Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Text Amendment Schools topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission discusses zoning text amendment to classify private schools and educational uses; no vote
Summary
Planning staff presented draft definitions and proposed locations for private schools and other educational uses in the zoning ordinance. Commissioners asked for a printed draft and more time for review; no formal action was taken beyond discussion and direction to staff.
Caroline County planning staff brought draft zoning text amendments on Feb. 27 to define private schools and a broader category of educational uses and to identify where each would be allowed across zoning districts. The commission provided comments and requested staff produce a printed draft for closer review; no formal vote or public hearing was held.
Planner Leon Hughes and County Planner Craig Pennington explained the effort responds to gaps and ambiguities in the existing ordinance. Staff said the county currently defines “private school” but does not list private schools as a distinct allowed use in each district; conversely, “schools” and “public facilities” are enumerated in several districts without clear definitions. The draft language presented separates educational uses into three categories — schools (including public and private), indoor educational uses (all activity inside a building) and outdoor educational uses (instruction or activities conducted outdoors) — and proposes where each category should be permitted by right or by special exception. Examples discussed included dance, music and trade schools, vocational and truck‑driving training, and church‑based preschools.
Under the draft, private schools would be allowed by right in the RP (rural preservation) and RR districts where public facilities are already allowed. Indoor educational uses would be allowed by right in business districts; outdoor educational uses would be subject to special exception in RP and RR. Commissioners discussed edge cases — for example, whether a barn converted to a for‑profit school should be treated as a business, a residence or a special exception — and acknowledged the interplay with building‑code classifications when a structure is used commercially versus as a residence.
Commissioners asked staff to provide a printable version of the proposed ordinance language for study and to return the item for a future meeting and formal public hearing after staff refines the language and incorporates commission feedback. Chair Bob Schwartz and staff emphasized that existing uses will be treated according to current ordinance language until an amendment is adopted, and that the amendment process will be advertised as required if the commission elects to send the draft to public hearing.
