october 16 2024 planning commission packet part 2

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

Review Tools
The following are provided as reference documents, please be aware there may be other applicable
review provisions that may be applicable.
The Town of Centreville Development Design Standards (adopted October 7, 2010)
Development Design Standards weblink:
https://www.townofcentreville.org/planning/page/design-standards
Site Plan Review Checklist (derived/developed from §170-47) is provided below.
170-47 Site Plans
D. Procedural items
1. Site plans shall be prepared and certified by an
engineer, architect, landscape architect, or land
surveyor duly registered to practice in the State
of Maryland or equivalent certification.
2. All site plans shall clearly show the information
required by this section.
3. If such plans are prepared in more than one sheet,
match lines shall clearly indicate where the
several sheets join, and an index sheet shall be
required.
4. Every site plan shall show the name and address
of the owner and developer, the election district,
North point, date, scale of the drawing, and the
number of sheets.
At least Five clearly legible copies submitted to Centreville
Planning and Zoning Commission
C. Information required to be included in the site plan.
2. An area or vicinity map at a scale of not smaller
than one-inch equals 2,000 feet and showing
such information as the names and numbers of
adjoining roads, streams, bodies of water,
railroads, subdivisions, election districts, or
other landmarks sufficient to clearly identify the
location of the property.
3. A boundary survey plat of the entire site at a
scale not smaller than one inch equals 100 feet
unless otherwise specified by the Planning and
Zoning Commission showing the following:
Site Plan Review Tools Centreville MD 1

a. Existing topography at two- or five-foot contour
intervals.
b. Slopes in excess of 15% (CA only).
c. Existing and proposed regraded surface of the land.
d. Location of natural features such as streams,
major ravines, drainage patterns, within the area to
be disturbed by construction and the location of
trees measuring greater than 12 inches in diameter
to be retained.
e. Floodplain boundaries (one-hundred-year).
f. Location and areal extent of all soils with septic
limitations; wet soils; hydric soils; and soils with
hydric properties as shown on the County Soil
Survey (CA only).
4. A detailed drawing showing:
a. Location, proposed use, and height of all buildings
(delineate all existing buildings and structures);
b. Location of all parking and loading areas with
ingress and egress drives thereto;
c. Location of outdoor storage (if any);
d. Location and type of recreational facilities (if any);
e. Location of all existing or proposed site
improvements, including storm drains, culverts,
retaining walls, fences, stormwater management
facilities as well as any sediment and erosion
control structures (information on shore erosion
shall include the existing shoreline management
designation as shown on the Town of Centreville
Critical Area Program Map, existing structures,
their condition, and areas for proposed structural
and nonstructural controls, shown on the boundary
survey plat, at a scale of at least one inch equals 100
feet);
f Description, method, and location of water supply
and sewerage disposal facilities;
g Location, size, and type of all signs;
h The location, size, and type of vehicular entrances
to the site;
i The location of the Critical Area District boundary,
the Buffer and other Buffer areas, open space areas,
and forested areas;
j The location of all Habitat Protection Areas (CA
only);
Site Plan Review Tools Centreville MD 2

k. The location of all contiguous forested areas
adjacent to the site that are linked to forested areas
on the development site, i.e., hedgerows, forest
patches or other wildlife corridors (CA only);
L The location of agricultural fields, barren lands,
pasture, etc.
M The location of tidal and nontidal wetlands on the
site;
N The location of existing water-dependent facilities
on and adjacent to the site, including the number of
existing slips and moorings on the site (CA only);
O The location and extent of existing and/or proposed
erosion abatement approaches;
P The location of anadromous fish spawning
stream(s) on or adjacent to the site and a delineation
of the watershed area of the stream on the site (CA
only); and
q A detailed drawing locating shore erosion
abatement techniques to the included with the site
plan (CA only).
r Elevations, which indicate the exterior appearance
and materials to be used in each structure within the
site plan. [Added 4-5-2007 by Ord. No. 1-07]
5. Computations of:
a Total lot area;
b Building floor area for each type of proposed use;
c Building coverage in percentage;
d Road area;
e Number and area of off-street parking and loading
spaces;
f Total site area in the Critical Area District (CA
only);
g Total man-caused impervious surfaces areas and
the percentage of site these occupy;
h Separate computations of the total acres of existing
forest cover in the Buffer and in the Critical Area
(CA only);
i Proposed agricultural open space areas;
j Proposed forest open space areas; and
k Total area of the site that will be temporarily
disturbed during development and the total area
that will be permanently disturbed. "Disturbed" is
defined as any activity occurring on an area which
may result in the permanent loss of or damage to
existing natural vegetation (CA only).
Site Plan Review Tools Centreville MD 3

6. Commercial or industrial uses must include:
a. Specific uses proposed;
b. Maximum number of employees for which
buildings are designed;
c. Type of energy to be used for any manufacturing
processes;
d. Type of wastes or by-products to be produced by
any manufacturing process;
e. Proposed method of disposal of such wastes or by-
products; and
f. Location of outdoor lighting facilities.
7. In addition to the information above, site plans shall be accompanied by the following:
a. A Forest Management Plan including the
comments of the Bay Watershed Forester (CA
only);
b. A Habitat Protection Plan including the comments
of the Maryland Forest, Park and Wildlife Service
(CA only);
c. An executed cooperator's agreement with the Soil
Conservation District or Farm Plan, as applicable
(CA only);
d. A Stormwater Management Plan;
e. A Sediment and Erosion Control Plan;
f A Planting Plan, as required; and
g An Environmental Assessment Report which provides a coherent statement of how the
proposed development addresses the goals and objectives of the Centreville Critical Area
Program (CA only). At a minimum the environmental assessment shall include:
(1) A statement of existing conditions, e.g., the
amount and types of forest cover, the amount and
type of wetlands, a discussion of existing
agricultural activities on the site, the soil types, the
topography, etc;
(2) A discussion of the proposed development
project, including number and type of residential
units, amount of impervious surfaces, proposed
sewer treatment and water supply, acreage devoted
to development, proposed open space and habitat
protection areas;
(3) A discussion of the proposed development's
impacts on water quality and Habitat Protection
Areas; and
(4) Documentation of all correspondence and
findings.
Site Plan Review Tools Centreville MD 4

8. Other information as requested by the Town.
Site Plan Review Tools Centreville MD 5

MEMORANDUM
TO: TOWN OF CENTREVILLE FROM:
PLANNING COMMISSION STACEY DAHLSTROM, AICP
SENIOR PLANNER
ORGANIZATION: CENTREVILLE MD DATE: OCTOBER 11, 2024
Re: Concept Site Plan for a Proposed New
Draper’s Liquor Store – 2615 Centreville Road;
Tax Map 44E, Parcels 1062 & 1063-1
 URGENT X FOR YOUR USE  PLEASE COMMENT PLEASE REPLY PLEASE
RECYCLE
Introduction
The Applicant seeks Concept Site Plan Review for a proposed Commercial Development/New
Updated Draper’s Liquor Store on the current site located at 2615 Centreville Road (Tax Map 44E,
Parcels 1062 & 1063-1). The current owners are proposing to build a new 5,210 sf liquor store to
take the place of the existing store. The intent is that the new store is located on the site to allow the
existing store to maintain business operations while the new building is being constructed.
This application is for Concept Site Plan Review and the Planning and Zoning Commission’s role is
for review and comment. Feedback is important to assist in further consideration as the project is
reviewed and to avoid confusion. This memo is intended to provide guidance and outlines a few items
that PC should be aware of and wish to discuss further with the applicant.
Review Information for your consideration
In June and July of 2023, the Planning Commission had two discussions about the previously
submitted informal review for this concept site plan. No TAC review was conducted for this project
prior to Planning Commission discussions in June and July 2023. Minutes from the June 21 and July
19, 2023, Planning Commission meetings have been provided.
This application was reviewed by the Town of Centreville Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) on
Monday, July 15, 2024. TAC Comments have also been provided.
1

Location
The location of the lots proposed to be combined in the future are shown in the attached snips from
the QAC property viewer and SDAT maps to provide an image regarding the larger context of the
location of the property.
P 1062 & 1063-1
Future Land Use (FLU): Commercial (FLU)
Centreville Future Land Use: QAC GIS Atlas Application
2

C-2/IDA Critical Area (Zoning)
Centreville Zoning and Critical Area Designation: QAC GIS Atlas Application
Comments
Future application for Plat to combine lots
As noted by the applicant in their cover letter, and required by Chapter 138, Subdivision Regulations,
the property exists as two parcels of record. The applicant notes that a plat will be prepared and
submitted during the formal site plan review process that will identify the interior property line to be
abolished to allow the parcels to be consolidated into one parcel.
Outdoor Table & Chairs/Benches
As noted in Town Engineer’s TAC Comments, “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.” – a Table with chairs is shown on Architectural Renderings Sheet SK-3, and benches
and tables are noted as site furnishings (C.6.a) in the Design Guidelines (Rev.9.18.24). This should
be discussed with the Planning Commission.
Roofline Expression Intent- To ensure that rooflines present a distinct profile and appearance for
the building and express the neighborhood character.
Required Standards • Commercial buildings shall be designed to promote a pedestrian scale. To
attain the continuation of a pedestrian scale, the use of sloping elements shall be required. Any
alternative roofline not utilizing sloping elements must be approved by the Planning Commission.
Parking Standards (Gross Square feet of floor area)
3

The amount of parking considered by the applicant for the proposed use seems to be based on the
§170-32 parking standard for retail uses of 1 space per 250 sq. ft. Noting that 5,210 square feet of
retail use requires 21 parking spaces, and one accessible space. It should be noted that if the proposed
use is also intended to provide for some “take-out” – even grab and go sandwiches and salads, the
parking standard should also consider the square footage devoted to “take out” and the standard of 1
parking space per 100 square feet (§170-32 – Restaurant Carry-out – food, beverages and other
refreshments) should be considered
Parking Location
§170-23 D.3.; provides: “To minimize the impact of large expanses of parking on the pedestrian
environment, parking spaces shall be located to the rear and/or sides of building.”
The applicant notes that because of the intended continued operation of the existing store while the
new one is under construction, and the narrow width of the lot, most of the required onsite parking
spaces are proposed to be located in front of the new building in the general location of the existing
building and parking areas. The applicant notes that the construction of this parking will not take
place until the existing building is demolished and will be buffered by 30 foot wide landscaped buffer.
Additionally, a new defined access will be created to access the new parking areas, providing more
controlled access along MD Route 213/Centreville Road.
Please note the following from June 2023 Planning Commission minutes that summarize a discussion
held about these issues, noting that generally locating the parking in front of the business may be
acceptable if extensive landscaping is provided and sidewalk and pedestrian access from the street to
the store and on the property are provided.
Location of Parking Lot Intent- To maintain a contiguous, active pedestrian realm along street
fronts by locating parking lots behind buildings. In situations where there is one building on a
property, the intention of the standard is to require the parking relating to that building to be located
primarily behind the building.
Centreville Design Guidelines Commercial Parking
Required Standards
• Commercial parking lots shall be located behind buildings. Commercial parking lots shall only be
allowed to remain in front of or beside buildings as permitted by the Planning Commission.
4

Pedestrian access and pedestrian connection to the surrounding community
§170-23 D. 2. Pedestrian walkways shall form an on-site circulation system that minimizes conflicts
with pedestrians and vehicular traffic. The on-site pedestrian system shall also be linked to any
existing or proposed off-site pedestrian system.
§138-43 Sidewalks requires “sidewalks on all streets… and that they be placed on at least one side
of the road….”.
Centreville Design Guidelines Commercial Parking – Section 4 include several required provisions
which seem to apply to this proposed concept, with the exception of those specific to projects of 50
or more spaces (assuming any adjustments to required parking for “carryout” still result in less than
50 spaces).
As noted above, the sidewalk and pedestrian connection from the store were included as part of the
Planning Commission and Planner’s comments during the June 2023 Concept Review. It is
unclear that pedestrian linkage from the street to the store has been provided and the applicant is
proposing to provide a sidewalk easement to the Town “for future sidewalk by others…”.
As part of the July 2024 TAC review, it was also noted that pedestrian access to the front of the
building still needs to be incorporated. The current concept submittal shows a proposed five-foot-
wide pedestrian easement to the Town of Centreville. As noted in the Draper Brothers Liquors –
Design Guidelines Rev 9.18.24 document, walkways are five feet wide, with distinct linkage to the
front entry. Additionally, it is noted that “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.”
Planning Commission should discuss all the aspects and design guidelines related to the pedestrian
access issue with the applicant regarding the need to provide sidewalks on the site, as well as a
clearly identified a safe pedestrian connection from the building to “the existing and proposed off-
site pedestrian system”, consistent with Town standards and Design Guidelines.
Landscaping and buffer yards
As provided in §170-23 D. 1. A minimum of 20% of the development envelopment shall be
landscaped. The application cover sheet (C-1) notes Landscape Area required as 15% (minimum LSR
for C-2 in the zone of Regulations). The applicant should provide further information to demonstrate
how the 20% standard is met.
Additionally, as noted in the June 2023 Planning Commission minutes (copied above) the Town
Planner suggested landscaping along the long expanse of the building wall on the North side.
During the July 2024 TAC meeting, the Town Planner noted that comment and also asked
applicants to consider additional landscaping along the south wall of the building to help offset the
variation in building surfaces some filled with continuous siding.
5

Centreville Design Guidelines Commercial Parking
• “The number of trees required in the internal planting areas in parking lots shall be
dependent upon the location of the parking lot in relation to the building and public right of-
way…”
Buffer yards (§170-42)
The applicant notes in the cover letter, that a landscape Buffer yard “B” is required along MD RT
213. A 30-ft wide buffer has been incorporated into the plan. Noting that this wider buffer will
provide screening of the parking lot located in the front of the building from the public street view
from MD RT 213.
The applicant further notes that in addition, a landscape Buffer yard “D” is required along the
residential zoned property to the west. A 40-ft wide buffer has been incorporated into the plan and
the request is to utilize the existing forest as the required buffer yard vegetation to address this
requirement. The existing forest is also counted towards the site tree coverage requirements.
Additional Comments
Please note these items include additional TAC Comments:
• As noted above, to clarify the application related to parcels that are proposed to be
combined, the parcels should be identified as 1062 and 1063-1 and on the cover sheet C-,
Note #2 must be clarified. The deed reference of the front parcel is KBH 3930/168 in the
name of JEJ, LLC. The second parcel’s deed reference is 3930/176 which encompasses
much more acreage to the southwest, therefore the reference needs to be added and shown
as “remaining lands of” JEJ, LLC KGH 3930/176.
• Please clarify that the utility pole was added as noted by Town Engineer: “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.
• Please clarify that the following SHA items identified by Town Engineer have been
addressed:
o C-2 Please add the MSHA plat number and reference to plan. (Please provide a
digital copy of the plat).
o Please provide correspondence from MSHA on the access permit.
• Sheet C-1: Should add note #15 Woodland in the upland is less than 1 acre. FCA does not
apply.
Additionally, the following comments from the Department of Public Works (DPW) are provided
and important to be aware of:
• Installation of a 1000-gallon grease trap per the Town’s Fats Oils and Grease (FOG)
Ordinance.
• If a fire sprinkler system is required, the water service will have to be increased to at least a
2-inch service with at least a 1-inch meter.
6

• This property is currently billed at one Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU), however because
the square footage increased to 5,210 square feet, applicants will be required to purchase an
additional allocation.
General Process Comments:
• As noted above, the applicant needs to submit a plat to combine Parcels 1062 & 1063-1
consistent with Chapter 138, Subdivision Regulations.
• All criteria of §170-47 to be met for final submittal to PC.
• All comments should be addressed by the applicant prior to submission of Preliminary Site
Plan review.
7

MEMORANDUM
TO: TOWN OF CENTREVILLE THROUGH:
PLANNING COMMISSION CAROLYN BRINKLEY,
TOWN MANAGER
SHARON VANEMBURGH, ATTORNEY
FROM:
STACEY DAHLSTROM, AICP
SENIOR PLANNER EPR &
MIKE WHITEHILL,
TOWN ENGINEER,
WHITEHILL CONSULTING, LLC
ORGANIZATION: CENTREVILLE MD DATE: OCTOBER 11, 2024
Re: Concept Site Plan for a Proposed Mixed-
Use Development @ 425 S. Commerce Street,
Centreville MD, Tax Map 44B, Parcel
 URGENT X FOR YOUR USE  PLEASE COMMENT PLEASE REPLY PLEASE
RECYCLE
Introduction
PLEASE NOTE: Although the Application has several incorrect references to Site Plan review,
both preliminary and Final – that is incorrect. This application and review are Concept Site
Plan Review Only.
This application is for Concept Site Plan Review and the Planning and Zoning Commission’s role
is for review and comment. Feedback is important to assist in further consideration as the project is
reviewed and to avoid confusion. This memo is intended to provide guidance and outlines a few items
that PC should be aware of and wish to discuss further with the applicant.
The Applicant seeks Concept Site Plan Review for a proposed Mixed-Use Development of an
approximately 12,712 square foot 2 story building. The first-floor retail use (liquor store) is
approximately 6,356 square feet and the second floor consists of six two-bedroom apartment units in
6,356 square feet.
This Application was reviewed by the Town of Centreville Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
on Monday, July 15, 2024. The TAC review comments are included in your package, the applicant
has provided responses and updated their submittal including responses to those comments. This
memo is intended to provide guidance and outlines a few items that PC should be aware of and wish
to discuss further with the applicant.
1

Future Land Use (FLU) and Zoning: Resource Conservation/Open Space (FLU) and C-2 (Zoning)
Location
The location of the proposed project is shown in the attached snips, QAC property View, Google
Maps, Future Land Use Map and Zoning Map to provide an image regarding the larger context of the
location of the property.
Future Land Use Map Amendment: Currently, this property is proposed for a Future Land Use
Map Amendment to redesignate the Future Land Use from Resource, Conservation and Open Space
to Commercial. It is currently under State and Local review, with comments expected mid to late
December 2024.
2024 Property View Aerial
2

Google Aerial View 2024
Future Land Use Map: Town of Centreville
Comprehensive Plan: 2040
Future Land Use: Resource Conservation/Open Space
3

Town of Centreville Zoning Map
Zoning: General Commercial C-2
Comments
The Planning Commission may wish to have further discussions with the applicant regarding the
following issues highlighted for your discussion including, at a minimum: Location Use/Design
Issues, Parking, North side of the Building Fence and Buffer yard, Stormwater in the Floodway,
Trail Easement, and Modified Buffer Area Mitigation.
4

1. Location/Use/Design Issues
The applicant has attempted to address concerns identified with the application and intended design
of the overall site and provision of apartments above ground floor retail (liquor store) in a site that
is within 100% of the Floodplain. C-2 General Commercial Zoning allows the CBD Mixed-Use
provisions of §170-22 A 10. (CBD) “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.”
Related TAC comments reviewed with the applicant:
1. 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.
2. 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.
The applicant’s Team have provided the following 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.”
Concept Plan review considerations advice to Zoning Administrator re floodplain application:
There are some additional items that should be considered regarding minimizing impacts and
assisting with providing access to apartments (and likely the retail use) by pedestrians and
customers in the event of major storm impacts on the site which is entirely within the 100-year
flood plain. These considerations as well as others may also be relevant to advice the Planning
Commission may wish to provide to the Zoning Administrator (Town Manager), regarding concept
and site plan issues related to the review of the a separate floodplain application (§66 Flood Plain
Management) related to concept review and site plan issues that may assist regarding
“…minimization of encroachments in the floodway.”
• The size of the building and affiliated parking area could be reduced, reconfigured, and/or
redesigned with the implementation of BMPs such as porous pavers and elevation in excess
of the minimum standard.
• Additional thought regarding access for the residents’ to and from any vehicles should also
be provided, noting Town staff’s observation and discussion with applicants through TAC
that a rise of only 1 to 1 ½ feet will likely result in cars floating.
• While not ideal, and more as a preventative last measure, there should be consideration of
the addition of a timber, chain or cable barrier at or just behind the southside parking curb
and drive lane (heading south east) to trap floating cars to keep them out of any
stormwater/ESD areas (especially ones adjacent to the Millstream) and the Millstream and
the highway bridge.
5

2. Parking
• Parking Standards (Gross Square feet of floor area)
The Planning Commission should discuss the parking considered by the applicant for the
proposed use.
o The Apartments: the §170-32(A) standard of 2.25 spaces each for 2-bedroom
apartments (6) which equals 13.5 spaces (application notes 13).
o Retail Liquor Store §170-32(A) is 1 space per 250 square feet.
▪ The application appears to mistakenly segment the 6,356 square feet of retail
into two different parking standards. Based on the §170-32(A) standard using
gross square feet of floor area, 6,356 square feet ÷ 250 = 25.4 spaces whereas
the application notes (18.8+ 0.2) 19.
Assuming the 2 ADA spaces noted are required as well, the parking provided on the site
should be 34.5 (13.5 (apartments) + 25.4 (retail) + 2 ADA).
• Parking Location and design
§170-23 D.3.; provides: “To minimize the impact of large expanses of parking on the
pedestrian environment, parking spaces shall be located to the rear and/or sides of building.”
• Centreville Design Guidelines Commercial Parking – Section 4 include several required
provisions which seem to apply to this proposed concept, with the exception of those specific
to projects of 50 or more spaces (assuming any adjustments to required parking still result in
less than 50 spaces).
o In situations where there is one building on a property, the intention of the standard is to
require the parking relating to that building to be located primarily behind the building.
o Required Standards: Commercial parking lots shall be located behind buildings.
Commercial parking lots shall only be allowed to remain in front of or beside buildings
as permitted by the Planning Commission.
o Required Standards: The number of trees required in the internal planting areas in
parking lots shall be dependent upon the location of the parking lot in relation to the
building and public right of-way.
6

• Required Standards The number of trees required in the internal planting areas in parking lots
shall be dependent upon the location of the parking lot in relation to the building and public
right of-way. Additionally, as noted potential relocation of the SWM facility, and best
management practices (BMPs) of incorporating/providing as much pervious surface as
possible through the accommodation of required parking etc.
3. North side of the Building, Fence (in buffer yard on North side of Property) and Roofline
Fencing and Buffer yard
Summary of TAC comments regarding buffer yard and appropriate fencing relevant to the
proposed development and the potential trail (either through the relocated easement or on the
adjacent property):
Originally the applicant showed a 4’ Buffer yard along the boundary with MSHA parcel to
the northeast. The Buffer yard required between the C-2 and R-3 zones is Buffer yard C.
Buffer yard C has the option of a minimum of 10’ wide buffer (per § 170-Attachment 1:6).
§ 170-42 D. 1. Permits the Buffer yard to be reduced to one half when adjoining a vacant
parcel. The application has been updated to show a 5-foot buffer yard with a six-foot
stockade fence.
As noted in TAC review, a 10’ C Buffer yard 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 they continue to include a stockade fence. Under §
170-42 D (2) the remaining Buffer yard “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 to
waive its own requirement for itself later (never looks good).
Town Engineer and Town Planner 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 consider how the site and buffer yard could be better
aligned to serve as community assets for each other.
Another suggestion would be F-1 (picket), or F-2 (wood rail fence) should be considered.
We recommend that the F-1 would be preferred in appearance. In addition, having the fence
there would allow greater design flexibility for the Town when designing the new Park
environmental features and trailhead parking.
Applicant Response to TAC comment: “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
7

required with buffer yard 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.”
The Planning Commission needs to discuss this issue. Although the Planning Commission may not
have the ability to allow for variation in the stockade style fence, both the Town Planner and Town
Engineer feel a stockade fence in this location is inappropriate. Additionally, with mitigation
required for the Critical Area Modified Buffer Area, additional plantings to achieve that mitigation
and further help/assist in the Northern portion of the proposed building integrate with the intended
future trail (whether it is on the adjacent parcel or on a modified easement on this parcel). A
“stockade” fence does not provide any surveillance, visibility or “crime prevention through
environmental design” for the site and surrounding parcels, especially the proposed trail.
North Building Wall
Although the architectural renderings appear to show what looks like bricked in window “ghost”
frames, the applicant should consider actual visibility features that allow for observation of the
northern portion of the property as well as the parcel to the north. Understanding that the interior is
likely to be composed of coolers, consideration of altering the design to allow for incorporation of
light and visibility from inside the store on the north side should be considered for both patrons as
well as safety of others on the north portion of the site and parcel to the north, especially regarding
the proposed trail.
Additionally, if some of those “ghost” frames are retained and were in a lighter brick and colored
accent courses were added above the breakaway louvers, at the division of the first and second floor
and at the top cornice soldier course, the terms of the design standards would be more closely met.
This treatment would create the appearance of a parapet to soften the massing.
Alternative Roofline
The application appears to be seeking an alternative roofline in its design. Town of Centreville
Design Standards: The Required Standards: Commercial buildings shall be designed to promote a
pedestrian scale. To attain the continuation of a pedestrian scale, the use of sloping elements shall be
required. Any alternative roofline not utilizing sloping elements must be approved by the Planning
Commission.
4. Stormwater in Floodway – Critical Area Comment
Additionally, since TAC review, Critical Area Staff reviewed (included in your package) the
proposed project and suggested that the Town may want to ask the applicant if they have considered
the possibility of flooding of the SWM and potential to export of pollutants to the Mill Stream and
how that might be addressed.
8

• Additional thoughts and consideration should be discussed regarding the potential of the
Stormwater Management to potentially export pollutants to the Mill Stream. While the site
is all in the 100-year floodplain, there should be consideration/evaluation if other locations
of the SWM/ESD facilities on site could reduce the potential for exportation of pollutants
into the Mill Stream.
5. Trail Easement
This site was the subject of two Public Works agreements and a rezoning approved by the Town of
Centreville. The 2009 PWA establishes a fifteen-foot trail easement, noted in Ordinance 05-2015.
Currently, this trail easement is still in effect. The Millstream trail extension is also included in the
Town of Centreville’s Greenway and Trail Plan in the Town of Centreville Comprehensive Plan:
2040. TAC has discussed with the applicant and asked that it be shown conceptually to the North
portion of the site with a provision that the easement may not be needed if the Town’s acquisition of
the adjacent MD SHA/Ashley property through Program Open Space funding is finalized. Images
below depict a suggested modified location for the easement and how it is proposed to be incorporated
into the site. The east to southeast (far right) side of the easement suggested by Town staff that would
connect to the Southeast portion of the property does not appear to be included in the current
application.
The Millstream trail extension is also included in the Town of Centreville Comprehensive Plan: 2040
Text and Figure 16 on page 76:
9

The Planning Commission should have further discussion about the newly suggested alignment and
how the current Public Works Agreement that is still in effect should most appropriately get updated
to address the relocated easement and the potential for its dissolution is recommended.
Applicant’s Response to TAC comment: “We have revised the travel ways, 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.”
Trail Easement language from current Public Works Agreement for the site
The Amended and approved 10-2008 Site Plan
showing trail easement
10

The conceptual alignment as suggested by staff:
One of the current Application plan sheets showing the relocated
easement
11

6. Modified Buffer Area
TAC Review Comment:
“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 Modified Buffer Area (formerly called 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 loss 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)”. (snip below)
12

Critical Area Commission Comment on this subject: 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. The Critical Area program staff has also shared Critical Area
Commission’s Policy documents which many local jurisdictions adopt that identify mitigation
buffer yard planting, natural forest vegetation, offsets, and/or establishing a fee in lieu of (when
officially established).
Please note that offsets include the removal of an equivalent area of existing impervious surfaces
within the buffer. The applicant suggests that they feel mitigation is not required, which should be
discussed with the Planning Commission and Town Staff.
Applicant’s Response:
“The proposed project results in 10,124 square feet 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 square feet 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.”
The Town and Applicant need to continue to address the Modified Buffer Area and the required
mitigation. As noted in the TAC comments, this item definitely needs to be discussed with the
Planning Commission.
General Process Comments:
• All criteria of §170-47 to be met for final submittal to PC.
• Further technical review/comments will be deferred to the Preliminary Site Plan stage.
• All comments should be addressed by the applicant prior to submission of Preliminary Site Plan
for review.
13

ISSUED BUILDING PERMITS
September 1 - 30, 2024
Permit # Applicant Owner Address Type Issue Date*
BP-57-24 Mikes Custom Homes MC Ventures 309 Glendale Ave. new SFD, garage, deck 9/18/2024
BP-84-24 Andrew Supply Company John Harper 109 Lawyers Row repair damaged floor structure 9/18/2024
BP-87-24 Chris Jordan Exteriors LLC Hank Starkey 216 Encore Court Roof Replacement 9/11/2024
BP-89-24 Economy Restoration Linda Parr 115 Orchestra Place replace roof 9/11/2024
BP-90-24 Jose Joaquin Sanchez Maria Benitez 329 N Liberty Street Renovation & 19X25 Addition 9/11/2024
BP-91-24 Economy Restoration Michael Donoho 104 Walnut Street roof replacement 9/11/2024
BP-92-24 Fence and Deck Connection Chris and Cara Little 103 Meadowcroft Drive Fence 9/18/2024
BP-93-24 Economy Restoration Nancy Wiley 205 Kidwell Avenue Roof replacement 9/18/2024
BP-94-24 Christian Shields Sara Shields 323 Holly Street Fence 9/18/2024
BP-95-24 Barbara Smith Barbara Smith 322 S Commerce Street Deck 9/24/2024
BP-96-24 Ronald and Tracy Walters Ronald and Tracy Walters 403 N Commerce Street Shed 9/24/2024
Breakfast nook, addition, bathroom
BP-98-24 D&R Improvements Tim and Joanne O'Brien 403 Chesterfield Ave remodel, relocation 9/24/2024
* based on the approval date by Zoning Administrator