[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6344875,"mediaKeyId","2250123-5a6d585c8953c037f02fe0f8a52906d5","parentId",2250123,"title","Kent County planning commission backs raising assisted‑living bed cap to 16 in two residential districts with conditions","audioSeconds",1470,"startMs",122000,"endMs",1592000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2250123-5a6d585c8953c037f02fe0f8a52906d5&start=122&end=1592","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2250123-5a6d585c8953c037f02fe0f8a52906d5/thumbnail_122000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6344875/Kent-County/Maryland/Kent-County-planning-commission-backs-raising-assistedliving-bed-cap-to-16-in-two-residential-districts-with-conditions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6344875-f0567a54a03d57a9492a73dcb7c0cf2b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771161567&Signature=Dc~iYjh0mIPb1z7z6RaP62YKVpWcomby7BApOTIANZfQzqfmGMevq~Kkb3ri7PlceaFfT~k4LJH7KtC3QOG9ui9MFEPrY8caICELFCKOTatoyAEiNxvx20KRenowvYBCMrBuQ6D85LUtZZktpehAKqWwII-Zrzzi9yZei5vNGAXTxHDrd-jrswFQYRypKqLSZL2d1reuGsWrTJBwcy2npBAZbxwZ3-3arxt26AbeGNQNPeV0hIs8qbsdfkwC-nPXJpreVRGADiKXYddPSzAWQg8h90Hy0vB8YoliepDj679vjlONJ~i0QFyIrro9gI73Pg8EfKyzlqvBWrJCT7mhow__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Kent County, MD","date","2025-02-07T07:17:41Z","article","The Kent County Planning Commission on Feb. 6 voted to recommend that the Kent County Commissioners amend the zoning code to allow assisted‑living facilities with up to 16 beds in the Community Residential and Critical Area Residential zoning districts, subject to conditions and review by the Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals.

Planning staff presented the request as a countywide zoning text amendment filed on behalf of Brickwood/Brookwood Assisted Living Facilities, LLC. Rob Tracy, an associate planner with the Department of Planning and Zoning, told the commission staff reviewed the application against the county’s comprehensive plan and existing zoning rules and noted the county’s population is expected to age significantly in coming decades. Tracy said the existing code treats assisted‑living facilities with up to eight beds as an administrative special exception reviewed by the director; the applicant asked to increase the allowed maximum from eight beds to 16 beds in the two zoning districts named in the application.

Tracy said staff’s preferred approach was not simply to change the administrative allowance but to add a tier that would require larger facilities to receive a special‑exception review by the Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals. Staff recommended additional approval criteria tied to road access, public sewer connection, parcel size, and other conditions. Tracy told the panel staff did not recommend an unconditional increase to 16 beds under the current administrative process.

Applicants Stella Chiquame and Adebola Ojo spoke in support. Chiquame said, “Currently, we run an 8‑bed facility. We have 8 employees, and it’s a 24‑hour facility.” She described unmet local need for lower‑cost placement options and said the facility has a partnership with a local school apprenticeship program that brings students for hands‑on training; Ojo added the business is locally owned and seeks to expand capacity to serve more residents, including Medicaid patients who have few options.

Commission discussion addressed potential concentration and “intensification” of residential care uses. Commissioners asked about the number and location of existing small assisted‑living homes in the county and whether they connect to public sewer; staff said only a handful of such facilities exist and that the applicant’s site is served by public sewer. Commissioners also discussed staffing: Chiquame said a 16‑bed operation would likely increase the on‑payroll staff from the current eight to roughly 12 employees overall, with fewer on site at any single time.

After discussion, a commission member moved to send a favorable recommendation to the county commissioners. The motion, as recorded, would amend the use tables to permit assisted‑living facilities with up to 16 beds in the Community Residential and Critical Area Residential districts but require that 9–16‑bed facilities be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals and be conditioned on criteria that include: the property owner or facility manager residing on the premises; rooms not being designed or sold as separate dwelling units; the structure and property maintaining a residential appearance; compliance with Kent County building and health codes and approval from appropriate State of Maryland agencies; lack of unacceptable environmental nuisances (noise, odor, noxious materials); that the parcel be served by public sewer; and a minimum parcel size of five acres where applicable. The commission member who moved the recommendation also asked that the amendment explicitly preserve a tiered review: 4 beds or fewer treated as home occupation, 5–8 beds remaining administrative special exception, and 9–16 beds requiring public special‑exception review.

The commission approved the recommendation by roll call: Jim Saunders, Ray Strong, Paul Rogge, Bill Crowdy and Chair Joe Hickman voted in favor; no opposing votes were recorded. The commission’s recommendation, including the conditions listed above, will be forwarded to the Kent County Commissioners for their consideration.

Next steps: the county commissioners will receive the Planning Commission’s recommendation and the text‑amendment language. The applicants acknowledged that site‑plan review and any required site permits would be separate, later steps if the amendment is adopted.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","2.6.25 Planning Commission","oneSentenceSummary","The Kent County Planning Commission on Feb. 6 voted to recommend that the Kent County Commissioners amend the zoning code to allow assisted‑living facilities with up to 16 beds in the Community Residential and Critical Area Residential zoning districts, subject to conditions and further review.","taxTitle","Kent County, Maryland","taxId",69327,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6344870,"Judge Murphy remands curb‑cut and setback waivers for Everton project; Planning Commission schedules March review",809,1582000,2391000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2250123-5a6d585c8953c037f02fe0f8a52906d5&start=1582&end=2391","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2250123-5a6d585c8953c037f02fe0f8a52906d5/thumbnail_1582000.jpg","/articles/6344870/Kent-County/Maryland/Judge-Murphy-remands-curbcut-and-setback-waivers-for-Everton-project-Planning-Commission-schedules-March-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6344870-1d73c7f3b25206b90f9f8ab113c78cad/orig.mp4?Expires=1771161567&Signature=HR532KfNuMusySLfa9X1b05IJM7h5RaCSgALoX-S-LhCM4FkO~Ewjv6MbN-uWsAFgmQY-Cq-0MpuWreSu32U9jRCknFVZHi0LiXGNi3DxeUk3507bOd0EyM0gWqsoKDf-Xjif4cuE97rpyePnsnZahS4hLiffnVCYRyXsGggtviexMN-4MrOrQHCFtYTQYtvs0Htk5d54qTQYB9ntC2jDGb2JsZ1eRSeTPynUIYTkxxVFvrGADkT3Btayxqcp4A7Lj7vs2BGFDNoHLcdEy4AuNp5EPYm7O~OiwCPwJws3AqtjD0wWrQKleBBEAVImyUsR-PZkEdc715BzjjOTgbhyQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Kent County Planning Commission members on Feb. 6 reviewed a court remand concerning the Everton industrial preliminary site plan and voted to place the curb‑cut waiver and the Chesterville Bridge Road setback waiver on the commission’s March agenda for additional review.

Planning staff explained that last summer the Planning Commission granted preliminary approval for the Everton site plan; that decision was appealed and heard in December. County counsel said the court — Judge Murphy — found the petitioners’ appeal premature because the matter in December had been a preliminary rather than a final approval. Judge Murphy agreed preliminary site‑plan approvals generally are not final and thus are not ordinarily ripe for appeal.

However, the court identified two recorded votes taken at the December hearing — one granting a 3,000‑foot distance waiver related to curb cuts and another setting a specific setback from Chesterville Bridge Road — and observed that those votes might have functioned as final actions. The court ordered the Planning Commission to clarify whether those two waivers were final decisions or advisory guidance and, if they were final, to issue additional written findings explaining the basis for the approvals.

County staff advised the commission that clarifying the record could take the form of stating that the curb‑cut and setback votes were advisory and would be reconsidered at final site‑plan review, or, if the commission stands by the waivers as final, to place specific reasons and findings on the record and in writing so the court record would show the basis for the approvals. Staff recommended the commission review the December hearing transcript and minutes before making any written findings.

Commissioners and staff agreed the matter merited careful review because whatever the commission decides could generate litigation. A motion was made to place the curb‑cut waiver and the setback waiver back on the commission’s March agenda for further action; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. The commission asked staff to provide the December meeting transcripts and minutes and to assemble the record ahead of the March hearing.

The March agenda will include a dedicated item to either (1) state that the two decisions were advisory and will be finalized at the time of final site‑plan approval, with reasons for that preliminary guidance, or (2) adopt written findings that support the prior grant of the curb‑cut and setback waivers. Staff said transcripts and printed minutes are available and will be provided to commissioners; the Everton application will return for final site‑plan review after the litigation is resolved.

","The planning commission discussed a court order from Judge Murphy that remanded two votes from a preliminary Everton site‑plan approval — a curb‑cut waiver and a setback determination — back to the commission for clarification or written findings. The panel voted to place the two items on the March agenda for further consideration.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Kent County planning commission backs raising assisted‑living bed cap to 16 in two residential districts with conditions

Judge Murphy remands curb‑cut and setback waivers for Everton project; Planning Commission schedules March review