Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission opens broad land‑use review; planner to move Horizons parcel to RV2 and update uses
Summary
The commission began a multi‑meeting review of the land‑use table and zoning map, focusing on confusion between RV1 and RV2 designations and a mixed‑use anomaly at 'Horizons on the Bay.' The planner will prepare objective criteria and a map amendment to reclassify Horizons to RV2 and update the land‑use table; public hearings and council review expected later.
The Chesapeake Beach Planning and Zoning Commission spent the bulk of its Feb. 4 meeting reviewing a reorganized draft land‑use table and the town’s zoning map. Planner Miss Franklin presented a streamlined table that groups like uses (for example, a single 'office' category) and highlighted anomalies created when the comprehensive‑plan rezoning left some parcels inconsistent with their existing built uses.
Commissioners focused on the residential village split (RV1 vs. RV2). Franklin explained the original intent: RV1 was intended to conserve lower‑intensity cottage‑neighborhood character, while RV2 was meant to allow denser or more intense residential and limited business uses. The commission identified parcels where that practical distinction no longer matches the map — most notably the mixed‑use building referred to as Horizons on the Bay, which was developed with ground‑floor commercial space that the new land‑use table does not clearly allow in that RV1 area.
Town Attorney Karen Ruff cautioned about spot‑zoning liability: small, arbitrary reclassifications that solely benefit private interests can be invalid unless they are consistent with the comprehensive plan and serve public health, safety or welfare. Commissioners debated two paths: (1) amend the comprehensive plan to consolidate RV1 and RV2 into a single residential village zone (a lengthier process requiring public hearings), or (2) keep the dual designations but adopt objective, map‑linked criteria (parking, street width, lot size, historic housing types) to explain why a parcel is RV1 or RV2.
By the meeting’s end the commission gave the planner a clear assignment: prepare a recommendation that moves Horizons and adjacent townhomes into RV2 via a map amendment, update the land‑use table so personal services (including fitness studios) fall under a single category and can be treated as conditional/nonconforming uses in mixed‑use buildings, and provide objective criteria to distinguish RV1 and RV2. Franklin also flagged state law changes affecting accessory dwelling units (ADUs), cannabis and solar installations and asked to tackle those topics together in a later session.
Commissioners said they will review Franklin’s map recommendations and the reworked land‑use table at their next meeting; the planner said the commission should be prepared to consider a draft for public hearing and town council review by April.
