OXFORD PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 6, 2014 The regular monthly meeting of the Oxford Planning Commission was called to order by the chairman, David Baker, on Tuesday, at 7:00 p.m., in the meeting room of the Oxford Community Services Building. Other commission members in attendance were Patricia Campen, James Reed, and Mel Mraz. Also in attendance was the Town Administrator, Cheryl Lewis. The minutes of the meeting of March 4, 2014 were approved and accepted as distributed. The following permits were approved in the town office: #14-09 Mr. and Mrs. John Kimberly, 200 S. Morris Street, 3 picket fencing on either side of driveway along S. Morris Street. Section 32.12. To HDC> #14-11 Mr. and Mrs. Ryckman Walbridge, 204 N. Morris St., replace old rotting fence with new fencing and extend new fence to hide heat pump. Section 32.12. To HDC. #14-11 Phyllis Gaiti, 408 S. Morris Street, wrought iron and wood post fence, and new brick walk. Section 32.12. To HDC. #14-20 Casey Green, 201 Bonfield Ave., new 4 fence and shed. Sections 32.12, 21.03.A.1 and 21.03.B.1&2. REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION The commission reviewed the final subdivision plans of Kenneth Gibson regarding 105 W. Strand. Mr. Gibson, along with his attorney, Bruce Armistead, were present to discuss the request. Attorney Armistead reminded the commission that he and Mr. Gibson had met with the group a few months prior, had discussed the details, and that the consensus had been that the request would be approved after the Planning Commission had run it by Oxford s town attorney, Brynja Booth. Attorney Armistead stated that he had spoken with Attorney Booth indicating that she had reviewed the plat, proposed a Declaration of Right-of-Way, and had addressed all the concerns of the Planning Commission from their March 4, 2014 meeting. Attorney Armistead stated that he and Mr. Gibson were requesting final approval of the proposed subdivision at this night s meeting. Pending the commission s approval, Attorney Armistead indicated that he and Mr. Gibson would take responsibility for acquiring the proper signature from the Talbot Co. Health Department on the mylar plat. Once that occurs, paper copies will be made and the applicant will take responsibility for recording the plat, along with a Declaration of Right-of-Way which will be included with the plat. Mr. Baker stated that it appeared that a boundary
Page 2 line was created for homestead rights or changes, but that he could find no clear record of that. He asked if there was a real record or was this something that needed to be abandoned. Attorney Armistead responded that in the land records there is a boundary line but that this was truly one parcel, which is what had triggered this request by Mr. Gibson, and that the land records show this property as being one parcel. Mr. Baker read over the minutes of the commission s last meeting with Mr. Gibson so that everyone would be familiar with what had been discussed with Mr. Gibson. A motion was made by Mr. Reed to approve the subdivision as submitted based upon approval of the town attorney. The motion was seconded Mrs. Campen and carried with the following vote: James Reed - Yay Patricia Campen - Yay David Baker - Yay Mel Mraz - Nay The following building permit was reviewed by the Planning Commission: #14-08 R-2 Harriet Goldman, 208 E. Strand, remove existing brick and concrete and install new ecobrick parking area. Mrs. Goldman presented the commission with an amended proposal from what she had originally proposed in her application as a result of a suggestion made to her and approved by the Oxford Historic District Commission. The amendment showed parking strips made of Turf Stone with grass on either side. The permit plan calls for removal of an existing concrete pad to be replaced with eco-brick. Mrs. Goldman noted that the existing concrete had started cracking before she and her husband had moved into the house. Mrs. Goldman stated that her original plan was to make the parking area all solid but that the historic commission, when presented with the application, didn t like that look and suggested that which Mrs. Goldman was presenting to the Planning Commission. Mrs. Goldman noted that the product which she was planning on using was advertised as being permeable with 100% filtration. Mr. Baker explained to Mrs. Goldman that her property lies within the Critical Area and that lot coverage, as defined in Section 19 of the Oxford Zoning Ordinance, includes, in part, walkway gravel, stone, shell, impermeable decking, pavers, permeable pavement, or any other manmade material. The change that Mrs. Goldman is proposing would increase the coverage on her property which is already at the allowable coverage of 40%. Mrs. Goldman explained she was unaware of the coverage when the property was purchased and that the current parking situation is both incredibly muddy and messy, as well as being incredibly hard to pull into easily as it comes in off the road at a 45 degree angle. Mrs. Goldman also indicated that she was aware the application would probably have to go before the Board of Appeals. Mr. Goldman, who was also present, spoke stating that the area they are wishing to change currently consists partially of concrete which he noted was absolutely not permeable so that when it rains the water runs off on to the ground. What he and his wife were proposing were permeable bricks so they would, he felt, be improving the situation. Mr. Baker stated that the couple would have to go before the Board of Appeals with this application because of the way in which the Zoning Ordinance was written, the Planning Commission could not approve the application and that the commission was controlled by what is written in the Oxford Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Reed made a motion to disapprove the application but to recommend to the Board of Appeals that they grant favorable approval of the request. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Campen and carried with the following vote:
Page 3 James Reed - Yay Patricia Campen - Yay Mel Mraz - Yay David Baker - Abstained from voting Mrs. Goldman asked the commission if they had any suggestions should their application be denied from the Board of Appeals. Mr. Baker suggested they remove their existing garage in order to get the parking area that they need. He further explained that the previous owner had gone before the Board of Appeals, went back and forth on this matter in several meetings with various boards, and finally went with the parking strips so that he wouldn t be over the 40% allowed maximum coverage. Mr. Baker s feeling was that the previous owner overbuilt on the property and that the Goldman s were now paying the price for what was done. #14-14 R-2 Lucy Garliauskas, 102 N. Morris Street, new, single family, wood framed structure. Ms. Garliauskas reminded the commission that she had received her demolition permit to remove her existing house and that the commission had approved the grandfathering of her existing setbacks. Tonight she was presenting the commission the final plans for the construction of her new home. Ms. Garliauskas stated that she wanted the grandfathering of the setbacks to accommodate a one ft. bumpout for her proposed chimney and a 3 ft. bumpout for a stairway, and that the remaining footprint of the house would fall within the required setbacks. A question arose concerning the placement of an HVAC unit. Ms. Garliauskas stated she was looking at placing it behind the proposed chimney. Mr. Baker noted that that location would go outside the grandfathered footprint. Town Administrator, Cheryl Lewis, spoke stating that the town, along with the HDC, has asked to have the HVAC unit located there. Locating it on the other side of the property would not benefit the neighbor at 104 N. Morris Street due to the close proximity of that house to the existing and proposed house on this property at 102 N. Morris Street. Mrs. Lewis explained that the Historic District Commission did not want to see Ms. Garliauskas locate her HVAC unit in the back of her property because her property is a through lot which backs up to Factory Street. Ms. Lewis added that the addition of an HVAC unit on the south side of the house would be barely outside the footprint. Mrs. Campen agreed that the location of the unit on that side would seem like the perfect place as the town office has their units on that side as well. There were some concerns expressed in the event of a fire but it was pointed out that access to the house would also be available off of Factory Street. Mr. Mraz stated he has no problem with having the unit placed on the south side of the house but because of setback issues did not think the commission could approve it. Mr. Baker concurred that should they approve the location of the HVAC units on the southside they would be approving something that is out of compliance with the Oxford Zoning Ordinance. Administrator Lewis recommending separating the placement of the HVAC units from the new house plans as whole. The commission agreed that this would be the best solution. Mrs. Campen made a motion to approve the plan as submitted exclusive of the placement of the HVAC units. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mraz and unanimously carried with all in favor. Mr. Baker made a motion to deny the placement of the HVAC units on the southside of the house because they would encroach into the setback area but recommended that a variance be granted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mraz and unanimously carried with all in favor.
Page 4 CONSULTATION A consultation was held with Tim Wilson, resident of 214 South Street. Mr. Wilson presented the commission with sketches of changes he would like to make to his home. He explained that he had a two story home facing the street. Behind the front section of the house is a 1 ½ story that has clipped ceilings that he wishes to make into a full 2 story kitchen with a shed roof as well as extending that 2 story further back. Mr. Baker noted that Mr. Wilson s property consists of a narrow lot and requires a 5 setback from the property line to the structure. He went onto say that the house, as it exists, is nonconforming so there would be no problem in keeping it as it is or repairing it but as you make changes to it, it become a problem with bringing it into compliance. Mr. Baker quoted from the non-conforming section of the zoning ordinance whereby no structure that is non-conforming could be enlarged greater than 50% but anything under 50% would have to meet the current setbacks. He added that the HDC would have to approve all Mr. Wilson s proposed changes and that he would not enlarge a nonconformity by putting a second story on top of it. Administrator Lewis suggested that a legal opinion be sought on the second story. Mr. Baker suggested that Mr. Wilson had the option of going to the Board of Appeals with a request for a variance from the 5 setback prior to having a complete set of building plans drawn as long as he had his measurements and layouts for the board to review. Mr. Wilson stated he just wanted to know what was permissible and what was not before he got started on the project. NEW BUSINESS The commission, along with Administrator Lewis, went over a report put together by the town office for the calendar year 2013 at the request of the Maryland Department of Planning. Mrs. Lewis explained that the report contained answers that were a result of questions asked by the MD Department of Planning. Mrs. Campen made a motion to approve the annual report for calendar year 2013 as submitted by the town office dated 4/23/2014. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reed and unanimously carried with all in favor. Administrator Lewis asked the commission if they would review Section 8 of the Oxford Zoning Ordinance pertaining to signs. She noted that she understood that section of the ordinance was modeled after Easton s sign ordinance but that it was written in a way that was not really useable for the Town of Oxford. She asked that the commission give this section a lot of thought as it currently does not clarify things. Mrs. Lewis offered to gather other sign ordinances from other small towns such as Trappe, Cordova, etc., to help the commission with their task. It was agreed to discuss this section next month after the members have had time to look it over carefully. Mr. Reed stated he would not be at next month s meeting and Mrs. Campen reported that it would be her last meeting as she was going to have to resign from the commission due to other obligations. Mr. Mraz made a motion to reappoint David Baker as chairman. Mr. Baker responded that it would be a good experience for someone else.
Page 5 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Willoughby Assistant Clerk