF – Please provide any information as to proposed changes in the current TND
regulations relative to the above categories.
4) Zone of Regulations - minimum lot size, lot widths, required yards, etc. Specific
setback, lot size, lot coverage, minimum frontage, yard requirements and other bulk
standards (PUT HERE)
5) Special Regs for two family dwellings and townhouses regulated as in R-3
6) Limit # of DU in multifamily
CF – Please provide any information as to proposed changes in the current TND
regulations relative to the above categories.
1

F) General Design Requirements
1) General Design Standards
a) Mix of res dwelling types, limit of single family detached and limit on cottage
dwellings (of single family detached)
b) Minimum of three housing types: Single Family, Cottage, Two family, townhouses
and multifamily dwellings.
c) Screening/shield non res uses from residential.
CF – Please provide any information as to proposed changes in the current TND
regulations relative to the above categories.
2) Lot and Block Standards
a) Frontage
b) Abut sidewalks
c) Lot and building widths create symmetrical street cross section re public space
d) Rectilinear street layout
CF – We note that the Carter Farm site has a very irregular boundary and street
pattern adaptation to this unique site condition limits the ability to provide a highly
rectangular street pattern.
3) Variety of lot sizes to facilitate housing diversity, choice and housing needs
Circulation Standards
a) Pedestrian –
1. convenient ped circulation systems that minimize ped and motor vehicle conflicts.
2. All streets except for alleys bordered by sidewalks on all sides (per subdivision
regs)
b) Motor Vehicle
1. Minimize Conflict with Pedestrians
2. Street Hierarchy
3. Use of alleys encouraged
4. Private Streets discouraged
5. Alternative ROW and pavement widths approval
6. Alternative Subdivision improvement standards
CF – Please provide any information as to proposed changes in the current TND
regulations relative to the above categories.
4) Street Layout Standards
a) Corner Radii
b) Curb Cuts
c) Orientation of Streets
CF – Please provide any information as to proposed changes in the current TND
regulations relative to the above categories.
5) Parking
a) Adjacent on street parking
2

b) A parking lot or garage not adjacent to or opposite a street intersection
c) One off street parking space per secondary dwelling unit
d) Max number of parking spaces shall not exceed max more than 10%. Impervious
surface interlocking pavers encouraged
e) Access for service vehicles direct route and loading dock areas
f) Parking access alley, rear lane when available.
g) Ped entrances to parking lots and structures directly from a frontage line.
h) Vehicular entrance of a parking lot or garage from public street no wider than 30 feet.
i) Parking lots direct ped access to building entry points
j) Parking lots avoid dead-end aisles
k) Parking lots separated from buildings by a landscaped strip, or raised concrete
walkway or pedestrian plaza.
l) Max length of an row of parking is 10 spaces
m) Shared parking encouraged and staggering peak parking demand
n) Parking lot screening and landscaping in accordance with Development Design
Standards (Centreville’s?)
o) Fifty-five plus multifamily units 2 spaces per unit
CF – Please provide any information as to proposed changes in the current TND
regulations relative to the above categories.
H. Architectural Standards
2. Residential Garages
Except as (approved by PC consistent with Centreville Design Guidelines) front loading
and garages attached to front of the main structure are prohibited
CF – We note the following regarding the requirement that front loading garages are prohibited
or limited in a TND district.
Storm water Management: Rear accessed garages from alleyways increase impervious surface
areas. Increased impervious surfaces require more advanced systems to mitigate runoff.
Developers may need to install additional retention basins, pervious pavement, or underground
detention systems, which increase overall project costs. For example: Rear accessed garage
require storm water systems that cost 15-25% more per acre than a conventional system
…..(American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017). These costs ultimately are reflected in higher
home costs.
4
a) Pe rmitted garage access locations on a single family housing lot include:
1 . Detached rear garage accessed from a local street
2. Attached side garage accessed from the local street or alley
3. Attached rear garage, behind the house, accessed from the local street or alley
4. Encouraged Design Standards for Garages and the dwelling is not located on an
arterial, major or minor collector road may be permitted by the Planning
Commission.
3

MEMORANDUM
TO: TOWN OF CENTREVILLE FROM:
PLANNING COMMISSION Stacey Dahlstrom, AICP, Consultant Senior
Planner, EPR for Centreville
Michael Whitehill, Town Consultant, Whitehill
Consulting, LLC, Clifford (Kip) Matthews,
Town of Centreville Public Works Director
ORGANIZATION: CENTREVILLE MD DATE: FEBRUARY 13, 2025
RE: RESUBMITTED FINAL AMENDED SITE PLAN REVIEW – GTI MARYLAND, LLC,
QAC TAX MAP 44E, PARCEL 98, LOT I
 URGENT X FOR YOUR USE  PLEASE COMMENT PLEASE REPLY PLEASE
RECYCLE
Introduction
The Applicant has resubmitted the Site Plan for the expansion of the GTI Maryland, LLC outdoor
grow facility (QAC Tax Map 44 E, Parcel 98, Lot I). The applicant indicates that the site plan has
been revised based on comments made during the January 15, 2025, Planning Commission review.
This application seeks an Amended Final Site Plan for the expansion of the GTI Maryland, LLC
(parcels owned by 152 Comet Drive, LLC) to expand their outdoor grow facility. The original facility
final site plan was approved in 2021 (Centreville Planning Commission Memo dated April 19, 2021).
The applicant is seeking §170-47 Amended Final Site Plan approval, the Planning and Zoning
Commission’s role is to review and approve, conditionally approve, or reject this application.
Considerations and findings the Planning Commission should consider for final site plan review
(adopted in Ordinance 12-2024) are to be based on the following:
Ҥ170-47 E (3):
3. Where the submission of a site plan for a proposed use or development activity
is required under this section, the applicant needs to effectively demonstrate
that the following requirements are met, and the site plan shall not be approved
unless the site plan meets the design principles and standards and required
improvements set forth in this Ordinance, the Town Comprehensive Plan, the
Town of Centreville Subdivision Regulations, and other ordinances,
regulations, and policies established by the Town of Centreville;
a. The site plan meets the design principles and standards and required
improvements set forth in this Ordinance, the Town Comprehensive Plan,
1

the Town of Centreville Subdivision Regulations, and other ordinances,
regulations, and policies established by the Town of Centreville;
b. The site plan avoids or minimizes adverse impacts upon features
(whether on site or off-site) of historical, cultural, or ecological
significance.
c. The proposed use or development activity will further enhance pedestrian,
bicycle, and transit/automobile accessibility and Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility and not substantially increase traffic
hazards due to traffic generated by the proposed use, the location of curb
cuts, the layout of internal traffic circulation and its overall access to the
transportation network;
d. The site plan and the proposed use or uses do not cause any adverse
impact upon the health or safety of persons residing or working in the
area surrounding the site or upon the character of the neighborhood
surrounding the site; and
e. The site plan improves the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay
or its tributaries.”
In addition to the January 15, 2025 review by Planning Commission, Centreville TAC including
Queen Annes County (QAC) Department of Public Works (DPW) reviewed the proposed application
December 16, 2024. The applicant is working directly with Trey Porter (QAC DPW) regarding the
stormwater review comments. The applicant has included a copy of the QAC DPW submission
provided February 5, 2025.
The property is now known as Lot I (combined Lots I and K recordation receipt -December 17, 2024).
The following are additional issues that the Planning Commission and the applicant may wish to
discuss as part of the review of the resubmitted application.
Additional continued Staff Review comments:
a. Street Trees and Laser Drive Extended
TAC review noted that “…The current depiction of Laser Drive extended must be removed
from all sheets and replaced by the new Town approved cul-de-sac geometry, should the intent
remain for the need to eliminate access of Laser Drive, given the consolidation of (lots K and I)
Lot I. Lots E and L will need administrative adjustment of lot lines to reflect that new street
right of way configuration. A plan showing the proposed street tree locations should
accompany the administrative adjustment request, or the Laser Drive Design Drawings should
be amended to show them.
2

The applicant notes that “The Laser Drive right-of-way has been revised to reflect the ultimate
location once the road’s extension plat is recorded.”
• The Town has confirmed that 12 trees at the end of Laser Drive/Lot K were planted, as
noted and depicted here regarding Plant Schedule on the April 21, 2021 Planning
Commission meeting.
• Planning Commission should ask the applicant to reconsider the calculation for the tree
canopy requirement which was originally based on “A lot size of 38,816 square feet to get
to the 15%=23 trees” which was deferred by the Planning Commission as part of its Site
Plan Approval dated April 21, 2021 and further noted to be required by April 21, 2021 (Site
plan approval) or April 21, 2024 (whichever occurs first). Neither has yet occurred and
recently Lot I was combined to consist of approximately eleven acres.
The applicant is aware and wishes to discuss the outstanding 23 trees that are identified in the note
at the bottom of the clip below (April 21, 2021) and part of the July 13, 2021 Public Works
Agreement (recorded 7/16/2021) that represent the required tree canopy (§145-11 C. Planned
Business Development PBD: 30% for the development; 15% per lot).
Planning Commission minutes from April 21, 2012, provide the following: “The applicant is not
requesting an exemption to the Tree Canopy requirement of 15% but for a deferral until the
property is developed beyond the proposed agricultural use. This request does not constitute a
waiver which would require off-site planting or a fee in lieu. It is based on the limited amount of
impervious surface cover, the location outside of the public’s general view and the proposed
perimeter privacy fence. Upon application of a permanent on-site building with associated parking
the 15% tree canopy plan will be provided for the site.”
3

Excerpt from July 13, 2021, Public Works Agreement (recorded 7/16/2021):
b. Water Withdraw Records from on-site Well and Public Works Agreement (PWA)
If there is a new or amended PWA we need to add something about the lack of submitting water
withdraw records from the on-site well. This was in the first PWA, however the Town
(especially public works) has never received them. Excerpt below and PWA attached.
Please see below and attached.
“Section 2. Monitoring Plan. 152 agrees that it shall provide for monitoring of the Aquia
Aquifer production well to be located on Lot K which will provide water to the plants grown on
Lot K in accordance with the Monitoring and Sampling Plan prepared by Earth Data, Inc. dated
April 20, 2021 as described Exhibit 1. Furthermore, 152 will provide the Town a copy of the
monthly letter, as well as a copy of the Annual Report (both described on Exhibit 1) when
received by Earth Data, Inc.”
c. Follow up re Technology Odor discussions
As a follow up to discussions that the Planning Commission considered with the Applicants
related to issues regarding the technology and odor, the applicant has indicated they will
provide additional information as part of the February 21, 2024, meeting.
d. QAC DPW Review – Stormwater Compliance
The applicant provided a copy of February 5 submittal of Supplemental Stormwater
Management Report – updated to Trey Porter (QAC DPW) seeking review and approval of
stormwater compliance. As of February 11, 2025, Centreville has not heard any further.
Any recommended conditions of approval that the Commission may wish to consider, which
may arise during your final site plan review should include:
1. That the Applicant shall obtain all required local, County, State, and federal approvals
and permits and satisfy any final public works specifications and details that may be
required by the Town.
4

Issues addressed
a. Sheet C-2 Note #9 state “A new private well will be utilized for irrigation only.” Please
clarify. Will the existing well from the first existing Outdoor Grow area be used? The
current well needs to be located on this proposed site plan.
i. A second well will not be approved for this property.
The application has been updated to note the location of existing well (Sheet C-2), however as
noted above, the withdraw records for the on-site well need to be addressed and the Public
Works Agreement should be updated.
b. Sheet C-4, Phase of Construction, #1, Add Town of Centreville and phone number to be
included in the Pre-construction meeting.
Application has been updated to include the Town of Centreville and phone number in #1 under
Phase of Construction the Pre-construction meeting. (Sheet C-4).
c. Please clarify where the Stabilized Construction Entrance was added.
Sheet C-3 has been updated to note the Stabilized Construction Entrance and the note per detail
provided on Sheet C-4. (Detail B-1).
d. Please clarify where the depth and type of stone has been added for the Proposed Grow area
bedding, as noted in #5, page 2 of 3, cover letter.
Sheet C-3 is noted to include the depth and type of stone.
5

.3202/42/80
detnirP
.1202/02/70
elbaliava
etaD
.3993_85EC_ASM
,0200
.p
,8773
HBK
)sdroceR
dnaL(
TRUOC
TIUCRIC
YTNUOC
S'ENNA
NEEUQ

.3202/42/80
detnirP
.1202/02/70
elbaliava
etaD
.3993_85EC_ASM
,1200
.p
,8773
HBK
)sdroceR
dnaL(
TRUOC
TIUCRIC
YTNUOC
S'ENNA
NEEUQ

.3202/42/80
detnirP
.1202/02/70
elbaliava
etaD
.3993_85EC_ASM
,2200
.p
,8773
HBK
)sdroceR
dnaL(
TRUOC
TIUCRIC
YTNUOC
S'ENNA
NEEUQ

.3202/42/80
detnirP
.1202/02/70
elbaliava
etaD
.3993_85EC_ASM
,3200
.p
,8773
HBK
)sdroceR
dnaL(
TRUOC
TIUCRIC
YTNUOC
S'ENNA
NEEUQ

.3202/42/80
detnirP
.1202/02/70
elbaliava
etaD
.3993_85EC_ASM
,4200
.p
,8773
HBK
)sdroceR
dnaL(
TRUOC
TIUCRIC
YTNUOC
S'ENNA
NEEUQ

.3202/42/80
detnirP
.1202/02/70
elbaliava
etaD
.3993_85EC_ASM
,5200
.p
,8773
HBK
)sdroceR
dnaL(
TRUOC
TIUCRIC
YTNUOC
S'ENNA
NEEUQ

.3202/42/80
detnirP
.1202/02/70
elbaliava
etaD
.3993_85EC_ASM
,6200
.p
,8773
HBK
)sdroceR
dnaL(
TRUOC
TIUCRIC
YTNUOC
S'ENNA
NEEUQ

.3202/42/80
detnirP
.1202/02/70
elbaliava
etaD
.3993_85EC_ASM
,7200
.p
,8773
HBK
)sdroceR
dnaL(
TRUOC
TIUCRIC
YTNUOC
S'ENNA
NEEUQ

.3202/42/80
detnirP
.1202/02/70
elbaliava
etaD
.3993_85EC_ASM
,8200
.p
,8773
HBK
)sdroceR
dnaL(
TRUOC
TIUCRIC
YTNUOC
S'ENNA
NEEUQ

.3202/42/80
detnirP
.1202/02/70
elbaliava
etaD
.3993_85EC_ASM
,9200
.p
,8773
HBK
)sdroceR
dnaL(
TRUOC
TIUCRIC
YTNUOC
S'ENNA
NEEUQ

.3202/42/80
detnirP
.1202/02/70
elbaliava
etaD
.3993_85EC_ASM
,0300
.p
,8773
HBK
)sdroceR
dnaL(
TRUOC
TIUCRIC
YTNUOC
S'ENNA
NEEUQ

T.O. ROOF
19'-0" AFF
POLE BARN METAL ROOF
METAL SIDING
12'-0" CLG
METAL ROOF
9'-0" CLG
COIL
METAL SIDING METAL SIDING
DOOR
FENCE & GATE REFER TO CIVIL DWGS
BRICK BRICK
OPTION 1
T.O. ROOF
19'-0" AFF
POLE BARN METAL ROOF
12'-0" CLG
METAL ROOF
METAL SIDING
9'-0" CLG
OUTDOOR
METAL
METAL SIDING
SHOWER
SIDING
BRICK
8"CMU - PAINTED
"8-'2
TOP OF
WAINSCOT
FIN FLR
"0-'9
"0-'51
ENTRANCE ELEVATION
1
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"
POOL SIDE ELEVATION MECH SIDE ELEVATION
3 4
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0" Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"
TOP OF
ROOF STRUCT METAL ROOF TO MATCH MAIN BUILDING OVER 5"
8
CDX EXTERIOR PLYWD
SHEATHING W/
SELF-ADHERED ICE &
WATER SHIELD
PRE-ENGR WD TRUSS @ 24"OC
GUTTER & DN SPOUT
TOP OF
BEARING
5" WR GYP BD CLG W/ J TRIM &
8
CAULK PERIMETER
2X8 PT W/ 1" ANCHOR BOLTS
2
METAL SIDING TO MATCH MAIN
BUILDING OVER 7" METAL
8
FURRING @ 16" OC
105 107
SILL FLASHING TO MATCH MAIN
FAMILY RESTRM POOL MECH BUILDING
BRICK VENEER TO MATCH MAIN
BUILDING WITH TOP ROLOCK
COURSE
4" CONC SLAB ON GRADE W/ 6X6
WWF OVER 4" GRAVEL
8" CMU TURNED
CONC FTG - REFER TO
STRUCTURAL DWGS
sgniwarD
DAC\sgniwarD\erutcetihcrA\esuoH
looP
CAQ
CAMY\:Z
LANOISSEFORP :NOITACIFITREC
___
ESEHT
TAHT YFITREC
I
EREW
STNEMUCOD
YB
DEVORPPA
FO DERAPERP
YLUD
A MA
I TAHT DNA
,EM
REDNU
TCETIHCRA
DESNECIL
ESUOH
LOOP
ACMY
CAQ
FO
ETATS
EHT
FO SWAL
EHT
,DNALYRAM
12202
REBMUN
ESNECIL
DM
,ELLIVERTNEC
EVA
LLEWDIK
ELTTIL
&
TS
TICNIV
6202/91/10
ETAD
NOITARIPXE
7663.077.014
:xaf
| 1809.077.014
:eciffo
DNALYRAM
,YTNUOC
S'ENNA
NEEUQ
moc.gnehcuar.www
:bew
|
moc.gnehcuar@ngised
:liame
10612
DM
,notsaE
-
tS
nosirraH
.N
601
:eciffO
dnalyraM
ACMY
ROF
DERAPERP
Permit 1-22-25
AS SHOWN
AS SHOWN
SNOISIVER
NOITPIRCSED
ETAD
#
.VER
PAVILION ELEVATION
2
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"
DATE:
SCALE:
VR
DRAWN BY:
VR
DESIGNED BY:
APPROVED BY:
SHEET NO.:
A-200
BUILDING SECTION
5
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"
NOITCES
GNIDLIUB
&
SNOITAVELE
ROIRETXE
WALL SECTION
6
Scale: 1 1/2" = 1'-0"

(cid:0)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:12) (cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:0)(cid:0)(cid:15)(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:11)(cid:7)(cid:18)(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:7)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:25)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:0)(cid:7)(cid:0)(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:31)
(cid:22) (cid:29)(cid:24)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:2)!"#$(cid:25)(cid:28)(cid:31)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:31)(cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:28)%(cid:20)&(cid:2)’#(cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:2)!(cid:2)(cid:0)()!*+*,-(cid:3)(cid:0)(cid:21)(cid:5)./(cid:31)(cid:19)0(cid:21)1&(cid:26)(cid:24).(cid:29)-234(cid:31).5(cid:4)(cid:2)$#(cid:25)6 (cid:0)(cid:2)(cid:0)

(cid:0)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:12) (cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:0)(cid:0)(cid:15)(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:11)(cid:7)(cid:18)(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:7)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:25)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:14)(cid:7)(cid:0)(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:31)
(cid:22) (cid:29)(cid:24)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:2)!"#$(cid:25)(cid:28)(cid:31)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:31)(cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:28)%(cid:20)&(cid:2)’#(cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:2)!(cid:2)(cid:0)#()(cid:25)*#+!,(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:21)(cid:15)(cid:13)-./(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:30)(cid:0)0(cid:24)(cid:19)-(cid:15).(cid:17)(cid:24)(cid:15)(cid:11)1(cid:2)$#(cid:25)2 (cid:0)(cid:2)(cid:0)

MEMORANDUM
TO: TOWN OF CENTREVILLE FROM: STACEY DAHLSTROM, AICP
PLANNING COMMISSION SD
Consultant Senior Planner, EPR for
Centreville
ORGANIZATION: CENTREVILLE MD DATE: FEBRUARY 13, 2024
Re: Amendment to Final Site Plan for a Revised
Outdoor Pool and associated pool support
structures etc. at the Young Men’s Christian
Association of the Chesapeake, Inc. (YMCA)
 URGENT X FOR YOUR USE  PLEASE COMMENT PLEASE REPLY PLEASE
RECYCLE
Introduction
A review of the Final Site Plan for a Revised Outdoor Pool at the YMCA was part of the August 21,
2024, Planning Commission meeting. Comments were provided by Town Planner and Planning
Commission members not able to attend the meeting. The Planning Commission approved the plans
for just the pool. This submittal includes the pool pavilion building, renderings and “amended overall
site plan.”
The applicant seeks to amend the Final Approved Site Plan for the YMCA, proposing to
amend/expand the configuration of the proposed outdoor pool (originally identified as Phase 2). The
modification to the pool was approved to be larger in order to accommodate a wider array of users.
At the time of the August 21, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, the plans for the previously
anticipated pool support/maintenance building to include an open-air pavilion, a bathroom facility
and a reception area for check in) were not yet complete.
Outstanding Issues for discussion
At a minimum, the following issues raised/identified regarding the overall final site plan and the
updated submission providing information about the pool pavilion are outstanding that the Planning
Commission should discuss with the applicant.
1. The pool 3D images provided in the application show several permanent or semi permanent
pool recreational features, tube slide (in the NW Corner) and 2-3 recreational fountain like
items in the shallow end. Having those incorporated into the renderings that include the
1

existing and proposed structures will help best understand how it will fit together and any
visual harmony that can be obtained. Additionally, it may assist in understanding if
additional landscape buffering may be desired and how the buffering shown/included in the
renderings of the pool pavilion facility (not currently identified on the site plan) may assist.
2. Renderings for the QAC Pool house provided in this package have some good features
shown/included that are not on the site plan (nice fence, landscaping buffer etc.) The site
plan should be updated to include these items and the overall renderings for the entire
project should consider the pool water features, including the slide shown on the site plan in
context to the screening/buffering.
3. Noting several Queen Anne’s County (QAC) Stormwater Management comments that
considered the original pool concept, supplemental information has been provided by the
applicant to QAC. A letter from QAC DPW may be available before the meeting.
4. Lot Coverage – Impervious Surface Coverage on the site with the proposed site plan
amendment is noted to be almost 30%, it appears the original approved site plan was
approximately twenty six percent. This is just a reminder that during the August 21, 2024
meeting it was noted that any future pickle ball courts that may be planned will be pervious
surface. Additionally, it will be the applicants responsibility to demonstrate how those and
any as of yet unnamed improvements might be accommodated and planned for regarding lot
coverage, pervious/impervious surface changes and overall harmony with existing
development.
5. Regarding the Bathroom facility, this application has been reviewed by the Centreville
Public Works Department, which provides the following information about Equivalent
Dwelling Unit (EDU) requirements:
• Allocations required just for the addition of this pool and bath house.
• EDUs for this is calculated by the Bather Load, (Number of people this size pool
services)
• 568 Bathers X 10 gpd = 5680 gpd
• 5680 gpd divided 200 gal. (1 EDU) = 28.4 EDUs
• 28 EDUs required
6. Several Site Plan review items appear to be missing from the submission, including as
previously noted: Building materials, lighting location schematics, Total SF of bathrooms,
Landscaping/Tree Canopy, etc.
7. Planning Commission written comments provided and discussed during the August 21, 2024,
meeting “…Pool.
o I am concerned about light and noise pollution stemming from a larger pool
footprint, with no indication for protection of the residences on Little Kidwell,
Bristol, and Green. Suggest increased number of trees planted, noise buffers on the
fences. Increase visual harmony with historic Providence property.
2

o Unclear what the bathroom/patio will look like. Request to see those schematics.
o Pool cleaning and emptying (winter) should be restricted to sewers, not empty on
land. Land around YMCA on the south side touches the Mill Stream Branch.
o Traffic on Vincit Street is already terrible. There is limited visibility when vehicles
are parked and block the view.”
8. The site plan review requirements (checklist provided in the attachment) should be
considered in case there is additional information or items that should be asked of the
applicant for your best consideration of this site plan amendment.
Planning Commission Considerations and Findings
As provided in Section 170-47D, the Planning and Zoning Commission’s role is to review and
approve, conditionally approve, or reject an amended site plan.
Considerations and findings the Planning Commission should consider for final site plan review
(adopted in Ordinance 12-2024) are to be based on the following:
Ҥ170-47 E (3):
3. Where the submission of a site plan for a proposed use or development activity
is required under this section, the applicant needs to effectively demonstrate
that the following requirements are met, and the site plan shall not be approved
unless the site plan meets the design principles and standards and required
improvements set forth in this Ordinance, the Town Comprehensive Plan, the
Town of Centreville Subdivision Regulations, and other ordinances,
regulations, and policies established by the Town of Centreville;
a. The site plan meets the design principles and standards and required
improvements set forth in this Ordinance, the Town Comprehensive Plan,
the Town of Centreville Subdivision Regulations, and other ordinances,
regulations, and policies established by the Town of Centreville;
b. The site plan avoids or minimizes adverse impacts upon features
(whether on site or off-site) of historical, cultural, or ecological
significance;
c. The proposed use or development activity will further enhance pedestrian,
bicycle, and transit/automobile accessibility and Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility and not substantially increase traffic
hazards due to traffic generated by the proposed use, the location of curb
cuts, the layout of internal traffic circulation and its overall access to the
transportation network;
d. The site plan and the proposed use or uses do not cause any adverse
3

impact upon the health or safety of persons residing or working in the
area surrounding the site or upon the character of the neighborhood
surrounding the site; and
e. The site plan improves the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay
or its tributaries.”
Background and Planning Commission Minutes
Future Land Use (FLU) and Zoning: Institutional (FLU) and General Commercial C-2 (Zoning)
As you may recall, this area is NOT in the critical area.
This application was not reviewed by the Town of Centreville Technical Advisory Committee, but
was subsequently provided to them. Additionally, since this is an amendment to an approved site
plan, the items required for site plan approval are required to be able to best ascertain the impacts if
any of the proposed changes.
For your convenience Site Plan Review Checklist – Overview (170-47) is provided at the conclusion
of this memo. In addition to the comments provided below, some additional items for clarification
have been noted in the Checklist that the Planning Commission should consider.
Previously approved site plan and Planning Commission action item
August 21, 2024 Centreville Planning Commission Minutes
“…Amended Final Site Plan - YMCA Outdoor pool and support building - 210 Vincit
Street
• Mr. Brandon Davis, DMS & Associates, Civil Engineer; Mr. Gill, YMCA
of the Chesapeake, and Mr. Hagerman, KRM Development, were in
attendance for the applicant.
• The pool will be closed at dusk. There will be state regulated safety lighting after
dusk.
• The parking lot will be illuminated with downlighting the same as in the front
parking lot.
• The fencing would be steel industrial commercial grade to the state regulated
height.
• The State of Maryland has not provided the applicant with the number of
bathrooms required in the associated pool building.
• The pool water is drained into the sewer system, not onto the property.
• If and when pickleball courts are built on the site they will have to be constructed
on pervious surface.
• Ms. Willis and Mr. Delaney provided written comments prior to the meeting.
4

• Ms. Emerson moved to approve the plans for just the pool and look forward to seeing
the plans for the pavilion. Mr. Zuella seconded the motion, which passed
unanimously.
Phase 2 area on Site Plan Planning Commission Reviewed and approved April 21, 2021
April 21, 2021 Centreville Planning Commission Minutes
“ Approved the Final Site Plan, YMCA, 210 Vincit Street, with the Planning Commission
allowing relief of 170-32(B)(2) & (3) – Parking Requirements being to the side and rear of
building to allow for front of building parking, and relief of parking space requirements as
presented on Final Site Plan. Additional conditions of approval being: 1. PWA to provide
completion of Little Kidwell during phase 1 on site development. 2. Removal of Right of Way
at Green Street stub and replace with a continuation of the buffer yard.”
5

Site Plan Review Checklist Attachment
Amendment to Final Site Plan for a Revised Outdoor Pool and associated pool support
structures etc. at the Young Men’s Christian Association of the Chesapeake, Inc. (YMCA)
Additional Consideration
The Planning Commission may wish to review the items provided to ensure that enough
information is included to be able to address site plan review requirements for the proposed site
plan amendment and request additional information as appropriate.
Site Plan Review Checklist – Overview – at a minimum the items highlighted in light blue still
need to be addressed:
170-47 Site Plans (organized re procedural first (D) and Information to be included (C)
D. Procedural items
1. Site plans shall be prepared and certified by an
engineer, architect, landscape architect, or land
surveyor duly registered to practice in the State of
Maryland or equivalent certification.
2. All site plans shall clearly show the information
required by this section.
3. If such plans are prepared in more than one sheet,
match lines shall clearly indicate where the several
sheets join, and an index sheet shall be required.
4. Every site plan shall show the name and address of
the owner and developer, the election district, North
point, date, scale of the drawing, and the number of
sheets.
At least Five clearly legible copies submitted to Centreville
Planning and Zoning Commission
C. Information required to be included in the site plan.
1. An area or vicinity map at a scale of not smaller
than one-inch equals 2,000 feet and showing such
information as the names and numbers of adjoining
roads, streams, bodies of water, railroads,
subdivisions, election districts, or other landmarks
sufficient to clearly identify the location of the
property.
2. A boundary survey plat of the entire site at a
scale not smaller than one inch equals 100 feet
unless otherwise specified by the Planning and
Zoning Commission showing the following:
1

a. Existing topography at two- or five-foot contour intervals.
b. Slopes in excess of 15% (CA only). NA – Not CA
c. Existing and proposed regraded surface of the land.
d. Location of natural features such as streams, major
ravines, drainage patterns, within the area to be disturbed
by construction and the location of trees measuring
greater than 12 inches in diameter to be retained.
e. Floodplain boundaries (one-hundred-year).
f. Location and areal extent of all soils with septic NA – Not CA
limitations; wet soils; hydric soils; and soils with hydric
properties as shown on the County Soil Survey (CA
only).
3. A detailed drawing showing:
a. Location, proposed use, and height of all buildings
(delineate all existing buildings and structures);
b. Location of all parking and loading areas with ingress and
egress drives thereto;
c. Location of outdoor storage (if any);
d. Location and type of recreational facilities (if any);
e. Location of all existing or proposed site improvements,
including storm drains, culverts, retaining walls, fences,
stormwater management facilities as well as any sediment
and erosion control structures (information on shore
erosion shall include the existing shoreline management
designation as shown on the Town of Centreville Critical
Area Program Map, existing structures, their condition,
and areas for proposed structural and nonstructural
controls, shown on the boundary survey plat, at a scale of
at least one inch equals 100 feet);
f Description, method, and location of water supply and
sewerage disposal facilities;
g Location, size, and type of all signs;
h The location, size, and type of vehicular entrances to the
site;
i The location of the Critical Area District boundary, the NA – Not CA
Buffer and other Buffer areas, open space areas, and
forested areas;
j The location of all Habitat Protection Areas (CA only); NA – Not CA
k. The location of all contiguous forested areas adjacent to NA – Not CA
the site that are linked to forested areas on the
development site, i.e., hedgerows, forest patches or other
wildlife corridors (CA only);
2

L The location of agricultural fields, barren lands, pasture,
etc.
M The location of tidal and nontidal wetlands on the site;
N The location of existing water-dependent facilities on and NA – Not CA
adjacent to the site, including the number of existing slips
and moorings on the site (CA only);
O The location and extent of existing and/or proposed
erosion abatement approaches;
P The location of anadromous fish spawning stream(s) on or NA – Not CA
adjacent to the site and a delineation of the watershed area
of the stream on the site (CA only); and
q A detailed drawing locating shore erosion abatement NA – Not CA
techniques to the included with the site plan (CA only).
r Elevations, which indicate the exterior appearance and Requested 8 14 24
materials to be used in each structure within the site plan.
[Added 4-5-2007 by Ord. No. 1-07]
4. Computations of:
a Total lot area;
b Building floor area for each type of proposed use;
c Building coverage in percentage;
d Road area;
e Number and area of off-street parking and loading
spaces;
f Total site area in the Critical Area District (CA only); NA – Not CA
g Total man-caused impervious surfaces areas and the
percentage of site these occupy;
h Separate computations of the total acres of existing forest NA – Not CA
cover in the Buffer and in the Critical Area (CA only);
i Proposed agricultural open space areas;
j Proposed forest open space areas; and
k Total area of the site that will be temporarily disturbed
during development and the total area that will be
permanently disturbed. "Disturbed" is defined as any
activity occurring on an area which may result in the
permanent loss of or damage to existing natural vegetation
(CA only).
5. Commercial or industrial uses must include:
a. Specific uses proposed;
b. Maximum number of employees for which buildings are
designed;
c. Type of energy to be used for any manufacturing
processes;
d. Type of wastes or by-products to be produced by any
manufacturing process;
e. Proposed method of disposal of such wastes or by-
products; and
f. Location of outdoor lighting facilities.
6. In addition to the information above, site plans shall be accompanied by the following:
3

a. A Forest Management Plan including the comments of the NA – Not CA
Bay Watershed Forester (CA only);
b. A Habitat Protection Plan including the comments of the NA – Not CA
Maryland Forest, Park and Wildlife Service (CA only);
c. An executed cooperator's agreement with the Soil NA – Not CA
Conservation District or Farm Plan, as applicable (CA
only);
d. A Stormwater Management Plan;
e. A Sediment and Erosion Control Plan;
f A Planting Plan, as required; and
g An Environmental Assessment Report which provides a coherent statement of how the proposed
development addresses the goals and objectives of the Centreville Critical Area Program (CA only). At a
minimum the environmental assessment shall include:
(1) A statement of existing conditions, e.g., the amount NA – Not CA
and types of forest cover, the amount and type of
wetlands, a discussion of existing agricultural activities on
the site, the soil types, the topography, etc;
(2) A discussion of the proposed development project, NA – Not CA
including number and type of residential units, amount of
impervious surfaces, proposed sewer treatment and water
supply, acreage devoted to development, proposed open
space and habitat protection areas;
(3) A discussion of the proposed development's impacts NA – Not CA
on water quality and Habitat Protection Areas; and
(4) Documentation of all correspondence and findings. NA – Not CA
7. Other information as requested by the Town.
4

TOWN COUNCIL OF CENTREVILLE
ORDINANCE 02-2025
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF CENTREVILLE EXTENDING
THE TEMPORARY MORATORIUM FOR AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF SIX
(6) MONTHS ON THE APPLICATION FOR, APPROVAL OF, CONSTRUCTION
OF, EXPANSION OF, PROCESSING OF, OR ISSUANCE OF BUILDING
PERMITS FOR ANY SUBDIVISION, SITE PLAN, OR BUILDING PERMIT
APPLICATION FOR ANY RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED-USE PROJECT WHERE
THE ANTICIPATED EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS (EDUS) EXCEED
SEVEN (7) EDUS FOR THE TOTAL PROJECT PENDING CONSIDERATION
AND ADOPTION OF REVISED ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS AS THE
TOWN COUNCIL MAY CONSIDER ADVISABLE AND TO ADOPT AN
UPDATED CAPACITY MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SEWER ALLOCATION
POLICY
WHEREAS, the Town Council of Centreville has the authority under Section 5-213 of the Local
Government Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland, to enact and administer a zoning
ordinance, which is Chapter 170 of the Centreville Town Code;
WHEREAS, Section 4-102(6) of the Land Use Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland
authorizes the Town Council of Centreville to develop and adopt zoning restrictions to promote
the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community, including the location and use of
buildings, signs and structures on the land;
WHEREAS, by Ordinance 08-2024 effective October 9, 2024, the Town Council of Centreville
enacted a six (6) month moratorium on the application for, approval or, construction of,
expansion of, processing of, or issuance of building permits for any subdivision, site plan, or
building permit application for any residential or mixed-use project where the anticipated
equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) exceed seven (7) EDUs for the total project pending
consideration and adoption of revised zoning ordinance provisions as the Town Council may
consider advisable and to adopt an updated capacity management plan and sewer allocation
policy;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has been diligently working on the zoning changes but
needs additional time to finalize their recommendation, and the Town Council then needs the
time to have the required public hearing and adopt a zoning text amendment and have the
ordinance become effective;
WHEREAS, the Town Council of Centreville wishes to extend the moratorium for an additional
six (6) months in order to receive and consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission
and adopt a zoning text amendment; and

WHEREAS, the Centreville Planning and Zoning Commission considered the matter at its
_____________ 2025 meeting and has recommended that the Town Council approve this
Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of Centreville:
Section 1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein by reference and made a part of
this Ordinance.
Section 2. The moratorium on the application for, consideration of, approval of, construction of,
expansion of, processing of, or issuance of permits for any subdivision, site plan, or building permit
application for residential and mixed-use projects where the anticipated equivalent dwelling units
(EDUs) exceed seven (7) EDUs, is hereby extended for a period of an additional six (6) months.
Section 3. During the moratorium, the Town (including the Town Planner’s office, the Building
Department, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Appeals, the Town staff, and the
Town Council) shall not process, consider, review, or approve any application, permit, or other
approval under the Town Zoning Ordinance for any subdivision, site plan, or building permit
application for a residential or mixed-use project where the anticipated EDUs exceed seven (7)
EDUs.
Section 4. The moratorium shall apply to applications currently pending before the Town, as well
as, applications filed after the effective date of this Ordinance. However, it does not apply to any
application as of the effective date of this Ordinance that has received subdivision approval, site
plan approval, and/or a building permit and which has already been approved for allocations by
the Town Council.
Section 5. This moratorium is adopted to allow sufficient time for the Town to accomplish the
following:
a. Receive public input, specifically to have the Planning Commission review
this issue and provide recommendations;
b. Consider any revisions to the Zoning Ordinance;
c. Update the Capacity Management Plan and Sewer Allocation Policy; and
d. Consider all such other matters as the Town Council, Planning and Zoning
Commission, and Town staff deem appropriate.
Section 6. The Town Council shall have and reserves the right to extend or modify this
moratorium for such additional period or periods and on such terms and conditions as it deems
necessary for the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Town of Centreville.
Section 7. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or of the codes
hereby adopted are, for any reason, held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or those codes.
Section 8. This Ordinance shall become effective twenty (20) days after its enactment.

ATTEST: THE TOWN COUNCIL OF CENTREVILLE
____________________________________
R. Gaye Adams Ashley Heffernan Kaiser, Esq., President
Town Clerk
_____________________________________
First Reading: Jeffrey D. Kiel, Vice President
Second Reading:
Enacted:
Effective: _____________________________________
Daniel B. Worth, Member
_____________________________________
Jim A. Beauchamp, Member
______________________________________
Sandra Lee Huffer, Member

Attachment A
Amendments
Centreville Comprehensive Plan: 2040

To ensure that proposed land use changes meet this definition, this Plan recommends that all major
proposals proceed through a deliberative process during which the benefits that are delivered to the Town
are investigated and established. The Town is receptive to allowing flexibility where needed to achieve
quality and competent community design, but where individual proposals fail to meaningfully advance
the Town’s development (as defined above), they will not comply with this Plan and should not be
approved.
Through 2040, Map 4 and the supporting text of this chapter are to be used to guide the location, type,
intensity, and character of development and redevelopment. This means the Planning Commission will
evaluate new land development proposals in light of this Plan.
Objectives
The main goal of the land use plan is that Centreville develops as a healthy, prosperous, and beautiful
town with a continual improvement in the quality of life for its residents and the vitality of its businesses.
The supporting objectives are as follows:
 To create a network of open spaces and resource conservation lands which will secure important
environmental functions, form the basis of a town wide recreational asset, and promote
community health, vitality, and scenic beauty.
 To guide future neighborhoods into patterns that encourage an intergenerational community,
which features a variety of housing types instead of neighborhoods separated by age or income.
 To foster an economically vibrant downtown, preserve its historic elements, promote residential
uses in and near downtown and link downtown to other parts of the Town with an efficient system
of streets, walkways, community open space, and public utilities.
 To foster continual real estate investment, the redevelopment of vacant or underutilized
properties, and the redevelopment or improvement of properties that do not contribute to the
Town’s overall wellbeing.
Future Land Use Map
Map 4 shows the 2040 future land use plan. Each of the major use categories within the Town’s current
boundaries are described below. Map 4 also shows the more generalized land use plan for the Growth
Area, which is discussed in more detail in Chapter III, Municipal Growth.
Complete Neighborhoods
Areas planned for Complete Neighborhoods identified on the Future Land Use Map (Map 4) which are
tracts of 10 acres or more in size with a mix of housing types (single-family detached, duplexes tri-plexes,
attached house and apartment buildings and supporting non-residential uses like Institutions parks, open
spaces and limited commercial buildings. These areas are both infill tracts and growth areas and will be
developed as master planned communities consistent with Complete Neighborhood objectives in this plan
(e.g. pages 22, 35, and 38 etc.) and achieve an overall density of at least 3.5 units per acre.
34

ISSUED BUILDING PERMITS
January 1 - 31, 2025
Permit # Applicant Owner Address Type Issue Date*
BP-1-25 Vince Clark Vince Clark 124 Spring Street Demolition 1/13/2025
BP-2-25 Solar Energy Susan McGreevy-Nichols 247 Concerto Avenue Solar Panels 1/13/2025
BP-3-25 Everything Outdoors Kelly Phipps 202 S Commerce Street Screened Porch 1/22/2025
BP-4-25 TL Fence LLC Amy Griffith 209 Northbrook Drive Fence 1/24/2025
BP-5-25 Lins Construction Janet Dean 103 Hope Road Roof Replacement 1/24/2025
BP-6-25 Economy Restoration Jason Nickle 130 Granard Avenue Roof Replacement 1/24/2025
BP-7-25 Great Day Improvements LLC Melissa Marlett & Amy Griffith 209 North Brook Drive Addition/Sunroom 1/24/2025
* based on the approval date by Zoning Administrator