october 16 2024 planning commission packet

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

CENTREVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
October 16, 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. May 1, 2024 work session minutes
b. June 5, 2024 work session minutes
c. August 7, 2024 work session minutes
d. August 21, 2024 meeting minutes
e. September 4, 2024 work session minutes
f. September 18, 2024 meeting minutes
g. October 2, 2024 work session minutes
IV. Opening Statement
V. Citizen Comment (Citizens are requested to keep their comments to three minutes)
VI. Appearances
a. Concept Site Plan for a new Draper’s Liquor Store on Map 44E, Parcels 1062 and 1063,
Centreville; JEJ, LLC, Owners; Kevin J. Shearon, P.E., LEED AP, DMS & Associates,
LLC
b. Concept Site Plan for proposed mixed use development by Hillside Liquors, LLC on the
lands of Corsica Creek Commons, LLC located at 425 S. Commerce Street, Centreville;
Brandon A. Davis, P.E., DMS & Associates, LLC
VII. New Business
VIII. Old Business
IX. Zoning Issues – Discussion
X. Miscellaneous Business / Correspondence
a. Approved Building Permit list issued September 2024
XI. Citizen Comment (Citizens are requested to keep their comments to three minutes)
XII. Council Member Report
XIII. Adjournment

Drapers Brothers Liquors - Design Guidelines Rev. 9.18.24
Building
 Size 51’ x 104 with mul(cid:415)ple projec(cid:415)ons and recesses
o One long side wall as necessary for coolers / beer cave
o Canopy’s along front and side
o Flat roof with varying levels of parapet
 Materials:
o Masonry base
o Cemen(cid:415)(cid:415)ous siding
o Cornice at parapet top
Design Standards – Commercial Building
A. PARKING
1. Loca(cid:415)on of Parking lot-
o Although the goal is to have parking in the rear, this project is exis(cid:415)ng with most of
the parking pulling in right off MD Route 213 and some along the side. State
Highway wants to eliminate the direct pull in off MD Route 213
o Project Goal - to keep Drapers opera(cid:415)onal during building construc(cid:415)on.
 Requiring parking to remain in the front and constructed immediately a(cid:332)er
the exis(cid:415)ng building is demoed.
 Other neighboring proper(cid:415)es have parking in the front:
 711(F,S), Shore United Bank (F,S,R), 2977 4-H park (F,S,R,) Delmarva
power (F)
 Parking at front and side may be permi(cid:425)ed by the planning commission.
 Parking lot is behind the 30(cid:332) BRL leaving ample space for a plan(cid:415)ng area.
2. Drive thru – N/A
3. Parking lot circula(cid:415)on-
o Clear logic circula(cid:415)on, with planning islands, no parking at entry/exit, provisions
made to connect to VFW & Bank, loading area in rear and also connec(cid:415)on to VFW.
4. Parking Lot Landscaping
o Designed to reduce visual impact, trees as required for front parking 1/5 spaces,
Internal plan(cid:415)ng areas,
5. Parking Lot Screening
o Increase plan(cid:415)ng area (30 (cid:332)) consis(cid:415)ng of tress, shrubs, and ground cover in the
front to screen parking. Plant material will be managed to provide clear views
between 3-8 (cid:332) above ground.
6. Pedestrian Walkways through Parking lots.
o Walkways are 5’ wide, with dis(cid:415)nct linkage to front entry.
o No transit stops

7. Mass Transit Bus Drop off – N/A
B. SIDE WALK & PEDESTRIAN
1. A 5’ wide pedestrian access easement has been provided along MD Route 213 for future
sidewalk by others as part of a comprehensive improvement project.
C. STRUCTURES
1. Prominent Entrances – one from each group
o Canopy (group A) , Large entry doors (group B), Masonry base (group C)
2. Massing
a. Maintain pedestrian scale – Dis(cid:415)nct Base, Windows, Canopies, Top cornice at
parapet
b. Projec(cid:415)ng Parapet, recesses and height changes are used to create good
propor(cid:415)ons. (projec(cid:415)ng parapet or pitched rooflines)
3. Ground Level Details (eleva(cid:415)on not facing street to incorporate 3)
a. Masonry Base, Projec(cid:415)ng Sill, Decora(cid:415)ve window panels.
4. Screening Blank Walls – Facades facing street or public areas 30 (cid:332) in length (52’ & 104’)
a. Masonry base
b. Belt course diff. color and texture (siding)
c. Projec(cid:415)ng Cornice & change in Parapet heights
d. Projec(cid:415)ng Canopy
5. Plaza’s Courtyard and sea(cid:415)ng areas
a. Bicycle rack & benches / sea(cid:415)ng
6. Site furnishings
a. Benches, tables
7. Orienta(cid:415)on to Street
a. Building is oriented to Rt. 213, due to site constraints and exis(cid:415)ng building request
screened parking at front.
8. Setbacks
a. Unique site with exis(cid:415)ng building and exis(cid:415)ng front parking - Intent is to keep
business in opera(cid:415)on during building construc(cid:415)on, therefore building is set behind
the exis(cid:415)ng building, parking is in the front with a large 30’ landscape buffer.
9. Weather Protec(cid:415)on
a. Overhead protec(cid:415)on at main entry.
10. Roofline Expression
a. Designed to pedestrian scale with varying parapet heights to hide HVAC equipment
on roof.
11. Concealing roof top equipment:
a. Mechanical equipment is screened with parapet walls.
12. Expression at entrances to large commercial developments – N/A

104' - 0"
"0
-
'54
52' - 0"
"6
-
'41
ICE
STORAGE
TASTING
BEER CAVE COOLER ICE
ELECTRIC
CARTS
HALL
CHEESE
SODA
VESTIBULE
J.C.
H.C. TOILET H.C. TOILET
RACK ROOM
DELI CASE
WALK IN
COOLER
OFFICE
KITCHEN
FRYER
10' - 10"
SALES
FRYER
DELI PREP.
RANGE
STORAGE
OVEN
FREEZER
YALPSID
MOP SINK/RACK
ICE
C
HAND SINK O
U
N
T
E
R
S/S TABLE
S/S TABLE
HAND SINK
"0
-
'94
Jo Anne Gebelein, AIA
Vice President
I certify that these documents were
prepared or approved by me, and that I
am a duly licensed architect under the
laws of the State of Maryland License
Number 12117, Expiration Date 4.29.25
Project Number:
Date:
Revisions:
Drawn By:
BIKE RACK
Sheet:
COPYRIGHT ©
2023
Torchio Architects, Inc.
srouqiL
s'reparD
SGP
NALP
daoR
ellivertneC
5162
71612
dnalyraM
,ellivertneC
A2301
9.17.2024
Level 1
1
1/4" = 1'-0"
SK-1

BOARD & BATTEN SIDING
SIGNAGE (PER CODE) 25 SF+12 SF+12 SF AZEK CORNICE
Upper Parapit
20' - 6"
AZEK CORNICE
Lower Parapit
17' - 0"
STANDING SEAM MTL ROOF
Jo Anne Gebelein, AIA
Truss High
14' - 6" Vice President
I certify that these documents were
prepared or approved by me, and that I
am a duly licensed architect under the
CEMENTITIOUS SIDING
Truss Bearing laws of the State of Maryland License
Number 12117, Expiration Date 4.29.25
10' - 6"
CEMENTITIOUS SIDING
CANVAS AWNINGS
STONE BASE
STONE BASE
Level 1
0' - 0"
BIKE RACK
Upper Parapit
20' - 6"
AZEK CORNICE
AZEK CORNICE
Lower Parapit
17' - 0"
Truss High
CANAVAS AWNING 14' - 6"
Project Number:
Truss Bearing
10' - 6"
Date:
CEMENTITIOUS SIDING CEMENTITIOUS SIDING
ALUM. D.S.
Revisions:
STONE BASE
Drawn By:
Level 1
0' - 0"
Upper Parapit
20' - 6"
AZEK CORNICE
Lower Parapit
17' - 0"
CANVAS AWNING
Truss Low
13' - 0"
Truss Bearing
CEMENTITIOUS SIDING 10' - 6"
STONE BASE
Sheet:
Level 1
0' - 0"
BIKE RACK
COPYRIGHT ©
2023
Torchio Architects, Inc.
srouqiL
s'reparD
SGP
SNOITAVELE
daoR
ellivertneC
5162
71612
dnalyraM
,ellivertneC
East West
1 4
1/4" = 1'-0" 1/4" = 1'-0"
A2301
9.17.2024
North
2
1/4" = 1'-0"
SK-2
South
3
1/4" = 1'-0"

Jo Anne Gebelein, AIA
Vice President
I certify that these documents were
prepared or approved by me, and that I
am a duly licensed architect under the
laws of the State of Maryland License
Number 12117, Expiration Date 4.29.25
Project Number:
Date:
Revisions:
Drawn By:
Sheet:
COPYRIGHT ©
2023
Torchio Architects, Inc.
srouqiL
s'reparD
SGP
EVITCEPSREP
daoR
ellivertneC
5162
71612
dnalyraM
,ellivertneC
A2301
9.17.2024
Perspective
1
SK-3

Centreville Planning Commission
June 21, 2023
7:00 p.m.
MINUTES
The June 21, 2023 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; Mitchell Delaney, Secretary; Nancy Emerick, Member; Chris Jakubiak, Town Planner; and Betty Jean
Hall, Administrative Assistant.
Review of Minutes from Previous Meetings
a. Ms. Willis moved to approve the March 15, 2023 meeting minutes as amended. Mr. Zuella seconded the motion,
which passed unanimously.
b. Mr. Zuella moved to approve the April 5, 2023 work session minutes as presented. Ms. Willis seconded the
motion, which passed unanimously.
c. Ms. Willis moved to approve the May 3, 2023 work session minutes as amended. Mr. Delaney seconded the
motion, which passed unanimously.
d. Mr. Zuella moved to approve the May 17, 2023 meeting minutes as presented. Ms. Willis seconded the motion,
which passed unanimously.
Appearances
a. Informal Review; Proposed New Drapers Liquor Store; Paige Evans, Owner; Tom Davis, DMS & Associates, Jo
Anne Baker-Gebelein, Torchio Architects
• Mr. Davis stated this is a conceptual plan for a new liquor store. John and Paige Evans purchased the
property in 2021. They are looking into improving the property with a new building and parking while
keeping the existing business operational, demolishing the existing structure once the new building is
operational. Parking during the construction would be possible through easement agreements with the
American Legion.
• The property is zoned C-2 and is partially within the Intensely Developed Area by Critical Area
guidelines which have no restrictions on development.
• The conceptual plan shows an extensive landscape buffer along Rt. 213 with the parking lot beginning
about 30-foot from the property line.
• Ms. Evans stated the proposal is to increase the selling space of the store while creating more grab and go
options such as salads and sandwiches. There will be no indoor seating. The cooler space has been
widened and lengthened to accommodate the increasing number of selections available.
• Ms. Evans also stated there are some hardships with the current building including flooding every time it
rains because the asphalt roadway in front of the property has been built up so high the water runs straight
into the building; there have been multiple vehicular accidents when motorists attempt to back out onto
Rt. 213 from the parking lot; bottles continually fall from displays onto the floor when large trucks pass
by.
• Mr. Davis stated the State Highway Administration has reviewed and approved of the entrance and exit
points on the conceptual plan.
• Ms. Gebelein stated the building is about 104 feet long and about 50 feet wide at its greatest point. There
is a vestibule in the front to help screen wind. The kitchen is at the bottom left-hand corner which is
where subs will be created. The back area is storage, office, walk-in coolers and bathrooms.
• Mr. Davis stated the purpose of the informal review is to get some direction on mainly the parking layout
because the bulk of the parking is in front of the building; they are looking for guidance to be able to
move forward with the project through a formal site plan.
• Mr. Zuella stated this is not a liquor store, this is a convenience store.
• Ms. Evans stated there are multiple liquor stores within Queen Anne’s County that sell subs and
everything that this will sell. The store is comparable to Love Point Deli.
Page 1 of 4

• Ms. Willis stated the existing building does not have a full kitchen.
• Ms. Evans stated the Health Department is requiring a full kitchen.
• Ms. Willis stated there is a definition within the Code of what retail is and a definition for a convenience
store and a definition for carry-out restaurants. This concept is a combination of all three of those things.
There are size limitations for convenience stores as well. The proposed building is 5,000+ square feet
which is doubling the size of the existing building.
• Ms. Evans stated they are already selling all the things proposed to be sold in the new building.
• Ms. Willis stated the plan shows a full commercial kitchen, there are two fryers, a six-burner range, an
oven and a freezer.
• Ms. Evans responded that is in the plan because once you have room you just never know. It is not being
put in right away, right now you can’t find people to work but it is in the plan because she wants the space
to do that if there is future growth.
• Ms. Willis stated this is something that would need to be reviewed by the Town attorney.
• Mr. Delaney recalled a previous text amendment requesting an increase in square footage for convenience
stores.
• Mr. Jakubiak stated the determination of use is important and this is really about what the principal type
of business is. Every business has something that you could conceivably find in another business. What
is most important to the Town in reviewing this is be sure the use does not impose negative impacts to the
surrounding properties, traffic, water, sewer, and landscaping.
• Mr. Davis stated the main reason for requesting the preliminary review was to address the parking and
they did not want to go through the site plan review process if there are issues with the parking and as it
turns out there are issues with the use. He asked if there is some sort of clarification that they could get
from the Town attorney on whether they deem this a convenience store.
• Mr. Jakubiak stated that type of determination is supposed to be referred to the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Koogle is the official Zoning Administrator. If he makes the determination, then the Planning
Commission implements that determination. The Planning Commission can independently ask the
attorney for guidance on this issue.
• Mr. Jakubiak stated the site plan is missing a sidewalk and pedestrian connection from the street to the
store. The north side of the building could use some landscaping to buffer the long expanse of white wall.
• The consensus of the Planning Commissioners in reference to the parking in front of the business would
be allowable if there is extensive landscaping and pedestrian access on the property.
• Ms. Evans stated Love Point Deli is 4600 square feet.
b. Informal Review; Proposed Mixed Residential Development – Spring Street; Farmingdale, LLC, Property Owner;
Lindsay Dixon, Lacrosse Homes, Developer; Tom Davis, DMS & Associates
• Mr. Dixon stated Lacrosse Homes is trying to put this project together for multiple reasons. They are not
sure if they will be for sale or if they will keep them as rentals.
• Mr. Davis gave a brief history of the property and stated this proposal is similar to what was presented
back in 2008/2009 time period. Spring Street being upgraded to a wider width and the four buildings in
the back are the same exact layout as previously proposed. The four buildings to the front and left are a
mix of different styles. The two buildings to the back and left would be townhome styles but would have
garages attached to them. The two buildings fronting on Spring Street would not have garages but the
two buildings in the back have travel aprons.
• Mr. Davis stated the big issue is sewer allocations. The goal of this informational review was to get some
information from the Planning Commission and then go to the Town Council to request allocations.
• Mr. Davis stated 47 units are proposed at 9 units per acre.
• Mr. Jakubiak stated the previous approval for this property could have had a higher density allowance
through a Public Works Agreement (PWA).
• Mr. Jakubiak stated he suggests creating a buffer at the rear of the townhouse units so that the rear of the
units does not degrade the common area. How open space and landscaping is done in this community is
going to be important. If they are going to be rentals there needs to be very strong on-site management or
design incorporated into the project to mitigate against degradation so that it stays vibrant and healthy for
the long term.
Page 2 of 4

• Mr. Jakubiak also suggests landscaping within the parking island and/or facilitating that area as
stormwater management.
• Ms. Willis suggested turning the row of townhouses along Spring Street 180 degrees to allow the decks to
face the opposing row and providing the ability to include a streetscape with sidewalks along Spring
Street.
• Mr. Delaney likes the decks facing the existing woodland area. A path or more pedestrian access added
in general would be nice.
• Ms. Emerick stated if there were a path from this property to the school property that would be great.
• Mr. Davis stated he is unsure if children are allowed to walk to school.
• Mr. Delaney requested comments about the few units that are within the wetlands buffer.
• Mr. Davis answered typically you are allowed to disturb in the buffer provided a permit is granted from
Maryland Department of the Environment.
• Mr. Dixon stated in a perfect world they would be able to obtain the old American Legion property to
develop as part of this community as well along with the two other single-family homes on Spring Street.
• The Planning Commissioners came to a consensus that they are in support of the project.
New Business
a. Annual Report – Chris Jakubiak, Town Planner
• Mr. Jakubiak reviewed the Annual Report short form that has been updated from last year.
• In Mr. Jakubiak’s opinion the most important element of the report is that there were four residential
permits issued in 2022.
• Ms. Willis moved to approve the 2022 Annual Report with the one amendment of correcting the year to
2022. Mr. Delaney seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Old Business
a. Draft Comprehensive Plan Discussion
• The acronym list developed by Mr. Delaney will be inserted into the Comprehensive Plan after a Table of
Contents.
• Collector streets and primary local streets will be removed from the acronym list.
• R – (residential, zoning code??) will be changed to R-1, R-2, R-3 – Residential Zoning Districts based on
density
• YMCA to be deleted.
• MD – Maryland to be deleted.
• U.S. / US – United States to be deleted.
• WWII to be deleted.
• Footnote on bottom of pg. 33 Town’s Zoning Ordinance web address needs to be changed to
townofcentreville.org
• The ordering of chapters will be as follows:
o Introduction
o Population
o Municipal Growth
o Land Use
o Housing
o Community Facilities
o Water Resources
o Natural Environment
o Transportation
o Implementation
• Mr. Jakubiak stated the current plan says when properties are annexed the developer should set aside land
for land application or otherwise develop land application capability for the Town. The future may be the
current land application property is used but newer technology is used as well such as, injection wells.
Page 3 of 4

The Town sees real potential in injection wells because the creek cannot take any more and land is not
available. Developer obligation upon annexation would be to build the Town’s capability broadly
speaking, not just dealing with land application. The Town is likely to be funded for a wastewater
treatment facility upgrade to one million gallons per day. To serve the Town’s growth potential there
would need to be up to 1.25 million gallons per day. The plant will be built in a way that modules can be
added in the future to increase capacity. The Community Facilities and Growth Areas chapters will need
to have new text concerning annexation.
• Mr. Jakubiak stated two of the major infill parcels are critical area zones that are highly restricted. One of
those is the Carter Farm. Without a growth allocation density is limited and it will be much more like a
single family, lower density development with about three units per acre, probably less because of the
open space and forest planting requirements. If there is a reluctance to introduce more density of housing,
particularly in the corridor of Rt. 213, then policy a statement that it is in the Town’s interest to strictly
apply the Critical Area Regulations and not allow growth allocation on these properties which would
dump out traffic to the highway. There are grounds for land preservation, protecting the environment and
preservation of open space. All those things are achieved by a statement about not allowing growth
allocations. This would be inserted in the Land Use chapter.
• Mr. Jakubiak further explained the growth allocation process empowers the Town Council to negotiate
and achieve things that might benefit the Town as well. So, in exchange for the added flexibility of
development density the Town has been able to get land dedicated for the greenway and the developer’s
construction of the trail that would go through the greenway. Without the growth allocation there is
significantly less ability to acquire that open space and make that a park system along the edge of the
creek.
• Ms. Willis stated it is already required in the Comprehensive Plan.
• Mr. Jakubiak stated the Comprehensive Plan is a policy document, it is not a requirement.
• Mr. Jakubiak suggested the subdivision regulations should adopt a standard for required open space. It
should be of ample size and could include the dedication of open space that is in a critical area buffer,
where that buffer would connect to a bigger greenway network using 1,000 square feet of open space per
dwelling unit as a baseline for all future developments.
The next work session will be held on the 5th of July. Mr. Jakubiak will not be in attendance on July 5 and August 2.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mr. Zuella moved to adjourn the June 21, 2023 Planning Commission meeting.
Ms. Willis seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Jean Hall
Administrative Assistant
Action Items
• Approved the March 15, 2023 meeting minutes as amended.
• Approved the April 5, 2023 work session minutes as presented.
• Approved the May 3, 2023 work session minutes as amended.
• Approved the May 17, 2023 meeting minutes as presented.
• Approved the 2022 Annual Report.
Page 4 of 4

Centreville Planning Commission
July 19, 2023
7:00 p.m.
MINUTES
The July 19, 2023 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; Mitchell Delaney, Secretary; Nancy Emerick and Wendy Emerson, Members; Steven K. Kline, Town
Council President; Charles (Chip) Koogle, Town Manager; Sharon VanEmburgh, Town Attorney, Chris Jakubiak, Town
Planner; and Betty Jean Hall, Administrative Assistant.
Chair’s Announcements
Ms. Willis stated the Maryland Planning Commissioners Association (MPCA) Annual Statewide Conference will be held
on Kent Island, October 24, 25 & 26. The early registration period ends August 31. The registration fee can be paid by
the Town if any of the Planning Commissioners are interested in attending.
Ms. Willis announced Mr. Jakubiak has accepted a position with the City of Annapolis as their new Director of Planning.
Mr. Jakubiak will continue to serve as Centreville’s Town Planner until the end of August.
Review of Minutes from Previous Meetings
a. Ms. Willis moved to approve the June 21, 2023 meeting minutes as submitted. Mr. Zuella seconded the motion,
which passed unanimously.
b. Ms. Willis moved to approve the July 5, 2023 work session minutes as amended. Mr. Zuella seconded the
motion, which passed unanimously.
Zoning Issues - Discussion
• Mr. Zuella stated the Planning Commission was to reach out to the Town Attorney for a definition of
what Drapers wanted to become.
• Ms. Willis forwarded the submitted proposal from Drapers to the Town Attorney after the last meeting.
• Ms. VanEmburgh stated it seems there are three potential uses. One would be the liquor store which
would fall under the general shop/retail use. One would be a convenience store. And the third would be
the restaurant/take-out option. It has components of all three which are all permitted in the zoning
district. The one caveat being the convenience store has a size limitation where the other two do not. The
methodology that a Zoning Administrator may use to determine the primary use of a business would be
percentage based on sales. The advertising that was found for Drapers consists of alcohol and sub sales.
The business hours are not typically what you would see at a convenience store. Even if considering
additional food preparation that leans more toward restaurant carry-out, not necessarily convenience store
which is also a permitted use. At the end of the day if it was 50/50 alcohol sales and take-out food it
would still be permissible and not necessarily make it a convenience store.
Old Business
a. Draft Comprehensive Plan Discussion
• Ms. Willis stated Mr. Jakubiak secured all the updated maps that were needed to drop into the Plan.
• The referenced page numbers are of the public hearing draft from November 2022.
• Pg. 11–14 - Population and Households were separated. The pie chart for ages for 2020 in Figure 4 is
new and it replaces the one with 2018 data. A new Table on households has been added. These changes
reflect the use of the 2020 Census data.
• Pg. 15 Municipal Growth Table 1 – New Housing Units: 2011-2020 and the 2nd paragraph under Zoned
Development Capacity were removed.
• Pg. 16 Add the word ‘existing’ to the title of Table 2.
Page 1 of 3

• Pg. 85 new paragraph 3 under Summary: The Town has a Parks Advisory Committee and a Master Plan
for parks showing the proposed alignments for bike trails, walking trails and greenways, which was an
important source of information for this Comprehensive Plan. The Town also maintains set of proposed
Design Guidelines for the development of Parks. Later in this Chapter is a recommendation that the
master plan and design standards be evaluated in light of this Comprehensive Plan and incorporate its
recommendations.
• Pg. 87 second paragraph to read: As development is proposed in the Growth Area, the Town should
require that each new development make a meaningful contribution to building the municipal water and
sewer systems. In each case, the details of these contributions would be made part of a binding annexation
agreement between the developer and Town of Centreville. For example, some future annexations may be
required to build new capacity within the Town’s wastewater treatment plant while others may be
required to reimburse the Town for public costs already expended. Others may be required to deploy
advanced wastewater treatment technologies such as localized effluent treatment in combination with
deep well injection. This Plan’s vision of interconnected clusters of development set among a landscape
of open spaces and forest conservation zones, is compatible with systems-based technological advances in
wastewater treatment and disposal.
• Pg. 87-88 changes to the first paragraph beginning at the second sentence: This Plan recommends the
Town’s Park Advisory Board continue to update the Town's existing Park Design Guidelines for
consistency with this Comprehensive Plan. The Park Advisory Board along with the Planning
Commission should develop a review process for when new trails and parks are being designed as part of
a site plan proposal. An updated Park Plan should assess the availability of public-school grounds for
recreation, incorporate the resource conservation, land use, growth area and other recommendations
discussed throughout this Plan. The Park Advisory Board should also coordinate with Queen Anne’s
County on a regular basis in the update of the County Land Preservation, Parks, and Recreational Plan.
• Pg. 87-88 begin second paragraph at: The Town aspires to develop a greenway
• Pg. 40 Change sentence two in paragraph under Public Water to read: It consists of two operating wells.
• Pg. 79-80 Change sentences two and three in first paragraph to read: It consists of two operating wells.
The Town also has three water storage tanks: a 200,000-gallon tank near Goodwill Firehouse, a 300,000-
gallon tank on Comet Drive, and a 100,000-gallon tank in Northbrook Subdivision.
• Pg. 79-80 Change second and third sentences in paragraph three to read: Commitments made by the
Town to ongoing development projects and to ensure all vacant lots, enrolled in the Town’s vacant lot fee
payment plan, have at least one allocation approximate 26,000 gpd. This leaves an effective excess
capacity of about 258,088 gpd.
• Pg. 63 Fair Housing – Mr. Jakubiak supplied text to be added to the end of the Housing chapter to comply
with the recent Fair Housing amendments to the Land Use Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland.
• Pg. 18 Household numbers and percentage rate increases were updated under Alternative Growth
Projections according to the current US Census.
• Ms. VanEmburgh stated the next step would be to have a final review of the Draft Comprehensive Plan
by the Planning Commission members and forward to the Town Council.
• Ms. Willis moved to hold a Special Meeting on Wednesday, August 2, 2023. Mr. Zuella seconded the
motion, which passed unanimously.
Council Member Report
Council President Kline stated ordinances for a plastic bag ban, electronic signs and indoor agriculture are on the
Town Council agenda of Thursday, July 20.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Ms. Willis moved to adjourn the July 19, 2023 Planning Commission meeting.
Ms. Emerick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Page 2 of 3

Betty Jean Hall
Administrative Assistant
Action Items
• Approved the June 21, 2023 meeting minutes as submitted.
• Approved the July 5, 2023 work session minutes as amended.
• Moved to hold a Special Meeting on August 2, 2023.
Page 3 of 3

Development Review for TAC – Draper’s
Michael Whitehill, Contract Engineer
1. Initial comments: All criteria of §170-47 to be met for final submittal to PC.
2. C-1 Note #2 must be clarified. Reference to KBH 3930/168 is for the front parcel alone in the
name of JEJ, LLC. The second parcel’s deed reference is 3930/176 which encompassed much
more acreage to the southwest, therefore the reference needs to be added and shown as
“remaining lands of” JEJ, LLC KGH 3930/176.
D ra p e r R e a r D e e d .p d f Draper Deed.pdf
3. C-1 Note #3 show LDA is on the site but by intent it is not. (See attached CA abstract from
PropertyViewer). The IDA/LDA is intended to follow rear property lines in this area.
D ra p e r's .p d f
4. C-1 Should add note #15 Woodland in the upland is less than 1 acre. FCA does not apply.
5. C-2 Revise CA line and designation (all sheets).
6. C-2 There is an existing utility pole located street side of the planter not shown. It appears to
be right on the property corner.
7. C-2 Please add the SHA highway plat # and reference to plan. (Please provide a digital copy
of the plat).
8. Please provide correspondence from MSHA on the access permit.
A point on the architectural plan SK-1
1. Plan shows what appear outside dining tables. Per § 170-22-C (2) this is a use in the CBD which
would apply to the C-2 but is an accessory use to restaurants.

DPW Comments to Draper’s Submittal:
• They need to install a 1000-gallon grease trap per the Town FOG Ordinance.
• I am not sure if a fire sprinkler system will be required. If so, then the water service will have
to be increased to at least a 2-inch service with at least a 1-inch meter.
• They are currently bill at one EDU, however because the square footage increased to 5,210
sq ft they will be required to purchase an additional allocation.
• Sheet C-1 Note #17 If even applicable refers to signage. “County” should be changed to
SHA and Town of Centreville will not be responsible for any signage.

1
FIRE CODE PLAN REVIEW
August 13, 2024
SUBJECT: Concept Plan
Draper’s Liquor Store
2615 Centreville Road
Centreville, Maryland 21617
APPLICANT: DMS & Associates
c/o Kevin Shearon
P.O. Box 80
Centreville, Maryland 21617
(443) 262-9130
FILE #: Town of Centreville Concept Plan
APPLICABLE CODE: NFPA 1, NFPA 101, NFPA 13, NFPA 72
COMMENTS:
1. Approved fire department access roads shall be provided for every facility,
building, or portion of a building hereafter constructed or relocated. Section
18.2.3.1.1 (NFPA 1).
2. Fire department access roads shall consist of roadways, fire lanes, parking
lot lanes, or a combination thereof. Section 18.2.3.1.2 (NFPA 1).
3. A fire department access road shall extend to 50ft of at least one exterior
door that can be opened from the outside and that provides access to the
interior of the building. Section 18.2.3.2.1 (NFPA 1).
4. Fire department access roads shall be provided such that any portion of the
facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is
located not more than 150 ft. from the fire department access roads as
measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or
facility. Section 18.2.3.2.2 (NFPA 1).
5. Fire Department Access Roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less
than 20ft, and unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13ft 6in.
Sections 18.2.3.4.1.1, 18.2.3.4.1.2 (NFPA 1).
6. Fire Department Access Road surface shall be designed and maintained to
support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with an
all-weather driving surface. Section 18.2.3.4.2 (NFPA 1).

2
7. Dead-end fire department access roads in excess of 150 ft. in length shall
be provided with approved provisions for the fire apparatus to turn around.
Section 18.2.3.4.4 (NFPA 1).
8. The turning radius of a fire department access road shall be as approved by
the AHJ. Section 18.2.3.4.3.1 (NFPA 1).
9. Please provide a site plan showing all Fire Hydrants within 1000’ of the
proposed building.
10. Fire hydrants shall be located not more than 12 ft. from the fire department
access road. Section 18.5.1.6 (NFPA 1).
11. Clear Space Around Fire Hydrants: A 36 in. clear space shall be maintained
around the circumference of fire hydrants except as otherwise required or
approved. Section 18.5.7.1 (NFPA 1)
12. Clear Space Around Fire Hydrants: A clear space of not less than 60 in.
shall be provided in front of each hydrant connection having a diameter
greater than 2 ½ in. Section 18.5.7.2 (NFPA 1)
13. Fire hydrants shall be provided for buildings other than detached one- and
two-family dwellings in accordance with both of the following: Section 18.5.3
(NFPA 1).
1.) The maximum distance to a fire hydrant from the closest point on the
building shall not exceed 400 ft.
2.) The maximum distance between fire hydrants shall not exceed 500 ft.
14. A full building plan, at time of building permit application, shall be submitted
for a Fire Marshal review. (NFPA 101)
15. Comments 16 & 17 are dependent on the storage (MAQ’s) of the wine
and distilled liquors and NFPA 30 (2018 Edition).
16. A fire sprinkler system may be required for the building.
a. Separate fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted for the above-
mentioned system.
17. A full fire alarm system may be required for the building. (NFPA 101, NFPA
72).
a. Separate fire alarm plans shall be submitted for the above-
mentioned system.
18. An additional fire hydrant(s) may be required depending on the location of
the FDC. (NFPA 1).
19. A Knox Box shall be provided on the building to allow for fire department
access. Section 18.2.2.1 (NFPA 1).

3
Should you have any question or to arrange an inspection, please contact this
office at 410 758-4500 ext. 1144.
Jeffrey C. Morgan
Assistant Chief
Fire Marshal’s Office
Queen Anne’s County, MD
100 Communications Drive
Centerville, Maryland 21617
410 758-4500 ext. 1144
Fire Review Fee: $100.00
Please make your check payable to: Queen Anne’s County Commissioners
Forward to: Permit Office
110 Vincit Street
Centreville, MD 21617

A
B
A
B
LINE OF CANOPY
LINE OF CANOPY
0011
:: HILLSIDE LIQUORS :: SCHEMATIC DESIGN :: AUGUST 16, 2024 ::
205 E. Water Street, Suite A, Centreville, Maryland 21617 - 410.758.1000 COPYRIGHT TORCHIO ARCHITECTS, INC. 2023
W D/
HW
REF
W D/
HW
REF
W D/
HW
REF
W/D D/W
FER FER
WH WH
W/D
DATE: 16 August 2024
PROJECT: Hillside Liquor Store and Apartments
CENTREVILLE DESIGN STANDARDS COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
4. COMMERCIAL
A. PARKING
1. Location of Parking Lot
The parking is located on the side and rear of the building.
2. Drive-thru Business
Not applicable.
3. Parking Lot Circulation
The vehicular circulation is arranged in a one-way, counterclockwise
direction around the building. The parking and circulation are designed to
accommodate both car traffic and truck deliveries. The layout allows for
deliveries by semi-trailer trucks, which is the usual delivery vehicles to the
liquor store. The trucks can park in the drive isle toward the rear so not to
interfere with car traffic.
4. Parking Lot Landscaping
As indicated, there are several landscape islands the reduce the visual impact
of the parking lot.
5. Parking Lot Screening
The parking lot is not adjacent to a public way.
6. Pedestrian Walkways through Parking Lots
There is a sidewalk the entire length of the parking area on the building side
providing access to the building, both the store and the upper-level
apartments.
7. Mass Transit Bus Drop Off / Pick Up Area
No provided.
B. SIDEWALK AND PEDESTRIAN
1. Connections
The street sidewalks is connected to the building sidewalks via a walk on the
south side of the entrance drive that crosses over the entrance drive and
connects to the sidewalk at the southwest corner of the building.
C. STRUCTURES
1. Prominent Entrance
The façade that faces the street has a covered porch and large storefront
glazing and an entrace to both the liquor store and the apartments. There is
a second building entrance on the southside of the building which is visible
from both the view from north-bound traffic on 213 and from the parking lot.
The large canopy covering the both entries and elevated walkways (A), along
with the large storefront opening and decorative light fixtures (B) and
prominently located signs (C) all contribute to the prominence of the entries.
2. Massing
As outlined below, the building has been designed to have a distinct base,
middle and top.
3. Ground Level Details
Brick belt course (b), brick pilasters (c), projecting sills (e), porches (i),
canopy columns (c), decorative metal panels (k), large storefront windows
and metal louvers concealing the foundation piers (k) are all elements
DATE: 16 August 2024
incorporated in the ground level and lend to the base, middle, top delineation
PROJECT: Hillside Liquor Store and Apartments and desired pedestrian scale.
CENTREVILLE DESIGN STANDARDS COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
4. COMMERCIAL 4. Screening Blank Walls
The north wall does not face a street, but it is visible from Commerce Street.
Due to the requirement inside the liquor store for an entire wall length walk-in
A. PARKING
cooler, the north side of the building on the lower level is devoid of
fenestration. The entire wall is faced with brick (a) and is divided vertically
with belt coursed of brick at the base (c), second floor (c) and cornice (d).
1. Location of Parking Lot
The base is also divided into bays that are accentuated by the louvered
openings and above with window sized recesses with projecting sills and
The parking is located on the side and rear of the building.
heads that mimic the second story window openings (i & k). There is also
buffer planting proposed along the property line on that side.
2. Drive-thru Business
Not applicable. 5. Plazas, Courtyards, and Seating Areas
A picnic area is proposed.
FER 3. Parking Lot Circulation
WH
The vehicular circulation is arranged in a one-way, counterclockwise 6. Site Furnishings
DN 205 203 201 direction around the building. The parking and circulation are designed to
A bike rack, decorative trash receptacle and picnic area for the apartment
accommodate both car traffic and truck deliveries. The layout allows for
residents is proposed.
deliveries by semi-trailer trucks, which is the usual delivery vehicles to the
206 204 202
liquor store. The trucks can park in the drive isle toward the rear so not to
interfere with car traffic.
7. Orientation to Streets
KITCHEN
BATH BATH W.I.C. The site is an unusual shape with the street frontage only wide enough for the
4. Parking Lot Landscaping
site entrance which limits the building from being any closer to the street.
LIN.
As indicated, there are several landscape islands the reduce the visual impact
of the parking lot.
861 SF 8. Setbacks
BEDROOM
LIVING The street side of the property is mostly taken up by the entry drive and there
5. Parking Lot Screening
is no additional space for pedestrian areas.
BEDROOM The parking lot is not adjacent to a public way.
9. Weather Protection
6. Pedestrian Walkways through Parking Lots
All building entrances are covered with ample canopies.
There is a sidewalk the entire length of the parking area on the building side
providing access to the building, both the store and the upper-level
apartments. 10.Roofline Expression
The roof is concealed with a parapet wall that is capped with an aluminum
cornice trim above a soldier course of brick.
7. Mass Transit Bus Drop Off / Pick Up Area
LEVEL TWO PLAN
No provided.
11.Concealing Rooftop Equipment
SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
All outdoor mechanical equipment will be located on the roof and will be
B. SIDEWALK AND PEDESTRIAN
concealed with a 5’ high parapet wall. Due to the flood way, no equipment
can be located at grade.
1. Connections
12.Expression of Entrances to Large Commercial Developments
The street sidewalks is connected to the building sidewalks via a walk on the
south side of the entrance drive that crosses over the entrance drive and
Not applicable.
connects to the sidewalk at the southwest corner of the building.
D. LIGHTING
MECH./
C. STRUCTURES
ELEC. 1. Parking areas, travel lanes and sidewalks are illuminated by a combination of
117 SF CUSTOMER WALK-IN COOLER pole and building mounted LED, full-cutoff lights, and decorative LED fixtures
mounted on the underside of the canopies.
13' x 83' 4" 1. Prominent Entrance
2. The height of the pole lights and building mounted lights is 12’. The façade that faces the street has a covered porch and large storefront
glazing and an entrace to both the liquor store and the apartments. There is
3. A lighting plan and lighting fixture cut-sheets are provided.
a second building entrance on the southside of the building which is visible
from both the view from north-bound traffic on 213 and from the parking lot.
The large canopy covering the both entries and elevated walkways (A), along
E. SERVICE AREAS
with the large storefront opening and decorative light fixtures (B) and
DELIVERIES & STORAGE prominently located signs (C) all contribute to the prominence of the entries.
946 SF
1. Screening of Trash and Service Areas
2. Massing The proposed trash area will be enclosed on three sides with a 6’ high brick
wall that will match the building brick. The service side will be enclosed with
As outlined below, the building has been designed to have a distinct base,
two 6’ high chain-link gates with vertical privacy slats.
middle and top.
3. Ground Level Details
TASTING AREA
Brick belt course (b), brick pilasters (c), projecting sills (e), porches (i),
canopy columns (c), decorative metal panels (k), large storefront windows
RETAIL SALES and metal louvers concealing the foundation piers (k) are all elements
41' 10" x 83' 2" incorporated in the ground level and lend to the base, middle, top delineation
3479 SF and desired pedestrian scale.
4. Screening Blank Walls
SALES
COUNTER OFFICE The north wall does not face a street, but it is visible from Commerce Street.
LAV. 9' 8" x 16' 10" Due to the requirement inside the liquor store for an entire wall length walk-in
cooler, the north side of the building on the lower level is devoid of
fenestration. The entire wall is faced with brick (a) and is divided vertically
with belt coursed of brick at the base (c), second floor (c) and cornice (d).
The base is also divided into bays that are accentuated by the louvered
openings and above with window sized recesses with projecting sills and
heads that mimic the second story window openings (i & k). There is also
buffer planting proposed along the property line on that side.
5. Plazas, Courtyards, and Seating Areas
LEVEL ONE PLAN
A picnic area is proposed.
SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
6. Site Furnishings
A bike rack, decorative trash receptacle and picnic area for the apartment
residents is proposed.
7. Orientation to Streets
The site is an unusual shape with the street frontage only wide enough for the
site entrance which limits the building from being any closer to the street.
8. Setbacks
The street side of the property is mostly taken up by the entry drive and there
is no additional space for pedestrian areas.
9. Weather Protection
All building entrances are covered with ample canopies.
10.Roofline Expression
The roof is concealed with a parapet wall that is capped with an aluminum
cornice trim above a soldier course of brick.
11.Concealing Rooftop Equipment
All outdoor mechanical equipment will be located on the roof and will be
concealed with a 5’ high parapet wall. Due to the flood way, no equipment
can be located at grade.
12.Expression of Entrances to Large Commercial Developments
Not applicable.
D. LIGHTING
1. Parking areas, travel lanes and sidewalks are illuminated by a combination of
pole and building mounted LED, full-cutoff lights, and decorative LED fixtures
mounted on the underside of the canopies.
2. The height of the pole lights and building mounted lights is 12’.
3. A lighting plan and lighting fixture cut-sheets are provided.
E. SERVICE AREAS
1. Screening of Trash and Service Areas
The proposed trash area will be enclosed on three sides with a 6’ high brick
wall that will match the building brick. The service side will be enclosed with
two 6’ high chain-link gates with vertical privacy slats.
NWOD
PMAR
DN
PLAN
NORTH
EQUIP.
PLATFORM
BEER CAVE
UP UP
ICE
DN
24" x 24" CONC.
DN FOUNDATION PIER
(TYPICAL)
DN
18" x 18" CONC.
FOUNDATION PIER
(TYPICAL)
PLAN
NORTH
"3
'91
8' 0" 108' 0" 8' 0"
"3
'91
"0
'65
124' 0"
STAIR 1 STAIR 2
FDC
WATER
SERVICE
DN
STAIR 1 STAIR 2
163 SF
AREA CALCULATIONS
LEVEL 01 - LIQUOR STORE: 6048 SF + STAIRS 308 SF = 6,356 SF
LEVEL 02 - APARTMENTS: 6048 SF + STAIRS 308 SF = 6,356 SF
TOTAL - 12,712 SF

SOUTHWEST VIEW WEST SIDE VIEW
SOUTHEAST VIEW NORTHWEST VIEW
0022
:: HILLSIDE LIQUORS :: SCHEMATIC DESIGN :: AUGUST 16, 2024 ::
205 E. Water Street, Suite A, Centreville, Maryland 21617 - 410.758.1000 COPYRIGHT TORCHIO ARCHITECTS, INC. 2023

WEST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
0033
:: HILLSIDE LIQUORS :: SCHEMATIC DESIGN :: AUGUST 16, 2024 ::
205 E. Water Street, Suite A, Centreville, Maryland 21617 - 410.758.1000 COPYRIGHT TORCHIO ARCHITECTS, INC. 2023
-/+
"01
'13
-/+
"9
'63
STAIR TOWER MAY EXCEED 35'
HEIGHT LIMIT BY 25% = 43'-9" (170-34)
MATERIALS
BRICK VENEER
ARCHITECTURAL ALUMINUM SIDING PANELS WITH CONCEALED FASTENERS
ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
CLAD WOOD WINDOWS
CONCRETE FOUNDATION
GALVANIZED STEEL RAILINGS
ALUMINUM CLAD FASCIA, CORNICE
ALUMINUM LOUVERED GRILLES AT FOUNDATION
ALUMINUM DOWNSPOUTS AND SCUPPERS
INTERNALLY LIT BOX LETTER SIGNS

DECORATIVE LIGHTING MOUNTED TO UNDERSIDE OF CANOPY
PREVIOUS "PLANT SLEEVES" BUILDING
B
BUILDING MOUNTED DOWN LIGHTING
OPEN TO ALLOW
FLOOD WATERS
CONCEPTUAL SECTION
A
SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
A
OPEN TO ALLOW
FLOOD WATERS
POLE AND BUILDING MOUNTED PARKING LOT LIGHTING
CONCEPTUAL SECTION
B
EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES
SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
0044
:: HILLSIDE LIQUORS :: SCHEMATIC DESIGN :: AUGUST 16, 2024 ::
205 E. Water Street, Suite A, Centreville, Maryland 21617 - 410.758.1000 COPYRIGHT TORCHIO ARCHITECTS, INC. 2023

DMS & Associates Response to TAC comments provided by Ms. Dahlstrom – Response
Dated August 16, 2024
1. 2040 Comp Plan shows this parcel as Natural Resource (existing Land Use) and Resource
Conservation/Open Space (Future Land Use) on the Future Land Use Map. Consistency
issues with the current zoning of C‐2 and the Future Land Use Map need to be
addressed. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment is needed to amend the Resource
Conservation / Open Space designation on the Future Land Use Map. Discussion with
Planning Commission is recommended to further clarify if they may have not considered
the C‐2 zoning of the parcel when they recommended Resource Conservation/Open
Space for the Parcel.
The Resource Conservation designation encompasses those natural resource lands that exist
today including wetlands, streams and their buffers, steep slopes, shorelines, and forested areas
(See Chapter VIII, Natural Environment). The generalized land use plan also envisions an
expansion of resource lands as development takes place, through the widening of stream
buffers and planned forest regeneration, and the designation of lands for future conservation
area especially when connections can be made between natural areas. As future neighborhoods
are developed, land along existing streams and forest areas would be set aside for conservation
and parks and open space amenities could be provided such as trails to link neighborhoods
together."
We feel this noted inconsistency is an error and not a result of actions by the developer
or current owner. The property was zoned R‐3 at one time and rezoned to C‐2. The
current and past site plans proposed for the property are/were compliant with zoning.
2. Since the site is zoned C‐2, which allows all uses permitted in CBD zoning, CBD zoning
permits apartments in specific circumstances described as:
“Apartments in multistory buildings, provided that the portion of the ground floor fronting
the street remains commercial, and the property will be subject to site plan review when
converted to such use.”
 In addition to the Comprehensive Plan consistency issue noted above, the proposed
development of 6 residential apartments is proposed over an entire floor of
commercial use, that currently doesn’t appear to have a ground floor fronting the
street.
See attached response from Torchio Architects
 Additionally, the access design appears to prioritize vehicular access over pedestrian
access to the building and increases the potential for apartment residents to be
unable to access their apartments from and to the building during major storm flood
events. Allowing apartments in the current proposed application for this location
1

may not be supportable from a planning, public health safety and welfare
perspective and may not be supported by the Planning Commission.
We have added pedestrian connectivity from Commerce Street onto the site to the
building.
 As noted in the Town’s subdivision regulations, the following should be considered
when deciding if residential as part of the “proposed mixed use project” proposed
for this site is appropriate: §138‐16 C. “Land subject to flooding or property and land
deemed to be topographically unsuitable shall not be subdivided or developed for
residential occupancy or for such other use as may endanger health, life, or property, or
aggravate erosion or flood hazards until all such hazards have been eliminated or unless
adequate safeguards against such hazards are provided by the final plats. Such land within a
subdivision shall be set aside on the plat for uses that will not be endangered by periodic or
occasional inundation or will not produce unsatisfactory living conditions.”
Please see attached correspondence from Brendan Mullaney from McAllister,
DeTar, Showalter & Walker LLC, the developers legal representation. We look
forward to further discussion with staff.
3. This site was the subject of two Public Works agreements and a rezoning approved by
the Town of Centreville. It is our understanding that the fifteen foot trail easement
agreed to in the 2009 Public Works Agreement and noted in the Council Ordinance 05‐
2015 is still in effect and should be discussed and identified as to best location and
clearly depicted and on the submission documents.
Excerpt from 2009 Public Works Agreement
Excerpt from Centreville Council Decision – Town of Centreville Ordinance 05‐2015:
2

We have revised travelways, the trash corral, and stormwater management and show
the 15’ wide trail easement. We note the information forwarded from the Town
Attorney that if the Town does acquire the northern vacant neighboring property, then
this easement can be formally dissolved.
3

August 16, 2024
RESPONSE TO TAC COMMENTS
Hillside Liquors and Apartments
The following are responses to the architectural related comments submitted for the
7/15/24 TAC meeting.
Response to Ms. Dahlstrom’s Comments:
Comment:
2. Since the site is zoned C-2, which allows all uses permitted in CBD zoning, CBD
zoning permits apartments in specific circumstances described as:
“Apartments in multistory buildings, provided that the portion of the ground
floor fronting the street remains commercial, and the property will be subject to
site plan review when converted to such use.”
• In addition to the Comprehensive Plan consistency issue noted above, the
proposed development of 6 residential apartments is proposed over an
entire floor of commercial use, that currently doesn’t appear to have a
ground floor fronting the street.
Response:
The design has been revised to have a more prominent storefront with a covered porch
that both the ground floor business and the second floor apartments can use and large
storefront glazing. The Design Standard Checklist, C, 1. “Prominent Entrance” on Sheet
01 of the architectural drawings addresses this in more detail.
Response to Mr. Whitehill’s Comments:
Comment:
13. Concern with the stairs at the head of the ramp not being safe. The stair can
be removed or relocated as it appears to only convenience the Office. The
stairs can also be chained or gated.
Response:
It has been decided that the stair in question is needed for access to the service area
and the configuration meets all applicable building codes and will remain in the
design. Another stair has been added for direct exit from the east apartment stairwell
to keep the residents from walking by the service entrance and give them more direct
access to the parking lot.

Response to TAC Comments
Hillside Liquors and Apartments
8/16/2024
Page 2
Respectfully submitted,
TORCHIO ARCHITECTS, INC.
Gregory D. Torchio, AIA, LEED AP
President

DMS & Associates Response to TAC comments provided by Mr. Whitehill – Response
Dated August 16, 2024
1. The FEMA mapping shows the cross‐section analysis starting from the bridge. This is
because the bridge is considered the waterway obstruction that would cause the
floodwaters to rise. The bridge is also where the original Critical Areas demarked the
limit of tide. Since then, the CAC has correctly revised the head of tide to be at a point
some 350’ southeast of the bridge. All by way of saying, there may be permitting issues
by different state and federal jurisdictions. We will have to await the final certifications
and permits from MDE and DNR such as permit to construct the submerged gravel
wetlands in the non‐tidal wetland buffer which as actually tidal. In addition, we will
need the permit to discharge into tidal waters whether from MDE, DNR, or under the
NPDES General Permit referred to on Sheet C‐9. (See Sheet C‐4 for tidal discharge and
note #11. Show head of tide (§ 170‐47 3. (m.).
We have used the services of Noreen Davis, Davis & Associates Environmental
Consulting, LLC for wetland delineation and have submitted a joint permit application
to MDE. We continue to process the application with the divisions they have deemed
have jurisdiction for the project.
2. Since this project involves activity within the 100’ CA Shore Buffer, we should note that
the property is in the IDA and is designated as Buffer exempt. The Hillside building and
the former “Sleeve Plant” on the subject site formed the rationale for the exemption
requested by the Town in 1985. [ Buffer Exemption Areas. As part of the local Critical Area
program to be submitted to the Commission, local jurisdictions may request an exemption of
certain portions of the Critical Area from the buffer requirements where it can be sufficiently
demonstrated that the existing pattern of residential, industrial, commercial, or recreational
development in the Critical Area prevents the buffer from fulfilling the functions stated in
Regulation .01 of this chapter. If an exemption is requested, local jurisdictions shall propose
other measures for achieving the water quality and habitat protection objectives of the policies.
These measures may include, but are not limited to, public education and urban forestry
programs. As you can see from the above this exemption mandatorily places the burden
on the Town under the definition to propose measures offsetting the lass of the buffer.
TAC should have a discussion on this and address this to the PC and perhaps to the
Council. (see attached Centreville CAC Map)
The proposed project results in 10,124 s.f. of impervious area within the buffer exempt
area 100’ to stream. Upon review of the MSHA impervious areas for the bridge
replacement project, they had 10,770 s.f. of impervious within the buffer exempt area
100’ to stream. We feel that mitigation is not required given the proposed is less than
that from the MSHA project. We will continue to work with staff on this matter.
1

3. Sheet C‐1. Notes #3. Indicates C‐3 zoning (General Commercial) …C‐3 is industrial please
correct. Note 15 correctly refers to the zoning as C‐2.
We have corrected Note 3. The correct zoning is C‐2, “General Commercial”.
4. Sheet C‐2. The entire non‐wooded portion of the subject site was covered with #2 stone
and CR‐6 to facilitate construction of the bridge replacement…in many areas to a depth
of well over 1’. See MSHA Commons take plat attached for the extents of the
temporary construction easement which was entirely disturbed. This needs to be
confirmed and indicated on the existing conditions plan as it may influence the hydraulic
calculations for the project. It is believed that QACo. DPW and MSHA each have drone
footage of this stone area. See attached aerial (2019) of construction site disturbed and
impervious area.
Using aerial imagery we have added a boundary for the limits of impervious utilized by
the MSHA bridge replacement project.
5. Sheet C‐2 and 1. The project comprises 1.912 acres if which 1.08 acres is wooded. This
brings project compliance with the FCA into play per § 69‐3 A (1.) but which becomes
exempt under §69‐3 B. (8) provided the Applicant files a Declaration of Intent (per 69‐
4) with the Planning Commission. The Applicant must file this with the package to the
PC. (It is by code the PC’s responsibility to track and maintain FCA matters so that the
DNR biennial review can be updated on any Centreville FCA activity (per § 68‐18).
We have reviewed the site tabulations and made corrections upon finding
inconsistences. As mentioned in the above comment, the project is in the IDA portion
of the Critical Area and are exempt Forest Conservation, specifically per section 69.B.2.
The declaration of intent section 69‐4 notes its applicability only to exemptions falling
in code sections 69.B. 3, 4, 8, 11, and 14, therefore we feel a declaration of intent (DOI)
is not applicable. We will continue to work with the Town on a DOI if we are
misinterpreting this.
6. The submitted plans do not have any site geometry (pavement and curb curve data,
stationing, profiles, etc.) other than the boundary and topo by others we do not
currently have (copies of which should be submitted). The plan is not constructable as
is. Detail is required under §170‐47 which we expect will be found on the final
submittal.
We will be added the noted geometry and plan detail at the final site plan review
phase.
2

7. Sheet C‐3. Site access from Liberty Street and the Millstream Park is shown as left turn
only. If permitted by the MSHA, this should be marked with a through‐arrow as well to
avoid confusion.
We have added the proposal to add to the pavement marking for the through
direction. We will coordinate with MSHA District 2.
8. Sheet C‐2. The existing crosswalk in Commerce terminates in the exit lane of the
proposed entrance. (See attached photos). MSHA devised that crossing and the new
curb entrance to the project when the bridge replacement project wrapped up. Given
this peculiar configuration and the fact that the entrance is now to be actively utilized,
the Applicant must contact MSHA D2 and make access application should any
alterations in the crosswalk be deemed appropriate. If the existing configuration is to
remain, the plan must show a well delineated crosswalk across the project entrance and
all the crosswalk from the curbed island. This crosswalk is essential to the Town’s plan to
later expand the Millstream Trail and Park. (See possible option in attached sketch and
note 3rd review 5‐E.).
There are existing inlets on each side of the existing entrance. A new crosswalk would
require curbing to ramp down ad ADA accessible sloping before depressed curb could
accommodate a revised crosswalk. While we agree the existing crosswalk striping is
atypical we have analyzed reconfiguration on either side finding the inlets and need
for ADA slope transition of sidewalk and curb push a new crosswalk location so far
north or south that it creates an unacceptable accessible route for those crossing
Commerce and Liberty Streets from the park. We feel the existing striped crosswalk is
actually the best location with some additional striping at the site entrance. We have
pushed the proposed entrance stop bar striping back away from Commerce Street and
added an entrance crosswalk striping. The entrance crosswalk striping will align with
existing detectable warning strips. This added striped crosswalk spanning the
entrance will combine with the existing Commerce Street crosswalk. Vehicles leaving
the site will stop well before this crosswalk and have an clear line of site looking at the
existing Commerce Street crosswalk. We feel the is the safest crosswalk configuration
while also considering ADA accessible route and slope restrictions. We will coordinate
with MSHA District 2.
9. Sheet C‐3 There is no safe pedestrian access from the project to Commerce St. The
Town should require a 5’ sidewalk along the west curbline of the entrance‐only lane
from the end of the State constructed walk on Commerce to a crosswalk that then ties
into the building sidewalk. (see attached sketch).
We have added sidewalk and an onsite crosswalk to the building.
3

10. Sheet C‐3. I recommend modifying the entrance to a monumental split (see photo
sketch attached) this provides the required entrance width on Commerce, takes
unneeded impervious asphalt cover out, allows the project “one‐way directional sign”
(note 17) to be moved to a more readable place. [From Table 2 attachment to §170‐38
C. free standing signs permitted in the CBD and therefore in the C‐2 by § 170‐23 A) 1.
This is well more than 10’ from the property line lot front.] I retained the loop lane
should someone need to go back around to park.
We have added a monumental entrance with area of depressed curb that will host a
one way directional sign.
11. While the travel ways and parking are certainly workable, access to the ramp in the east
end of the building can be improved by moving the disabled parking from the west to
the east as shown on the attached sketch. This picks up a standard space on the west to
offset the unlabeled space lost on the east. I note there is significant unprogrammed
pavement around the trash corral that is normally not needed for access to the
containers. The applicant must have a specific use for this and the Town should know
what it is. A fair amount of CA lot coverage is used here. I would think adding three new
spaces in that area would be useful to the residents as “overflow” if it is deemed that
the excess pavement is to remain. I got some clarity on the trash corral. The one way
road pick‐up moves the gates to the southwest side of the corral. Pavement can be
removed on the north side…see sketch. Another option to reduce pavement is to rotate
the slab clockwise 45° …see sketch.
We have revised the travel way configuration and trash corral orientation. The
proposed revisions reduce CA lot coverage as the comment anticipated.
12. Sheet C‐3. Given the nature of the business, the Town should consider requiring
outdoor trash receptacles at each of the building’s entrances/exits. This would be for
both the deck and sidewalk below.
We have added two outdoor trash receptacles.
13. Concern with the stairs at the head of the ramp not being safe. The stair can be
removed or relocated as it appears to only convenience the Office. The stairs can also
be chained or gated.
We have reviewed the noted stair with the team and feel it is necessary to the site
patron and pedestrian functionality and practicality. We feel in meets building code
even if unchained. We have opened up the sidewalk concrete area around it to avoid
pinch points.
4

14. We should note the absence of any residential outdoor amenities…picnic tables,
benches, etc. There are three spots along the service entrance lane on which this might
be considered.
We do not believe this is required and have omitted at this time, but are open to
further discussion with staff and planning commission.
15. Sheet C‐4. The Applicant is proposing direct discharge of stormwater into tidal waters
of the State. Permits from DNR, MDE, and/or coverage under the NPDES General Permit
(GP) may be required. See Sheet C‐9 for reference to NPDES GP number MDR10, State
discharge permit number 09GP. This GP should be included in the submittal.
We will continue to work on any application MDE and discharge permits applicable to
the project. We will file an NPDES Construction Activity NOI permit with MDE at
permitting.
16. Sheet C‐4 (to be aware of and should anyone ask) shows the existing 4’ contour on the
MSHA parcel just to the northeast of the existing entrance to the project. (See attached
aerial) This is an area that now ponds up on every rain and does not ever fully drain due
to impervious subgrade. Under normal conditions, the Applicant would not be
permitted to impound any addition stormwater upstream by virtue of the proposed
onsite grading. The project engineer has done well to hug closely to existing grades in
this area. This area will certainly be addressed in future design of the Town’s
stormwater management and ESD project if/when the Town receives the land.
Noted
17. Sheet C‐6. The several of turn arrows on the Rte. 213 crossover lanes are mysteriously
inaccurate…. please correct. Proposed sewer manhole connection invert and gradient
to the clean‐outs is not shown in profile or by invert elevation. 170‐47‐3. (f). The
applicant needs to show the proposed sanitary lateral and cleanouts in profile. If the
cleanout after the manhole is to be a drop lateral, please so label. I should note that the
location of the existing sewer and water lines shown on the plans is consistent with the
MSHA as‐builts (see attached as‐builts). Effort should be made to make the proposed
cleanouts watertight to the degree possible as their covers lie well below the computed
flood stage.
The turn arrows have been corrected. We have addressed DPWs comments on
applicable details. We will provide elevation information and profiles for the water
and sewer utilities at the final site plan phase.
18. The Applicant needs to show a 30’ sanitary sewer utility easement to the Town Council
of Centreville centered on the existing sanitary sewer line. This will be graphically
5

shown hatched between the existing MSHA r/w line and the sewer on the west side
(which is less than 15’) and a full 15’ on the east. [The sewer main is extremely deep in
this area to clear under the Millstream. A 30’ easement is the minimum practicable
should repair or replacement be necessary. This easement must be recorded along with
a plat at the time of transfer from Corsica Creek Commons, LLC to Hillside Liquors, LLC.
Please submit prepared documents for Town review. The Town’s Right of Entry
authority per § 115‐40 specifically refers to “…. the of the duly negotiated easement
pertaining to the private property involved terms.”
We have added a utility easement for the deep sewer. It ends up as variable width
given the odd right of way shape. We will continue to process it with the Town
through the approval process.
19. Sheet L‐1. The Applicant is showing a 4’ Bufferyard along the boundary with MSHA
parcel to the northeast. In the submittal cover letter (page 2,¶2) they seek relief to
reduce by 1’ the required Bufferyard which is derived as follows: The Bufferyard
required between the C‐2 and R‐3 zones is Bufferyard C. Bufferyard C has the option of
a minimum of 10’ wide buffer (per § 170‐Attachment 1:6). § 170‐42 D. 1. Permits the
Bufferyard to be reduce to one half when adjoining a vacant parcel. Thus, we arrive at a
required 5’ Bufferyard. What the Applicant does not discuss is the fact that the 10’ C
Bufferyard must be accompanied by a structure…in this case an F‐3 6’ high stockade
fence. While the Applicant is proposing to provide the full 10’ complement of required
plant material (presumably in mitigation for the 1’ reduction), they neglect to address
the fence. Under § 170‐42 D (2) the remaining Bufferyard “shall” be provided when the
vacant lot develops. This means that the Town will be stuck with the fence. There is no
need for the Town waive its own requirement for itself later (never looks good). There
is no hardship here as the relief sought is not caused by an abnormally shaped parcel or
anything outside and beyond the Applicant’s control. I think the stockade fence in this
location is not wise because it would obstruct drivers’ view of Commerce Street ahead
of its curve to the right. Perhaps a better solution would be to grant the sought after 1’
relief, and require an F‐1 (picket) or F‐2 (wood rail fence but with an added 24’ high
welded wire screen from the ground to the first rail to function as a trash rack). I believe
the F‐1 would be preferred in appearance. Not to discriminate, but this is to be a liquor
store. In addition, having the fence there would allow greater design flexibility to the
Town when designing the new Park environmental features and trailhead parking.
We have revised the building per architectural comments which pushed it further from
Commerce Street. We also moved it further away from the vacant neighboring SHA
property to achieve the full 5’ wide zoning buffer (only half of a 10’ required since
neighboring property is vacant). We have added a 6’ board on board (aka stockade)
fence as required with bufferyard type “C”. The landscaping has been revised to
provide the half width plant quantities. We feel the revised layout and landscaping
now meets code with no relief requests.
6

1. A. In the attached e‐mail find the deed of transfer of a portion of the Commons
land to MSHA. Note the perpetual easement (a 4‐line area at the project entry shown
on the plat in that deed. This easement must be shown with a reference to the deed on
all sheets.
It is our understanding upon review of the deed and State right of way plat that the 4
line perpetual easement is for aerial utilities and not pertinent to the project or
needing to be shown.
2. B. Sheet C‐3 The utility easement shown at the entrance must be shown with its
deed reference and purpose on all sheets.
Upon research of older site plans, that easement shown in the initial submittal was
actually a proposed easement at one time and never recorded to the best of our
knowledge and land record research abilities.
3. C. For Sharon’s opinion…The 15’ trail easement to the Town remaining in the PWA
(dated 10’15’2009 and as amended in 9/23/2011) is in full force and effect must be
shown on all Sheets. At this time the Town is not in possession of the land it may
receive from MSHA. It is essential that the easement be not only shown, but further
preserved by compliance with PWA §8‐ Nature and Survival, and Transfer of Obligations
and particularly § 8.1 which would effectively release Corsica Creek Commons, LLC and
bind Hillside Liquors to providing the trail upon Corsica Creek Commons providing the
Town a fully executed agreement wherein Hillside Liquors, LLC agrees to be bound by
the trail provision. This must be done prior to the sale. This may also be a matter of full
disclosure to the Hillside Liquor folks as it is not currently acknowledged or depicted on
the site plans. The POS transfer from the State to Centreville for the “Sandy Bottom”
parcel may not consummate. If it should not, the Town would have no practical access
to the new Millstream II Wilderness Trail. See S. D’s. notes on the 2008 site plan trail
location.
We have revised the travelways, trash corral, and stormwater to provide the PWA’s
15’ wide trail easement. We note your provided information that this easement may
be dissolved if the Town’s acquisition of the neighboring property continues as
planned.
4. D. The Engineer must clarify the calculations of Impervious and Lot Coverage. Why
are two separate calculations relevant.
We have added labels that we hope clarify the calculations. We have a coverage by
buildings statistic and an impervious area statistic.
7

5. E. In a prior iteration of the project (done by MCCrone) the crosswalk (Scan 0523)
the MSHA had yet a different scheme for the Rte. 213 crosswalk. Not unlike that I
sketched earlier. Of course, a pedestrian bridge linking the two parks would be ideal as
well as hideously expensive. Make a nice gateway to downtown.
Noted, but we feel it is not realistic.
8

DMS & Associates Response to 7/12/2024 comments. Provided responses dated 8/16/2024 and in bold, underlined,
italics font
DATE: July 12, 2024 (comments date)
TO: Town of Centreville
FROM: Eric J. Miller
RE: Project Name: Mixed Use Development by Hillside Liquors, LLC
Requesting: Sketch Site Plan Approval
Background:
Proposed development of a 1.912 acre parcel located at Tax Map 44B, Parcel 1085 (425 S. Commerce Street Centreville,
MD) on the east side of MD 213 (S. Commerce St) along Mill Stream, in the Town Centreville. Applicant proposes
construction of a two (2) story mixed use building with a footprint of 6,356 consisting of commercial retail on the first floor
and six (6) residential apartments on the second floor. The proposed development is in the incorporated Town of Centreville
and Queen Anne’s County’s regulatory review is limited to stormwater management (SWM).
Note: Brandon Davis and Eric Miller had phone conversation discussion the status of the MDE wetland and
floodplain permitting and also an explanation of the current design phase this project is in. It was noted that this is
a preliminary design phase and that construction and other detail will come with the final site plan approval phase.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT/ROADS:
Roads: Roads comments are deferred to MDOT SHA.
Stormwater Management Report Comments:
1. Revise the stormwater management report to include Pre vs. Post Development discharge values for the 2/10/100
year storm events.
We will provide calcualtions at final. With ESD addressed to the MEP and direct discharge to the stream and
nearby downstream tidal waters, we feel that any quantity control concerns are moot.
2. Revise the stormwater management report to include pipe conveyance computations for the development.
We will provide stormdrain calculations at final.
3. Revise the drainage map to identify the stormwater management practice(s) and include the area to each practice.
We will provide mapping at final.
Plan Review Comments:
1. Clarify if the submerged gravel wetland is intended to be used as a sediment control practice.
Further sediment control information and detail will be added at final and through the review with the
Soil Conservation District. Note we try to avoid use of ESD practices as sediment trapping areas but it
may not be avoidable in this instance.
2. Revise grading along the southern fourteen (14) parking spaces to provide positive drainage to the adjacent
submerged gravel wetland.
We added a curb opening depression detail and plan labels. We will provide detailed grading at final.
3. Revise plans to include storm drain profiles.
Stormdrain profiles will be added at final.
4. Revise Phase of Construction (Sheet C-9) to refer to Queen Anne’s County Soil Conservation District.
County corrected.

5. Confirm that the correct General Permit is referenced on Sheet C-9. Revise NPDES note #1 to indicate the
Environmental Site Design is being utilized on site.
The permit number has been updated. Note this is a boiler plate set of notes that SCS requires on all
their plans.
General Comments:
1. Confirm jurisdictional authority for review of the project as it appears to be discharging to a tidal stream (see
accompanying screen shot from the Queen Anne’s County Property Viewer).
We continue to process the MDE permitting application.
2. Provide structural retaining wall design referenced in note 16 on Sheet C-3 for review with the submerged gravel
wetland as it may impact the design and construction of the facility.
We will continue to evaluate the SWM and retaining wall through the design process and not final site plan.

3. Provide copy of acceptance and approval from MDE Nontidal Wetlands and Waterways (including the No-Rise
Certification prepared by Sustainable Science) to address the “incomplete submission” letter included in the
review package.
4. Provide copy of the MDE and USACE Wetland Disturbance Permit referenced in note 9 on Sheet C-1 of the Site
Plan.
5. Provide copy of approval from the Critical Area Commission.
6. Provide the following documents when submittal is made for final approval & signature:
a. Plans signed/sealed by engineer or land surveyor.
7. Copies of final, approved plans shall be delivered as follows:
a. Engineering/Roads: 1 full-size plans and 1 CD w/.pdf files of plans
b. Owner: 1 CD w/.pdf files and 1 paper copy (minimum)
RECOMMENDATION:
Sketch Site Plan Approval is Recommended provided that all comments are addressed prior to submitting for Final Site Plan.
S:\DPW\COMMON\Developmentprojects\Centreville_425 S Commerce St\Centreville-425 S Commerce St. 1st DPW Review 2024-07-11.Docx

August 16, 2024
Fire Marshall’s Office
Queen Anne’s County
100 Communications Drive
Centreville, Maryland 21617
Re: Hillside Liquors – Concept Plan Review
425 S Commerce Street
Centreville, Maryland 21617
Dear John:
We are responding to the letter from your office dated July 16, 2024, and subsequent meeting in
which you offer comments for the above referenced project. This letter will address all of these
comments.
1. Approved fire department access road shall be provided for every facility, building, or portion
of a building, or portion of a building hereafter constructed or relocated. Section 18.2.3.1.1
(NFPA 1)
Response: The proposed fire department access road (12 ft wide) has been reviewed with
the fire marshal, Jeff Morgan and local fire department chief, Jeremy Davis and is
acceptable.
2. Fire department access roads shall consist of roadways, fire lanes , parking and lot lanes, or a
combination thereof. Section 18.2.3.1.2 (NFPA)
Response: Will comply; access roads loop around the building.
3. Fire department access road shall extend to 50 ft of at least one exterior door that can be
opened from the outside and that provides access to the interior of the building. Section
18.2.3.2.1 (NFPA 1)
Response: Will comply, both main entries to the 1st floor commercial and both stair entries
to the apartments are within 50ft of the access road.
4. Fire Department access roads shall be provided such that any portion of the facility or any
portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located not more than 150 ft. from
the fire department access roads as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the
building or facility. Section 18.2.3.2.2. (NFPA 1)
Response: Comply, the proposed building is sprinklered with access roads going around
the building. All portions of the building are within the 450 ft permitted for a sprinklered
building per NFAP 18.2.3.2.2.1
5. When buildings are protected throughout by an automatic sprinkler system that is installed in
accordance with NFPA 13, NFPA 13D or NFPA 13 R the distance in 18.2.3.2.2 shall be permitted
to be increased to 450 ft section 18.2.3.2.2.1 (NFPA 1).
Response: will comply, building is protected with automatic sprinkler system.
6. Fire department access is essential to providing effective manual fire suppression operations.
Remote section of the building needs to be limited to ensure hose stream, aerial fire apparatus
and fire fighters can access most portions of the building.

Response: The fire department access goes around the building with a minimum of two
remote exit / entrance doors located for both the commercial and residential floors.
7. Fire department access roads shall have an unobstructed with of not less than 20 ft and
unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13’-6”, Sections 18.2.3.4.1.1, 18.2.3.4.1.2 (NFPA
Response: The proposed fire department access road at 12 ft wide has been reviewed with
the fire marshal, Jeff Morgan and local fire department chief, Jeremy Davis and is
acceptable. Height clearance of 13’-6” is provided.
8. Fire department access Road surface shall be designed and maintained to support the
imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided wit an all-weather diving surface. Section
18.2.3.4.2 (NFPA 1)
Response: Will comply.
9. Dead-end fire department access roads in excess of 150 ft in length shall be provided with
approved provision for the fire apparatus to turn around. Section 18.2.3.4.4 (NFPA 1)
Response: Complies, the fire access road (12 ft wide) loops around the building.
10. The turning radius of the fire department access road shall be ass approved by the AHJ.
Response: The proposed fire department access road at 12 ft wide which loops around the
building was reviewed with the fire marshal, Jeff Morgan and local fire department chief,
Jeremy Davis, turning radius proposed is sufficient.
11. No parking will be required on the roads of the property showing 12 ft width. No parking signage
will be required along with painted curbs.
Response: Will comply, signage and painted curbs will be provided see attached plan for
locations. As requested the vehicular aisle area in the rear that serves parking on both sides
will be stripped and marked for deliveries. See plan for location.
12. Please provide a site plan showing all fire hydrants within 1000 ft of the proposed building.
Response: see attached drawing.
13. Fire hydrants shall be located not more than 12 ft from the fire department access road.
Sections 18.5.1.6 (NFPA 1)
Response: All existing hydrants are located withing 12 ft of the MD route 213. If a new
hydrant is needed based on fire flow it will be located no more than 12 ft from the fire
department connection.
14. Clear space around fire hydrants: A 36 in. clear space shall be maintained around the
circumference of each hydrant except as otherwise required or approved. Section 18.5.7.1
Response: Will Comply
15. Clear space around fire hydrant; A clear space of not less than 60 in. shall be provided in front
of each hydrant connection having a diameter greater than 2 ½” Section 18.5.7.2 (NFPA 1)
Response: Will Comply
16. Fire hydrants shall be provided for buildings other than detached one- and two-family dwelling
in accordance with both the following: Section 18.5.3 (NFPA 1)
1. The maximum distance to a fire hydrant from the closest point on the building shall not
exceed 400 ft.
Response: An existing hydrant is located near the entry off RT 213 within 99 ft of the
building.

2. The maximum distance between fire hydrants shall not exceed 500 ft.
From DMS and Associates: A map is enclosed showing approximate existing hydrant
spacing along commerce street. We have add and “Add Alternate” hydrant onsite
pending fire flow analysis.
17. Fire hydrant must be located with in 100 ft of the fire department connections.
Response: As discussed with the fire marshal’s office, A flow test will be completed early in
the building permitting process on the two closest hydrants within 500 ft. If these hydrants
do not provide the flow required for the sprinklered building under NFPA 1 then an additional
hydrant would be provided as an add alternate. See plan for location of hydrant if required
on site.
18. A full building plan, at time of building permit application , shall be submitted for a fire marshal
review (NFPA 101)
Response: Will provide during the building permit application process.
19. A fire sprinkler system shall be required for the building.
Response: The building will be protected with an automatic fire sprinkler system per NFPA
13 & 13R.
a. Separate fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted for the above mentioned system.
Response: Shop drawings will be provided by the sprinkler subcontractor for the
fire marshal’s review and approval.
20. A full fire alarm system shall be required for the building (NFPA 101, NFPA 72).
a. Separate fire alarm plans shall be submitted for the above mentioned system.
Response: The building will have a full fire alarm system per NFPA 101, & NFPA 72. Shop
drawings will be provided by the alarm subcontractor for fire marshal’s review and
approval.
21. An additional fire hydrant may be required depending on the location of the FCC (NFPA 1)
Response: See responses to 13 & 1. Flow tests will be taken to determine if additional hydrant
is required.
22. FA Knox box will be required for the building.
Response: Knox boxes will be provided at the entrances to the liquor store. The knox box
at the front of the building also serves the front stair tower for the 2nd floor apartments. See
plan for locations reviewed with the fire marshal’s office. Knox boxes shall be mounted at
5 ft above floor.
If you need any additional information or clarification, please contact me. If we do not hear from
you, we will proceed as indicated above.
Respectfully submitted,
Jo Anne Baker - Gebelein AIA
Vice President
Enclosure

DISCLAIMER: Property information contained on this map is for reference purposes only and is NOT to be construed as a "legal description". The map scale displayed is not
1:890
accurate and serves as a general representation only.

Wes Moore Erik Fisher
Governor Chair
Aruna Miller Katherine Charbonneau
Lt. Governor Executive Director
STATE OF MARYLAND
CRITICAL AREA COMMISSION
CHESAPEAKE AND ATLANTIC COASTAL BAYS
September 16, 2024
Ms. Carolyn Brinkley, Town Manager
Town of Centreville
101 Lawyer’s Row
Centreville, MD 21617
Re: Hillside Liquors, LLC (Tax Map 44B, Parcel 1085)
Site Plan
Dear Ms. Brinkley:
Thank you for providing information on the project referenced above to this office for review.
The applicant proposes construction of a mixed use building with commercial retail on the first
floor and six (6) residential apartments on the second floor. The parcel is located at 425 S.
Commerce Street, Centreville. The 1.84-acre parcel is located entirely within the Critical Area on
land designated as Intensely Developed Area (IDA) and is mapped Modified Buffer Area
(MBA).
Based on a review of the submitted documentation, this office has the following comments:
• The project is located within the IDA; therefore, Critical Area 10% stormwater
management (SWM) for phosphorus is required.
• The applicant submitted a 10% spreadsheet which shows a pollutant reduction
requirement of 1.14 pounds of phosphorus per year (lb P/yr). The proposed SWM BMP,
a submerged gravel wetland (SGW), will provide 1.23 lb P/yr; therefore, the 10%
pollutant reduction requirement for the project has been met.
• We note that the proposed SWM facility is located on the perimeter of the proposed
development within the floodplain and floodway and within the 25-foot nontidal wetland
buffer. While we understand that the design of a SGW includes an anaerobic zone which
is achieved by a continuously saturated subsurface layer, the design also includes an
aerobic zone on the surface, which is designed/maintained as a dry area, and which
provides water quality via sedimentation and filtration. Based on the vulnerability of the
site, it appears likely that the SGW, including the forebays, will be flooded during storm
events and could potentially export pollutants to Mill Stream. The Town may want to ask
1804 West Street, Suite 100, Annapolis, Maryland 21401 – (410) 260-3460
dnr.maryland.gov/criticalarea/ – TTY users call via the Maryland Relay Service

Ms. Carolyn Brinkley
September 16, 2024
Page 2
the applicant if this possibility has been considered and/or if there are more appropriate
locations to site the SWM facility.
• The Town must determine if the proposed development meets all the requirements of the
Town of Centreville’s Critical Area program including the MBA provisions.
• Based on the submitted information, it appears that Town staff have concerns regarding
the vulnerability of the site to flooding (the property is located within the 100-year
floodplain and within the floodway) and impacts to natural resources. We support the
Town in its ongoing review of these issues and are available to provide guidance and
recommendations as needed.
• We note that any proposed impacts to tidal wetlands, nontidal wetlands, nontidal wetland
buffer, and/or streams require authorization from the Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE) Wetlands and Waterways Program. All required authorizations must
be received prior to the start of construction.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. You may contact me at 410-260-3476 or
susana.makhlouf@maryland.gov with any questions.
Sincerely,
Susan Makhlouf
Natural Resources Planner
File: CV 0224-24

1
FIRE CODE PLAN REVIEW
July 16, 2024
SUBJECT: Concept Plan – Mixed Use Building
Hillside Liquor Store & Apartments
425 S. Commerce Street
Centreville, Maryland 21617
APPLICANT: DMS & Associates
c/o Brandon Davis
P.O. Box 80
Centreville, Maryland 21617
(443) 262-9130
FILE #: Town of Centreville Concept Plan
APPLICABLE CODE: NFPA 1, NFPA 101, NFPA 13, NFPA 72
COMMENTS:
1. Approved fire department access roads shall be provided for every facility,
building, or portion of a building hereafter constructed or relocated. Section
18.2.3.1.1 (NFPA 1).
2. Fire department access roads shall consist of roadways, fire lanes, parking
lot lanes, or a combination thereof. Section 18.2.3.1.2 (NFPA 1).
3. A fire department access road shall extend to 50ft of at least one exterior
door that can be opened from the outside and that provides access to the
interior of the building. Section 18.2.3.2.1 (NFPA 1).
4. Fire department access roads shall be provided such that any portion of the
facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is
located not more than 150 ft. from the fire department access roads as
measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or
facility. Section 18.2.3.2.2 (NFPA 1).
5. When buildings are protected throughout with an approved automatic
sprinkler system that is installed in accordance with NFPA 13, NFPA 13D,
or NFPA 13R, the distance in 18.2.3.2.2 shall be permitted to be increased
to 450 ft. Section 18.2.3.2.2.1 (NFPA 1).
6. Fire department access is essential to providing effective manual fire
suppression operations. Remote sections of the building need to be limited
in order to ensure that hose streams, aerial fire apparatus, and fire fighters
can access most portions of the building.

2
7. Fire Department Access Roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less
than 20ft, and unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13ft 6in.
Sections 18.2.3.4.1.1, 18.2.3.4.1.2 (NFPA 1).
8. Fire Department Access Road surface shall be designed and maintained to
support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with an
all-weather driving surface. Section 18.2.3.4.2 (NFPA 1).
9. Dead-end fire department access roads in excess of 150 ft. in length shall
be provided with approved provisions for the fire apparatus to turn around.
Section 18.2.3.4.4 (NFPA 1).
10. The turning radius of a fire department access road shall be as approved by
the AHJ. Section 18.2.3.4.3.1 (NFPA 1).
11. No parking will be required on the roads on the property showing 12ft width.
No parking signage will be required along with painted curbs.
12. Please provide a site plan showing all Fire Hydrants within 1000’ of the
proposed building.
13. Fire hydrants shall be located not more than 12 ft. from the fire department
access road. Section 18.5.1.6 (NFPA 1).
14. Clear Space Around Fire Hydrants: A 36 in. clear space shall be maintained
around the circumference of fire hydrants except as otherwise required or
approved. Section 18.5.7.1 (NFPA 1)
15. Clear Space Around Fire Hydrants: A clear space of not less than 60 in.
shall be provided in front of each hydrant connection having a diameter
greater than 2 ½ in. Section 18.5.7.2 (NFPA 1)
16. Fire hydrants shall be provided for buildings other than detached one- and
two-family dwellings in accordance with both of the following: Section 18.5.3
(NFPA 1).
1.) The maximum distance to a fire hydrant from the closest point on the
building shall not exceed 400 ft.
2.) The maximum distance between fire hydrants shall not exceed 500 ft.
17. Fire hydrants must be located within 100 ft. of the Fire Department
Connections.
18. A full building plan, at time of building permit application, shall be submitted
for a Fire Marshal review. (NFPA 101)
19. A fire sprinkler system shall be required for the building.

3
a. Separate fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted for the above-
mentioned system.
20. A full fire alarm system shall be required for the building. (NFPA 101, NFPA
72).
a. Separate fire alarm plans shall be submitted for the above-
mentioned system.
21. An additional fire hydrant(s) may be required depending on the location of
the FDC. (NFPA 1).
22. A Knox Box shall be provided on each building to allow for fire department
access. Section 18.2.2.1 (NFPA 1).
Should you have any question or to arrange an inspection, please contact this
office at 410 758-4500 ext. 1144.
Jeffrey C. Morgan
Assistant Chief
Fire Marshal’s Office
Queen Anne’s County, MD
100 Communications Drive
Centerville, Maryland 21617
410 758-4500 ext. 1144
Fire Review Fee: $100.00
Please make your check payable to: Queen Anne’s County Commissioners
Forward to: Permit Office
110 Vincit Street
Centreville, MD 21617

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Queen
312 Safety Drive
Anne’s Centreville, MD 21617
County T e le phone: (410) 758-0925
Fax: (410) 758-3341
County Commissioners:
www.qac.org
James J. Moran, At Large
Jack N. Wilson, Jr., District 1
J. Patrick McLaughlin, District 2
Philip L. Dumenil, District 3
Christopher M. Corchiarino, District 4
DATE: July 12, 2024
TO: Town of Centreville
FROM: Eric J. Miller
RE: Project Name: Mixed Use Development by Hillside Liquors, LLC
Requesting: Sketch Site Plan Approval
Background:
Proposed development of a 1.912 acre parcel located at Tax Map 44B, Parcel 1085 (425 S. Commerce Street Centreville,
MD) on the east side of MD 213 (S. Commerce St) along Mill Stream, in the Town Centreville. Applicant proposes
construction of a two (2) story mixed use building with a footprint of 6,356 consisting of commercial retail on the first floor
and six (6) residential apartments on the second floor. The proposed development is in the incorporated Town of Centreville
and Queen Anne’s County’s regulatory review is limited to stormwater management (SWM).
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT/ROADS:
Roads: Roads comments are deferred to MDOT SHA.
Stormwater Management Report Comments:
1. Revise the stormwater management report to include Pre vs. Post Development discharge values for the 2/10/100
year storm events.
2. Revise the stormwater management report to include pipe conveyance computations for the development.
3. Revise the drainage map to identify the stormwater management practice(s) and include the area to each practice.
Plan Review Comments:
1. Clarify if the submerged gravel wetland is intended to be used as a sediment control practice.
2. Revise grading along the southern fourteen (14) parking spaces to provide positive drainage to the adjacent
submerged gravel wetland.
3. Revise plans to include storm drain profiles.
4. Revise Phase of Construction (Sheet C-9) to refer to Queen Anne’s County Soil Conservation District.
5. Confirm that the correct General Permit is referenced on Sheet C-9. Revise NPDES note #1 to indicate the
Environmental Site Design is being utilized on site.
General Comments:
1. Confirm jurisdictional authority for review of the project as it appears to be discharging to a tidal stream (see
accompanying screen shot from the Queen Anne’s County Property Viewer).
2. Provide structural retaining wall design referenced in note 16 on Sheet C-3 for review with the submerged gravel
wetland as it may impact the design and construction of the facility.

3. Provide copy of acceptance and approval from MDE Nontidal Wetlands and Waterways (including the No-Rise
Certification prepared by Sustainable Science) to address the “incomplete submission” letter included in the
review package.
4. Provide copy of the MDE and USACE Wetland Disturbance Permit referenced in note 9 on Sheet C-1 of the Site
Plan.
5. Provide copy of approval from the Critical Area Commission.
6. Provide the following documents when submittal is made for final approval & signature:
a. Plans signed/sealed by engineer or land surveyor.
7. Copies of final, approved plans shall be delivered as follows:
a. Engineering/Roads: 1 full-size plans and 1 CD w/.pdf files of plans
b. Owner: 1 CD w/.pdf files and 1 paper copy (minimum)
RECOMMENDATION:
Sketch Site Plan Approval is Recommended provided that all comments are addressed prior to submitting for Final Site Plan.
S:\DPW\COMMON\Developmentprojects\Centreville_425 S Commerce St\Centreville-425 S Commerce St. 1st DPW Review 2024-07-11.Docx

.5102/92/40
detnirP
.1102/12/01
elbaliava
etaD
.7622_85EC_ASM
,9210
.p
,3502
MS
)sdroceR
dnaL(
TRUOC
TIUCRIC
YTNUOC
S'ENNA
NEEUQ

.5102/92/40
detnirP
.1102/12/01
elbaliava
etaD
.7622_85EC_ASM
,0310
.p
,3502
MS
)sdroceR
dnaL(
TRUOC
TIUCRIC
YTNUOC
S'ENNA
NEEUQ

.5102/92/40
detnirP
.1102/12/01
elbaliava
etaD
.7622_85EC_ASM
,1310
.p
,3502
MS
)sdroceR
dnaL(
TRUOC
TIUCRIC
YTNUOC
S'ENNA
NEEUQ

TAC Team – Review by Michael Whitehill, Contracted Engineer
Hillside Liquors –
1. The FEMA mapping shows the cross-section analysis starting from the bridge. This is
because the bridge is considered the waterway obstruction that would cause the
floodwaters to rise. The bridge is also where the original Critical Areas demarked the
limit of tide. Since then, the CAC has correctly revised the head of tide to be at a point
some 350’ southeast of the bridge. All by way of saying, there may be permitting issues
by different state and federal jurisdictions. We will have to await the final certifications
and permits from MDE and DNR such as permit to construct the submerged gravel
wetlands in the non-tidal wetland buffer which as actually tidal. In addition, we will
need the permit to discharge into tidal waters whether from MDE, DNR, or under the
NPDES General Permit referred to on Sheet C-9. (See Sheet C-4 for tidal discharge and
note #11. Show head of tide (§ 170-47 3. (m.).
2. Since this project involves activity within the 100’ CA Shore Buffer, we should note that
the property is in the IDA and is designated as Buffer exempt. The Hillside building and
the former “Sleeve Plant” on the subject site formed the rationale for the exemption
requested by the Town in 1985. [ Buffer Exemption Areas. As part of the local Critical Area
program to be submitted to the Commission, local jurisdictions may request an exemption of
certain portions of the Critical Area from the buffer requirements where it can be sufficiently
demonstrated that the existing pattern of residential, industrial, commercial, or recreational
development in the Critical Area prevents the buffer from fulfilling the functions stated in
Regulation .01 of this chapter. If an exemption is requested, local jurisdictions shall propose
other measures for achieving the water quality and habitat protection objectives of the policies.
These measures may include, but are not limited to, public education and urban forestry
programs. As you can see from the above this exemption mandatorily places the burden
on the Town under the definition to propose measures offsetting the lass of the buffer.
TAC should have a discussion on this and address this to the PC and perhaps to the
Council. (see attached Centreville CAC Map)
3. Sheet C-1. Notes #3. Indicates C-3 zoning (General Commercial) …C-3 is industrial please
correct. Note 15 correctly refers to the zoning as C-2.
4. Sheet C-2. The entire non-wooded portion of the subject site was covered with #2 stone
and CR-6 to facilitate construction of the bridge replacement…in many areas to a depth
of well over 1’. See MSHA Commons take plat attached for the extents of the
temporary construction easement which was entirely disturbed. This needs to be
confirmed and indicated on the existing conditions plan as it may influence the hydraulic
calculations for the project. It is believed that QACo. DPW and MSHA each have drone
footage of this stone area. See attached aerial (2019) of construction site disturbed and
impervious area.
5. Sheet C-2 and 1. The project comprises 1.912 acres if which 1.08 acres is wooded. This
brings project compliance with the FCA into play per § 69-3 A (1.) but which becomes
1

exempt under §69-3 B. (8) provided the Applicant files a Declaration of Intent (per 69-
4) with the Planning Commission. The Applicant must file this with the package to the
PC. (It is by code the PC’s responsibility to track and maintain FCA matters so that the
DNR biennial review can be updated on any Centreville FCA activity (per § 68-18).
6. The submitted plans do not have any site geometry (pavement and curb curve data,
stationing, profiles, etc.) other than the boundary and topo by others we do not
currently have (copies of which should be submitted). The plan is not constructable as
is. Detail is required under §170-47 which we expect will be found on the final
submittal.
7. Sheet C-3. Site access from Liberty Street and the Millstream Park is shown as left turn
only. If permitted by the MSHA, this should be marked with a through-arrow as well to
avoid confusion.
8. Sheet C-2. The existing crosswalk in Commerce terminates in the exit lane of the
proposed entrance. (See attached photos). MSHA devised that crossing and the new
curb entrance to the project when the bridge replacement project wrapped up. Given
this peculiar configuration and the fact that the entrance is now to be actively utilized,
the Applicant must contact MSHA D2 and make access application should any
alterations in the crosswalk be deemed appropriate. If the existing configuration is to
remain, the plan must show a well delineated crosswalk across the project entrance and
all the crosswalk from the curbed island. This crosswalk is essential to the Town’s plan to
later expand the Millstream Trail and Park. (See possible option in attached sketch and
note 3rd review 5-E.).
9. Sheet C-3 There is no safe pedestrian access from the project to Commerce St. The
Town should require a 5’ sidewalk along the west curbline of the entrance-only lane
from the end of the State constructed walk on Commerce to a crosswalk that then ties
into the building sidewalk. (see attached sketch).
10. Sheet C-3. I recommend modifying the entrance to a monumental split (see photo
sketch attached) this provides the required entrance width on Commerce, takes
unneeded impervious asphalt cover out, allows the project “one-way directional sign”
(note 17) to be moved to a more readable place. [From Table 2 attachment to §170-38
C. free standing signs permitted in the CBD and therefore in the C-2 by § 170-23 A) 1.
This is well more than 10’ from the property line lot front.] I retained the loop lane
should someone need to go back around to park.
11. While the travel ways and parking are certainly workable, access to the ramp in the east
end of the building can be improved by moving the disabled parking from the west to
the east as shown on the attached sketch. This picks up a standard space on the west to
offset the unlabeled space lost on the east. I note there is significant unprogrammed
pavement around the trash corral that is normally not needed for access to the
containers. The applicant must have a specific use for this and the Town should know
what it is. A fair amount of CA lot coverage is used here. I would think adding three new
spaces in that area would be useful to the residents as “overflow” if it is deemed that
the excess pavement is to remain. I got some clarity on the trash corral. The one way
road pick-up moves the gates to the southwest side of the corral. Pavement can be
2

removed on the north side…see sketch. Another option to reduce pavement is to rotate
the slab clockwise 45° …see sketch.
12. Sheet C-3. Given the nature of the business, the Town should consider requiring
outdoor trash receptacles at each of the building’s entrances/exits. This would be for
both the deck and sidewalk below.
13. Concern with the stairs at the head of the ramp not being safe. The stair can be
removed or relocated as it appears to only convenience the Office. The stairs can also
be chained or gated.
14. We should note the absence of any residential outdoor amenities…picnic tables,
benches, etc. There are three spots along the service entrance lane on which this might
be considered.
15. Sheet C-4. The Applicant is proposing direct discharge of stormwater into tidal waters
of the State. Permits from DNR, MDE, and/or coverage under the NPDES General Permit
(GP) may be required. See Sheet C-9 for reference to NPDES GP number MDR10, State
discharge permit number 09GP. This GP should be included in the submittal.
16. Sheet C-4 (to be aware of and should anyone ask) shows the existing 4’ contour on the
MSHA parcel just to the northeast of the existing entrance to the project. (See attached
aerial) This is an area that now ponds up on every rain and does not ever fully drain due
to impervious subgrade. Under normal conditions, the Applicant would not be
permitted to impound any addition stormwater upstream by virtue of the proposed
onsite grading. The project engineer has done well to hug closely to existing grades in
this area. This area will certainly be addressed in future design of the Town’s
stormwater management and ESD project if/when the Town receives the land.
17. Sheet C-6. The several of turn arrows on the Rte. 213 crossover lanes are mysteriously
inaccurate…. please correct. Proposed sewer manhole connection invert and gradient
to the clean-outs is not shown in profile or by invert elevation. 170-47-3. (f). The
applicant needs to show the proposed sanitary lateral and cleanouts in profile. If the
cleanout after the manhole is to be a drop lateral, please so label. I should note that the
location of the existing sewer and water lines shown on the plans is consistent with the
MSHA as-builts (see attached as-builts). Effort should be made to make the proposed
cleanouts watertight to the degree possible as their covers lie well below the computed
flood stage.
18. The Applicant needs to show a 30’ sanitary sewer utility easement to the Town Council
of Centreville centered on the existing sanitary sewer line. This will be graphically
shown hatched between the existing MSHA r/w line and the sewer on the west side
(which is less than 15’) and a full 15’ on the east. [The sewer main is extremely deep in
this area to clear under the Millstream. A 30’ easement is the minimum practicable
should repair or replacement be necessary. This easement must be recorded along with
a plat at the time of transfer from Corsica Creek Commons, LLC to Hillside Liquors, LLC.
Please submit prepared documents for Town review. The Town’s Right of Entry
authority per § 115-40 specifically refers to “…. the of the duly negotiated easement
pertaining to the private property involved terms.”
3

19. Sheet L-1. The Applicant is showing a 4’ Bufferyard along the boundary with MSHA
parcel to the northeast. In the submittal cover letter (page 2,¶2) they seek relief to
reduce by 1’ the required Bufferyard which is derived as follows: The Bufferyard
required between the C-2 and R-3 zones is Bufferyard C. Bufferyard C has the option of
a minimum of 10’ wide buffer (per § 170-Attachment 1:6). § 170-42 D. 1. Permits the
Bufferyard to be reduce to one half when adjoining a vacant parcel. Thus, we arrive at a
required 5’ Bufferyard. What the Applicant does not discuss is the fact that the 10’ C
Bufferyard must be accompanied by a structure…in this case an F-3 6’ high stockade
fence. While the Applicant is proposing to provide the full 10’ complement of required
plant material (presumably in mitigation for the 1’ reduction), they neglect to address
the fence. Under § 170-42 D (2) the remaining Bufferyard “shall” be provided when the
vacant lot develops. This means that the Town will be stuck with the fence. There is no
need for the Town waive its own requirement for itself later (never looks good). There
is no hardship here as the relief sought is not caused by an abnormally shaped parcel or
anything outside and beyond the Applicant’s control. I think the stockade fence in this
location is not wise because it would obstruct drivers’ view of Commerce Street ahead
of its curve to the right. Perhaps a better solution would be to grant the sought after 1’
relief, and require an F-1 (picket) or F-2 (wood rail fence but with an added 24’ high
welded wire screen from the ground to the first rail to function as a trash rack). I believe
the F-1 would be preferred in appearance. Not to discriminate, but this is to be a liquor
store. In addition, having the fence there would allow greater design flexibility to the
Town when designing the new Park environmental features and trailhead parking.
1. A. In the attached e-mail find the deed of transfer of a portion of the Commons
land to MSHA. Note the perpetual easement (a 4-line area at the project entry shown
on the plat in that deed. This easement must be shown with a reference to the deed on
all sheets.
2. B. Sheet C-3 The utility easement shown at the entrance must be shown with its
deed reference and purpose on all sheets.
3. C. For Sharon’s opinion…The 15’ trail easement to the Town remaining in the PWA
(dated 10’15’2009 and as amended in 9/23/2011) is in full force and effect must be
shown on all Sheets. At this time the Town is not in possession of the land it may
receive from MSHA. It is essential that the easement be not only shown, but further
preserved by compliance with PWA §8- Nature and Survival, and Transfer of Obligations
and particularly § 8.1 which would effectively release Corsica Creek Commons, LLC and
bind Hillside Liquors to providing the trail upon Corsica Creek Commons providing the
Town a fully executed agreement wherein Hillside Liquors, LLC agrees to be bound by
the trail provision. This must be done prior to the sale. This may also be a matter of full
disclosure to the Hillside Liquor folks as it is not currently acknowledged or depicted on
the site plans. The POS transfer from the State to Centreville for the “Sandy Bottom”
parcel may not consummate. If it should not, the Town would have no practical access
to the new Millstream II Wilderness Trail. See S. D’s. notes on the 2008 site plan trail
location.
4

4. D. The Engineer must clarify the calculations of Impervious and Lot Coverage. Why
are two separate calculations relevant.
5. E. In a prior iteration of the project (done by MCCrone) the crosswalk (Scan 0523)
the MSHA had yet a different scheme for the Rte. 213 crosswalk. Not unlike that I
sketched earlier. Of course, a pedestrian bridge linking the two parks would be ideal as
well as hideously expensive. Make a nice gateway to downtown.
5

Hillside Liquors – Stacey Dahlstrom, Town Planner
1. 2040 Comp Plan shows this parcel as Natural Resource (existing Land Use) and Resource
Conservation/Open Space (Future Land Use) on the Future Land Use Map. Consistency
issues with the current zoning of C-2 and the Future Land Use Map need to be
addressed. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment is needed to amend the Resource
Conservation / Open Space designation on the Future Land Use Map. Discussion with
Planning Commission is recommended to further clarify if they may have not considered
the C-2 zoning of the parcel when they recommended Resource Conservation/Open
Space for the Parcel.
The Resource Conservation designation encompasses those natural resource lands that exist
today including wetlands, streams and their buffers, steep slopes, shorelines, and forested areas
(See Chapter VIII, Natural Environment). The generalized land use plan also envisions an
expansion of resource lands as development takes place, through the widening of stream
buffers and planned forest regeneration, and the designation of lands for future conservation
area especially when connections can be made between natural areas. As future neighborhoods
are developed, land along existing streams and forest areas would be set aside for conservation
and parks and open space amenities could be provided such as trails to link neighborhoods
together."
2. Since the site is zoned C-2, which allows all uses permitted in CBD zoning, CBD zoning
permits apartments in specific circumstances described as:
“Apartments in multistory buildings, provided that the portion of the ground floor fronting
the street remains commercial, and the property will be subject to site plan review when
converted to such use.”
• In addition to the Comprehensive Plan consistency issue noted above, the proposed
development of 6 residential apartments is proposed over an entire floor of
commercial use, that currently doesn’t appear to have a ground floor fronting the
street.
• Additionally, the access design appears to prioritize vehicular access over pedestrian
access to the building and increases the potential for apartment residents to be
unable to access their apartments from and to the building during major storm flood
events. Allowing apartments in the current proposed application for this location
may not be supportable from a planning, public health safety and welfare
perspective and may not be supported by the Planning Commission.
• As noted in the Town’s subdivision regulations, the following should be considered
when deciding if residential as part of the “proposed mixed use project” proposed
for this site is appropriate: §138-16 C. “Land subject to flooding or property and
1

land deemed to be topographically unsuitable shall not be subdivided or
developed for residential occupancy or for such other use as may endanger
health, life, or property, or aggravate erosion or flood hazards until all such
hazards have been eliminated or unless adequate safeguards against such
hazards are provided by the final plats. Such land within a subdivision shall be
set aside on the plat for uses that will not be endangered by periodic or
occasional inundation or will not produce unsatisfactory living conditions.”
3. This site was the subject of two Public Works agreements and a rezoning approved by
the Town of Centreville. It is our understanding that the fifteen foot trail easement
agreed to in the 2009 Public Works Agreement and noted in the Council Ordinance 05-
2015 is still in effect and should be discussed and identified as to best location and
clearly depicted and on the submission documents.
Excerpt from 2009 Public Works Agreement
Excerpt from Centreville Council Decision – Town of Centreville Ordinance 05-2015:
2