Sykesville planning commission denies Warfield concept plan over zoning land‑use inconsistencies
Loading...
Summary
The Sykesville Planning Commission voted unanimously July 7 to deny Warfield Companies’ amended concept plan, citing noncompliance with PEC zoning land‑use percentages and inconsistent parcel calculations; staff recommended denial and invited a revised submission or a zoning text amendment to address the discrepancies.
The Sykesville Planning Commission on July 7 denied Warfield Companies’ amended concept plan for the Warfield site after staff concluded the submission failed to meet the Planned Employment Center (PEC) zone’s land‑use percentages and used multiple parcel size metrics in calculating densities.
Staff planner Kevin summarized the review, saying the 47.2‑acre development parcel and the concept plan “propose land use percentages that do not meet the requirements of the planned employment center zone,” and that the plan used two different development parcel sizes in its calculations. He recommended the commission deny the plan while allowing the applicant to submit a revised concept plan for a future meeting.
The denial followed presentations by the applicant team. Stephen McCleaf, representing Warfield Companies, said the revised plan was intended “to take advantage of the opportunities provided by the Housing Expansion and Affordability Act” and explained the applicant’s approach to calculating a smaller net acreage by excluding road rights‑of‑way, Cary Dorsey Park and certain stormwater parcels from the land‑use denominator. Sean Davis, the applicant’s land planner, explained changes such as reduced townhome lot sizes and added setbacks, and David Bowersox discussed legal arguments provided to staff after the packet was distributed.
Commission discussion focused on the limits of the planning commission’s authority and on how percentages must be calculated under town code. The chair stated the commission could not alter the PEC zone’s land‑use percentages and that any change would require action by the town council or a separate legal route such as a variance: “We cannot approve this plan as it stands tonight because it doesn't meet the land use requirements that we as a body are required to work from.” Staff additionally highlighted inconsistencies with minimum open space requirements and the plan’s allocation of retail/service uses to less‑accessible parcels.
The motion to deny the submitted concept plan was made by the chair and seconded by Commissioner Ken; the motion carried with unanimous vocal approval. The motion included directions that future resubmitted concept plans should not change use percentages for parcels E and F, must explain how the PEC zone’s recreational space requirement will be met, and should explore alternative locations for retail/service uses. The commission also stated a new concept plan may be submitted for consideration at any future meeting.
The planning commission and the applicant discussed possible next steps, including (1) submitting a zoning text amendment for town council consideration, (2) pursuing a variance or appeal through the Board of Zoning Appeals, or (3) resubmitting a revised plan that recalculates land‑use percentages using a single consistent parcel metric. The commission’s staff and legal advisers advised that the commission is bound to act under the current text of the zoning code and encouraged applicants to work through those channels. The applicant said it may resubmit a revised plan for a future meeting.
