january 21 2026 planning commission packet

Centreville Planning Commission December 17, 2025 7:00 p.m.

MINUTES

The December 17, 2025 Centreville Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Kara Willis, Chair;

in the Liberty Building, second floor meeting room. The following members and staff were present: Kara Willis, Chair;

Tim Zuella, Vice Chair; Nancy Emerick, Secretary; Pat Fox, Kyle Farabaugh, Mitchell Delaney, Dan Worth, Members;

Tim McCluskey, Alternate Member; Peter Flint, Zoning Administrator; Sharon VanEmburgh, Town Attorney; Pegeen McGlathery, Administrative Assistant.

Also in attendance: Sandy Huffer, Town Council Liaison.

Chair’s Announcements

• Chair Willis announced the swearing-in of Dan Worth as a Planning Commission member to complete an existing

term expiring April 2026. Alternate member Tim McCluskey was also present (previously sworn in).

• The agenda order was adjusted to place the swearing-in near the beginning of the meeting.

• Upcoming Town Council meetings were noted as January 8 and January 22, 2026. Planning Commission

meetings include a work session on January 7, 2026, and a regular meeting on January 21, 2026.

Review of Minutes from Previous Meetings Motion and Vote:

• Motion: Chair Willis moved to approve the November 19, 2025 regular meeting minutes, as amended.

• Second: Tim Zuella.

• Vote: Unanimous (ayes); no opposed; no abstentions.

Opening Statement

• Audio recordings of Planning Commission meetings are available upon request by contacting Town Hall.

Citizen Comment

• There was no citizen comments were offered.

New Business

• Swearing-In of Planning Commission Member

Dan Worth was sworn in by Sandy Huffer as a Planning Commission member to complete an existing term expiring April 2026.

Page 1 of 4 Old Business a. Advance Auto Parts Building – Informal Design Checkpoint (No Action Taken) Applicant representative Ryan Showalter presented an updated building design concept for the Advance Auto Parts building. The Commission understood that no formal action would be taken, and that the discussion was intended to provide informal feedback prior to a January submission.

• Mr. Showalter described revisions to better align the building with the shopping center’s architectural character,

including a brick water table, painted masonry exterior using colors consistent with other buildings, and a metal cornice treatment.

• The parapet design was revised to wrap all four sides to create a consistent flat-roof appearance; equipment

screening was discussed for rooftop elements exceeding parapet height.

• A cantilevered awning was added to provide entrance cover consistent with design guidelines.

• Non-operable, glass-appearing window treatments were proposed on non-primary elevations.

Commission feedback (informal):

• Commissioners generally agreed the revisions represented a substantial improvement and were consistent with

prior feedback.

• The Commission requested that any necessary access opening for equipment screening be located to minimize

visibility from MD-213 and primary public views, with a preference for a solid appearance where feasible.

• The Commission advised that signage be omitted from elevation drawings submitted for design review; sign

bands may remain depicted, but sign copy should be removed.

• Mr. Showalter noted that an updated photometric plan, including revised wall-mounted lighting locations, would

be submitted with the formal January application.

b. Proposed Zoning Text Amendment – Shopping Center Signage (Design Standards and Exhibit Updates) Town Attorney Sharon VanEmburgh reviewed targeted revisions to the proposed sign ordinance materials. The Commission focused on clarifying language and identifying example images that should be removed or replaced prior to Town Council consideration.

Key discussion items and direction:

• Clarification of provisions related to continued compliance with sign type and size limits; terminology

adjustments (e.g., “anchor stores” versus “anchor tenants”); and language addressing single supporting elements for freestanding signs.

• Freestanding sign bases: Direction was given to revise language to clearly require high-quality, complementary

materials consistent with primary structures, while treating listed materials as illustrative examples rather than mandatory combinations.

• Images/examples: Several example images were identified for removal due to confusion or poor representation;

future updates should prioritize clearer, locally relevant examples.

• Terminology: Direction was given to standardize usage of “projecting sign” for consistency with tables and

definitions.

Page 2 of 4

• Directory versus directional signs: Direction was given to remove examples that blurred distinctions between

sign types and to identify clearer directory sign examples in the future.

• Temporary/seasonal signs: The Commission directed striking language stating that temporary or seasonal signs

do not require a sign permit, to avoid conflict with zoning ordinance provisions.

Motion and Vote:

• Motion: Chair Willis moved to forward a favorable recommendation to Town Council for Ordinance 15-2025

amending Chapter 170 of the Town Code (definitions, design standards, sign charts, and related provisions), as amended during the meeting.

• Second: Pat Fox.

• Vote: Unanimous (ayes); no opposed; no abstentions.

Zoning Administrator Discussion Items (Preliminary) Zoning Administrator Peter Flint presented preliminary issues for future work-session consideration; no formal action was taken.

• Lot coverage definition: Recent changes expanded the definition to include impervious surfaces, while

percentage limits remain unchanged. Mr. Flint noted potential unintended impacts on small lots and suggested addressing the issue in conjunction with the required ADU ordinance update.

• Front-yard fences: Mr. Flint identified a discrepancy between earlier code compilations and the current

published code regarding front-yard fence prohibitions. Pending further research into legislative history, interim direction was to maintain the Town’s historical interpretation prohibiting front-yard fences. Staff will return with findings and recommendations.

Citizen Comment

• No citizen comments were offered.

Council Member Report Council liaison Sandy Huffer provided the following highlights:

• November 20, 2025: Town Council approved Resolution 12-2025 regarding water and sewer allocation policy

related to EDUs; approximately 460 EDUs are available for allocation over the next six years pending the new wastewater treatment plant.

• Council amended its Rules to formalize the process for donation requests, aligning with county procedures.

• CEDA (Centerville Economic Development Authority) is expected to be reactivated in 2026; membership and

organization are underway.

• Council approved a local governmental energy modernization grant to fund an energy audit and feasibility study

for the wastewater treatment plant; no matching funds required.

• Approval was granted to replace security doors at the Town-owned building at 105 North Liberty Street.

• A ribbon cutting was noted for a new primary care business in the shopping center.

• The Town is participating in Maryland Main Street’s “Booms Tracker” software initiative to track downtown

occupancy and vacancies.

• The Maryland Crafted event was approved for June 13, 2026.

Page 3 of 4

• A new Main Street market study will begin in January 2026, with results anticipated in May; the previous study

was conducted in 2015.

• Council reported continued monitoring of the mill building property and engagement with the owner, with a goal

of resolution in early 2026.

• A Town Council retreat is planned for February 2026 to establish priorities and review 2025 progress.

Adjournment There being no further business, Chair Willis moved to adjourn the December 17, 2025 Planning Commission meeting.

The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Zuella, and the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.

Action Items

• Minutes Approval: November 19, 2025 meeting minutes approved as amended (Moved by Chair Willis;

Seconded by Tim Zuella; Unanimous ayes).

• Advance Auto Parts: Applicant to revise building elevations as discussed and submit a complete

lighting/photometric plan with the January application.

• Shopping Center Signage Ordinance: Staff to incorporate amendments discussed and forward the ordinance to

Town Council for January consideration.

• Zoning Issues: Staff to research lot coverage impacts and front-yard fence regulations and report back at a future

work session.

• January Meetings: Work session scheduled for January 7; regular meeting scheduled for January 21.

Respectfully submitted, Pegeen McGlathery Administrative Assistant Page 4 of 4 Centreville Planning Commission

WORK SESSION

January 7, 2026 7:00 p.m.

MINUTES

The January 7, 2026 Centreville Planning Commission Work Session was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Kara Willis, Chair; at the Centreville Wharf, first floor meeting room. The following members and staff were present: Kara Willis, Chair; Tim Zuella, Vice Chair; Nancy Emerick, Secretary; Pat Fox, Kyle Farabaugh, Mitchell Delaney, Dan Worth, Members; Tim McCluskey, Alternate Member; Carolyn Brinkley, Town Manager; Peter Flint, Zoning Administrator;

Sharon VanEmburgh, Town Attorney; Pegeen McGlathery, Administrative Assistant.

Also in attendance: Sandy Huffer, Town Council Liaison.

Citizen Comment

• No citizen comments were offered.

Agenda Review and Work Program Overview

• Staff outlined the purpose of the work session as a high-level review of upcoming planning and zoning topics.

The goal was to identify issues, establish priorities, and map out a work plan rather than engage in detailed policy drafting. A preliminary schedule was discussed to guide work sessions and future Planning Commission and Town Council actions.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) The Commission discussed the required update to the zoning code to comply with state ADU legislation, with a statutory deadline of October 1, 2026. Key points included:

• The need to update definitions and potentially relocate ADU provisions within the code for clarity and

consistency.

• Consideration of whether ADUs should remain subject to special exception approval or be reclassified while

retaining uniform standards.

• Setback requirements must be consistent with those for other accessory structures.

• Parking requirements may require justification through a parking study if additional parking is to be required for

ADUs.

• EDU allocations and their interaction with infill development limits were identified as a potential concern,

particularly given the limited number of annual infill allocations.

• ADUs are excluded from density calculations under current special exception standards, which aligns with state

requirements.

A future work session was scheduled to focus more deeply on ADUs, with additional public input anticipated before final recommendations are forwarded.

Page 1 of 4 Parking Study Considerations

• The Commission discussed the value of conducting a parking study, both to support ADU regulations and as a

broader planning tool. A town-wide GIS-based analysis was identified as a potential cost-effective approach.

Members noted that the Comprehensive Plan recommends periodic parking studies and suggested this may be an appropriate time to revisit that recommendation.

Critical Area Comprehensive Review Staff provided an overview of the upcoming 10-year Critical Area review. Early coordination with the Critical Area Commission has begun, and no immediate compliance risks were identified. Discussion emphasized:

• The importance of continued coordination and communication with the Critical Area Commission.

• Opportunities to review optional code provisions and determine which may benefit the Town.

• The intention to bring the Critical Area Commission before the Planning Commission later in the year for a

presentation and discussion.

This item remains primarily a staff-led effort at this stage, with Planning Commission involvement anticipated later in the process.

Schedule of Zone Regulations The Commission discussed updating the zoning regulation tables that govern lot coverage, setbacks, density, and related standards. Topics included:

• The potential introduction of minimum standards (e.g., minimum density or building height) in certain districts.

• Ensuring consistency between adopted ordinances and the zoning tables currently reflected in the code.

• Revisions related to lot coverage definitions and consideration of additional metrics such as floor-area ratios.

Staff noted the need to verify and update existing tables to reflect prior legislative actions.

Fence Ordinance The Commission revisited issues related to the fence ordinance, including:

• Clarifying intent and correcting deletions from prior code amendments.

• Addressing fence height limitations and measurement standards.

• Considering flexibility for atypical lot configurations, such as deep lots or safety-related needs.

• Ensuring consistent and clear language regarding how fence height is measured relative to grade.

This topic was identified as a relatively discrete amendment suitable for near-term action.

Zoning Map Updates Potential zoning map updates identified in the Comprehensive Plan were discussed. Much of the analytical work has already been completed, with remaining steps focused on drafting updated maps, establishing notification procedures, and advancing the changes through the legislative process.

Page 2 of 4 Site Plan Review and Subdivision Process The Commission discussed modernizing and clarifying the site plan and subdivision review process, including:

• Improving workflow, submission requirements, and public-facing guidance.

• Clarifying expectations around concept review versus final review.

• Addressing inconsistencies between code language and current practice.

• Enhancing staff discretion to manage agendas and ensure applications are complete before Commission review.

This effort was identified as a significant but necessary process improvement, potentially requiring reprioritization within the work program.

Schedule of Zone Uses (Use Table) The creation of a comprehensive use table was discussed as a major code modernization effort. Benefits include:

• Consolidating permitted uses and special exceptions across all zoning districts into a single reference table.

• Improving clarity for applicants, staff, and decision-makers.

• Revealing unintended consequences or inconsistencies in existing zoning provisions.

• Providing a framework for implementing Comprehensive Plan recommendations.

This effort was acknowledged as multi-phase and likely to extend into 2027.

Alleys and Design Standards The Commission discussed standards for alleys in new development, emphasizing that:

• Any new alleys should be constructed to appropriate standards.

• Maintenance responsibilities should remain private rather than being assumed by the Town.

• These requirements may be addressed through design standards or public works agreements.

Palette Regulating Plans and Informal Review Members expressed support for earlier, informal discussion of subjective design elements such as materials and colors, prior to formal action. Integrating these discussions into the development review process was seen as a way to improve outcomes and reduce delays at final approval stages.

Additional Topics Additional issues discussed included animal-related use definitions, solar energy regulations in light of recent state legislation, and long-term planning implications for large-scale development proposals and EDU capacity.

Page 3 of 4 Next Steps The Commission discussed adjusting the proposed work schedule to prioritize items with more immediate development implications. Staff will revise the schedule accordingly and bring updated timelines to future meetings.

Citizen Comment

• No citizen comments were offered.

Council Member Report Ms. Huffer reported that no Town Council meetings were held since the previous Planning Commission meeting due to the holidays. She noted that upcoming Council agendas will include items of interest to the Planning Commission, including a solar ordinance related to recent state legislation, which will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for future review.

Adjournment The work session was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, Pegeen McGlathery Administrative Assistant Page 4 of 4

THE TOWN OF CENTREVILLE 101 LAWYERS ROW CENTREVILLE, MD 21617

410-758-1180 FAX 410-758-4741 WWW.TOWNOFCENTREVILLE.ORG

MEMORANDUM

To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Peter Flint, Zoning Administrator Date: 12/18/2025 Subject: Special Exception Request – Short Term Rental (SE-01-26) – 202 S. Liberty Street I. Purpose and Project Description The applicant requests a Special Exception to operate a short-term rental within an existing single-family dwelling located at 202 S. Liberty Street in the R-2 Residential District. The

Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to review the zoning considerations associated with the request and forward a recommendation to the Board of Appeals.

The applicant proposes to continue residing in the home and to make additional bedrooms available for short-term rental. The applicant has stated that rooms will not be rented individually and that the dwelling will be rented to one booking party at a time.

This memorandum summarizes the applicable zoning standards, site and operational characteristics, and staff’s findings related to the special exception request.

II. Applicable Zoning Standards Short-term rentals are permitted in the R-2 District by Special Exception per §170-20.C(6).

In addition to the general Special Exception criteria, Use and Development Standards applicable to boardinghouses, bed-and-breakfasts, and short-term rentals require that the use:

• Be inspected and approved by the Fire Marshal for the specified use;

• Comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws;

• Operate under a valid short-term rental zoning certificate prior to operation;

• Provide off-street parking in accordance with §170-32;

• Not involve alterations that change the essential residential character of the

property or district; and

• Comply with applicable signage regulations.

The Board of Appeals must also determine that the proposed use will not adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare, will not create dangerous traffic conditions, and will not jeopardize the lives or property of nearby residents.

III. Site Conditions and Operational Characteristics The subject property is a developed residential lot with approximately 132 feet of frontage along S. Liberty Street. The property is improved with a single-family dwelling and an existing driveway approximately 12 feet wide and 90 feet long.

The driveway is accessed by a shared curb cut with the adjacent property to the northeast.

This configuration is a lawfully existing condition and no changes are proposed.

Operationally, the applicant has represented that:

• The owner will reside onsite;

• The dwelling will be rented to a single booking party at a time; and

• Individual rooms will not be rented to separate guests simultaneously.

IV. Parking and Traffic Evaluation The zoning ordinance requires short-term rentals to provide off-street parking in accordance with §170-32, but does not establish a specific numeric parking requirement for this use.

Based on the applicant’s planned single-booking operation model, the Zoning Administrator has determined that the anticipated parking demand is consistent with that of a typical 3- plus bedroom single-family dwelling.

The existing driveway provides sufficient depth to accommodate multiple vehicles in tandem without obstructing the sidewalk or public right-of-way. Additionally, the property’s frontage along S. Liberty Street provides available on-street parking if needed.

Given the expected occupancy and parking demand, staff finds that the proposal satisfies the off-street parking requirement and is not anticipated to create traffic congestion or safety concerns.

V. Staff Findings Based on review of the application, site conditions, and operations characteristics of the proposed use, staff makes the following findings:

1. The proposed short-term rental is a use authorized by Special Exception within the

R-2 District

2. The applicant’s proposal to rent the dwelling to a single booking party at any given

time maintains the residential character of the property and avoids operation as a hotel/motel or similar facility.

3. The existing driveway configuration and available on street parking are adequate to

accommodate anticipated parking demand associated with the proposed use.

4. The proposed use is not anticipated to create unsafe traffic conditions or adversely

affect public health, safety, or welfare

5. No exterior alterations or site changes are proposed to alter the residential

character of the structure or surrounding neighborhood.

VII. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the Board of Appeals for approval of Special Exception SE-01-2025 to allow a short-term rental at 202 S. Liberty Street, subject to the following conditions:

1. Single Booking Rule: The dwelling shall be advertised as a single unit and rented to

only one booking party at a time.

2. Non-Transferability: In the event of a change in property ownership, the Special

Exception shall expire automatically, and any continuation of the short-term rental use shall require a new Special Exception approval.

3. Expiration: The Special Exception shall be initiated within one year of the date of this

decision or the Special Exception shall expire.

THE TOWN OF CENTREVILLE 101 LAWYERS ROW CENTREVILLE, MD 21617

410-758-1180 FAX 410-758-4741 WWW.TOWNOFCENTREVILLE.ORG

MEMORANDUM

To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Peter Flint, Zoning Administrator Date: 12/18/2025 Subject: Variance Request – Accessory Structure Placement & Lot Coverage (V-01-26) I. Purpose and Project Description The applicant requests two variances to construct an accessory structure (shed) on a corner lot within the R-2 District. The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to review the zoning considerations and forward a recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals.

The proposed accessory structure is intended to serve the existing multi-unit dwelling and includes individual storage areas for occupants, as well as shared space for trash receptacles and larger items.

This memorandum summarizes the zoning standards, the unique constraints of the property, and staff’s findings supporting the requested variances.

II. Yard Determination and Applicable Standards Apparent Front Yard (Primary Frontage)

Chapter 170

defines the “apparent front yard” as the frontage associated with the lot’s assigned postal address. The subject property’s address range is assigned to Price Street, which therefore must be treated as the primary 25-foot front yard.

• Price Street → 25-foot full-depth front yard (primary frontage)

• Tilghman Avenue → 12.5-foot half-depth front yard (secondary frontage)

• Easterly property line → interior side yard

• Remaining yard → rear yard

III. Accessory Structure Placement Requirement (§170-39) §170-39 establishes the following requirements for detached accessory structures:

1. They must be located between the rear lot line and the closest point of the rear wall of

the principal building.

2. They must be located outside all required front yards.

3. They must maintain minimum 3-foot setbacks from side and rear lot lines for structures

under 12 feet in height.

Rear Wall Constraint The rear wall of the existing multi-unit dwelling is approximately 7 feet from the rear lot line. Because an accessory structure must maintain at least a three-foot rear setback, strict application of §170-39 limits potential shed placement to a narrow four-foot-wide band between seven feet and three feet from the rear lot line. This area is insufficient to accommodate a functional accessory structure.

IV. Revised Shed Location The applicant initially submitted a conceptual sketch showing the shed located approximately 15 feet from the Tilghman Avenue right-of-way and 4 feet from the rear property line. During staff review, minor adjustments were requested to increase setbacks and reduce potential visual impacts, and the applicant revised the proposal accordingly.

The applicant proposes to place the shed 15 feet from the rear property line and 15 feet from the existing structure. This results in an approximate 35-foot setback from Tilghman Avenue, and 30-foot setback from Price Street.

Effect of Revision

• Exceeds the minimum required setback along Tilghman Avenue.

• Minimizes visibility impact from the public right-of-way.

• Demonstrates the applicant’s effort to limit the scope of relief requested.

This revision does not eliminate the need for a variance, as the shed still cannot be placed within the allowable rear placement area required by §170-39.

V. Variance 1 – Accessory Structure Location (§170-39) Staff Findings

1. Unique physical conditions exist due to the proximity of the building to the rear lot line.

2. Literal enforcement results in practical difficulty because the permitted placement area

is insufficient.

3. The condition was not created by the applicant, as the structure predates zoning.

4. The requested relief represents the minimum necessary to allow reasonable accessory

use.

5. The proposal will not result in substantial detriment to neighboring properties.

VI. Variance 2 – Lot Coverage (30% Maximum)

• The R-2 District permits a maximum of 30 percent lot coverage.

• The property currently contains approximately 40 percent lot coverage.

• Historic aerial photography from 1957 confirms the condition predates zoning.

• The applicant did not create the nonconforming condition.

• The proposed shed modestly increases coverage.

Staff Findings

1. The property is legally nonconforming with respect to lot coverage.

2. The variance is necessary to allow reasonable accessory use.

3. No adverse impacts are anticipated.

VII. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals for:

1. A variance from §170-39 to allow the shed to be placed outside the narrow rear-yard

placement zone.

2. A variance from the 30 percent maximum lot coverage standard in R-2.