Opinion ID: 2556168
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Kent County's Critical Area Plan

Text: Kent County's initial Critical Area plan was approved by the Critical Area Commission on January 20, 1988 and became effective on April 12 of that year. Wharf at Handy's Point, Inc. v. Dep't of Nat. Res., 92 Md.App. 659, 663, 610 A.2d 314, 316 (1992). The Kent County Critical Area Plan is incorporated into Kent County's Land Ordinance, where the balance of Kent County's zoning and planning provisions reside. See Kent County Land Use Ordinance, http://www.kentcounty.com/ gov/planzone/newzone/Part1_A10.pdf (last visited 7 February 2011). As such, the local plan is a part of a public local law. Growth allocation amendment requests in Kent County purportedly also are governed by the Kent County Growth Allocation Policy (the Policy), adopted initially by the County on 9 March 1999. More will be said about the circumstances of the adoption of the Policy later. The Policy reiterates that the County Board of Commissioners has the authority to grant growth allocation requests in the incorporate[d] towns and the unincorporated territory of Kent County. For growth allocation requests in the unincorporated territory to be approved, the Policy provides that an applicant must meet the following conditions: 1. The proposed project is identified in the Kent County Comprehensive Plan as a means to expand and provide more diversity in the size, number, and type of businesses in Kent County or as a means to enhance and expand locally based tourism that relies upon the unique natural, cultural, and historic features and qualities of Kent County. 2. Proposed projects are suitable for the sensitive location and pose minimal risks to the environment. 3. The project is compatible with the surrounding community and land use. 4. Site location and development will use innovative design features to minimize negative impacts on water quality, habitat protection areas, woodlands, and forests. Examples include but are not limited to the use of buffer areas to protect habitat, wildlife corridors, and other important natural areas, the use of conservation landscapes or bayscapes, and limitation of impervious surfaces through clustering and shared roadways. 5. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and intent of the Kent County Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and Critical Area Program. 6. The proposed project must accomplish two of the following standards to mitigate the negative effects caused by higher intensity development than normally allowed: a. The project is within a developed area such as a village. b. The project has direct access to public sewer and water. c. Man-made structures on the site are clustered. d. Efforts are made to enhance the habitat of threatened or endangered species or species in need of protections beyond the minimum required standards. e. Permanent environmental easements are donated. f. All agricultural lands on the site are placed into a protective easement. g. Public access to natural and physical amenities is provided. h. The development uses infill or existing structures. i. Habitat for forest interior dwelling birds and/or other sensitive species is created or expanded. j. The restoration, enhancement or creation of wetlands are included in the project. k. Afforestation/reforestation is provided beyond the minimum required standards. l. Historic structures are restored. m. Buildings are designed to reflect the heritage of Kent County. Significantly, the Policy, as originally adopted, purports to provide for an aggrieved person a right to seek judicial review of the County's decision on a growth allocation amendment. The Policy states that [a]ny aggrieved person with standing may within thirty (30) days after the decision,[ [4] ] appeal[ [5] ] to the Circuit Court of Maryland. [6] Finally, the Policy provides that [a]pplications for growth allocation shall not be effective until approve[d by the Commission] under Natural Resources Article 8-1809. . . .