Emmitsburg board continues Chesterton Academy special‑exception hearing after staff says noise, compatibility concerns warrant review

The Emmitsburg Board of Appeals on April 2 continued a special‑exception hearing on Chesterton Academy’s application to occupy and expand Unit A‑2 at 17750 Creamery Road after town staff recommended denial over noise, safety and land‑use compatibility concerns.

Town planner Najila told the board staff’s review focused on “compatibility, operational impacts, and consistency with the town’s long‑term planning goals,” noting that the Industrial Park District is primarily intended for commercial and light industrial uses and that town officials had received noise complaints and audio recordings from a nearby tenant. “For these reasons… the staff recommends that the board of appeals deny the special exception request,” Najila said.

Applicant Kristen Crook, who identified herself for the record and gave an Emmitsburg address, told the board the school has responded to complaints, moved musical activities and installed temporary barriers, and that the tenant who lodged the December 18, 2024 complaint had relocated on March 3. “Anytime we heard a complaint, we acted immediately,” Kristen Crook said, adding the school currently averages about 18 students with two teachers — “about 20 in our current space” — and does not expect to reach the 50‑student figure it included in a filing.

Board members pressed the applicant on operational details, safety and evidence. Scott noted he did not hear in the submitted videos the kind of continuous, severe disruption described in a written complaint and urged more documentary evidence. Chair Diane said the town packet referenced noise that had posed “a significant threat to the viability” of neighboring businesses and asked staff to verify which tenants had documented concerns.

Members discussed options short of outright denial: time‑limited approvals, conditions tied to noise mitigation, and evidence‑based monitoring. Several commissioners suggested the town ask BlueLine Improvement and Builders 1st Source — two adjacent tenants mentioned in testimony — to submit written statements or appear so the board could evaluate whether disruptions “affect the ability of other tenants to operate effectively.” Scott proposed using decibel monitoring or monthly printouts to create objective records of any ongoing impacts.

Given gaps in the record and the applicant’s stated willingness to pursue soundproofing, the board voted to continue the hearing and asked staff to solicit written input from adjacent businesses and return with additional evidence. The board set the continuance for roughly three weeks to allow staff time to gather those materials and for the applicant to implement and document mitigation measures.

The continuance preserves the applicant’s ability to request demolition of the interior partition and an increased occupancy permit only after the board makes the zoning finding required by the town code. Chair Diane noted the board could also attach rational conditions or a time limit to any future special‑exception approval, a step the board used in prior actions to allow temporary occupancy while the applicant sought a more suitable location.

No final decision was reached at the April 2 session; the board also adopted minor revisions to its rules of procedure and adjourned. The hearing will resume after staff solicits neighbor input and returns to the board with any additional, written evidence.