- 1 - CECIL COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes ...

CECIL COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 

Meeting Minutes 

January 19, 2011 

Present: 

Absent: 

Pat Doordan; Vice Chair; Ken Wiggins; Wyatt Wallace; Randy Taylor; H. Clay 

McDowell, alternate; Tim Whittie; Mark Woodhull; Diana Broomell; Fred von 

Staden; Keith Baynes, Esq.; Eric Sennstrom; Tony Di Giacomo and Jennifer 

Bakeoven. 

Bill Mortimer, Chairman; Joe Janusz; Clara Campbell, Esq. 

Call to Order: Vice Chair Doordan called the meeting to order at 12:03 p.m. 

Approval of the Minutes: Mr. Wallace made a motion for approval. The motion was seconded by 

Mr. Wiggins. All approve. Motion carried. 

1. Lands of Ulysses G. McCoy, Lots 1-3, Rowland Road, Concept Plat, Will Whiteman Land 

Surveying, Inc., Seventh Election District. 

Will Whiteman, Land Surveyor, appeared and presented an overview of the project. 

Mr. Di Giacomo, P&Z, read the comments of the department: 

This proposal is in compliance with §3.8 & §3.9.1 regarding public notification. 

With regard to the posting of plats on the County’s website, notice is hereby given the jpg file 

submissions can be only 11 inches, maximum, in any direction. Adherence to that requirement will 

enable the County to better serve the public. 

Zoning: NAR 

Density: The NAR zone permits a maximum base density of 1 du/ 10 ac. This Concept Plat, which 

must cite Minor Subdivisions 2469, 2529, 3274, 3531, and 3751, proposes 3 lots on 230.899 acres, 

for a proposed density of 57.7247/1. 

A boundary line survey must be done in conjunction with the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for 

density calculation purposes. 

§2.0 of the Subdivision Regulations allows for a combined Preliminary-Final Plat if there are from 1 

to 5 lots. 

Dwellings or impervious surfaces shall not occur on slopes with a grade of 25% or more covering a 

contiguous area of 10,000 ft 2 or more. On slopes between 15 and 25%, good engineering practices 

shall be used to ensure sediment and erosion control and slope stabilization before, during and after 

disturbance activities. 1 

Slopes greater than 25% must be shown on the Preliminary Plat. 

A 110’ perennial stream buffer is required from all perennial streams present. This buffer shall be 

expanded to include contiguous areas of hydric soils, highly erodible soils, and soils on slopes 

greater than 15% -- to a maximum distance of 160’. 

1 The Cecil County Subdivision Regulations define steep slopes as “15 percent or greater incline.” The Cecil County Zoning 

Ordinance defines steep slopes as consisting of a grade of 25% or more covering a contiguous area of 10,000 ft 2 or more. The Cecil 

County Forest Conservation Regulations define steep slopes as “areas with slopes greater than 25 percent slope.” 

- 1 -

A 25’ buffer is required around all non-tidal wetlands and intermittent streams present. Permits are 

required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland and stream 

impacts prior to recordation. JD’s are required in conjunction with permitting. If no permits are 

required, and if the proposed project meets the policy standards established on 3/20/95 and revised 

on 1/16/96, or if the FSD/Conceptual Environmental Assessment finds that there are to be no 

impacts to field-delineated wetlands or stream impacts, or if the FSD/Conceptual Environmental 

Assessment finds that there are no wetlands or streams and that finding is consistent with the details 

of County wetlands maps and USGS quad maps, then no JD is required. If required, then a JD is 

recommended to be done prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission, but required to be 

completed prior to recordation. 

The habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species must be avoided. 

No common open space is required for fewer than 10 lots. 

No landscaping of the development envelope is required and no sidewalks are recommended in the 

NAR zone. 

Bufferyard Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of Dr. Jack and 

Rowland Roads. 

A Bufferyard Standard A will be required adjacent to any adjoining property on which an 

agricultural operation is occurring. 

Where feasible, the natural vegetative equivalent may be used to satisfy the bufferyard requirements. 

Any tree removal within a public right-of-way requires approval from the Maryland Department of 

Natural Resources. 

The plat indicates that this project is exempt, per §3.2K. 

Any Landscape Plan must (shall) be approved prior to Planning Commission review of the Final Plat 

(§6.3.B(1)(a), Cecil County Forest Conservation Regulations). 

Any Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation. 

For subdivisions proposed on property contiguous to operating farms, notice shall be provided on the 

plat that an agricultural operation is being conducted on a contiguous property and said agricultural 

operation is protected from nuisance claims provided the conditions of Article I, § 4 are being 

complied with. 

Discussion ensued regarding the remainder of the applicant’s property. 

Mr. Woodhull, DPW, read the comments of the department: 

It appears that this subdivision creates lots around existing dwellings as such it is exempt from 

Stormwater Management (SWM) under Article III, section 251-5 C. of the SWM Ordinance. 

Mr. Wiggins read the comments of the Health Department: 

A Groundwater Appropriation Permit Exemption must be requested from Maryland Department of 

the Environment prior to final plat approval. Concept plat is satisfactory. 

Vice Chair Doordan asked if anyone would like to speak in favor or in opposition of this project. No 

one spoke. 

- 2 -

Mr. Di Giacomo read the recommendation of the department: 

APPROVAL, conditioned on: 

1) Any DPW requirements being met; 

2) The boundary line survey’s being completed prior to the TAC’s review of the Preliminary Plat; 

and 

3) The granting of the requested waiver from the Bufferyard Standard C requirement. 

A motion for approval with conditions was made by Mr. McDowell. 

The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiggins. 

All approve. Motion carried. 

2. Clover Meadows, Lots 1-19, Weaver Meadows Road, Final Plat, RJK Engineering & 

Associates, Eighth Election District. 

Kordell Willen, American Engineering, appeared and presented an overview of the project. 

Mr. Di Giacomo, P&Z, read the comments of the department: 





Zoning: NAR 

Density: Density: The Concept Plat, proposing 16 major- and 3 minor-subdivision 2 lots on 53.62 

acres, 3 was approved on 4/17/06, conditioned on: 

1) The Boundary line survey being completed prior to the TAC’s review of the Preliminary 

Plat; 

2) The JD completion documentation being received prior to the Planning Commission’s review 

of the Preliminary Plat; 4 and 

3) A sensitive species survey being completed prior to the Planning Commission’s review of the 

Preliminary Plat. 

On 4/17/06, the NAR zone permitted a base density of 1 du/ 5 ac., and bonus density of 1/3. The 

Concept Plat was approved at a proposed density of 1/3.12. On 1/1/07, the permitted NAR density 

changed to 1/10 and eliminated bonus density. 

The Preliminary Plat was approved on 3/17/08, conditioned on: 

1) Health Dept. requirements being met; 

2) DPW requirements being met; 

3) The add-on hooks showing the direction of the conveyance; 

4) Covenants prohibiting the subdivision of the large lot must being noted on the Final Plat; 

2 §2.4.1 was not invoked. 

3 After deducting 3.73 acres for the proposed minor subdivision lots, a major subdivision bonus density of 1/3.12 was proposed. 

4 Based upon discussion with the Corps of Engineers, JD’s will now be required in conjunction with permitting. If no permits are required, and if the 

project meets the policy standards established on 3/20/95 and revised on 1/16/96, 4 or if the FSD/Conceptual Environmental Assessment finds that there 

are to be no impacts to field-delineated wetlands or streams, or if the FSD/Conceptual Environmental Assessment finds that there are no wetlands or 

streams and that finding is consistent with the details of County wetlands maps and USGS quad maps, then no JD is required. 

- 3 -

5) The FCP and Landscape Plan being approved prior to the submittal of the Final Plat; 

6) The details of the FCP/Landscape Plan and the Final Plat matching up; 

7) Deed restrictions for the long-term protection of the Forest Retention/Afforestation Areas 

(FRAs) being recorded & noted on the plat prior to recordation, with the metes and bounds 

description of the FRA being shown on the Final & Record Plats; and 

8) A copy of the sealed McAllister May 2007 survey being submitted for the file prior to the 

submittal of the Final Plat. 

Per §4.1.18, a 2 (two)-year Preliminary extension was granted on 1/20/10. 

Also on 1/20/10, the Phase 1, Lot 1 Final Plat was approved, conditioned on: 



3) The Landscape Agreement being executed prior to Recordation; 

4) A Homeowners’ Association for maintenance of common open space being established with 

$50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation; 

5) Deed restrictions for the long-term protection of the street trees and Forest Retention 

/Afforestation Areas (FRAs) being recorded & noted on the plat prior to recordation, with the 

metes and bounds description of the FRA being shown on the Record Plats; 

6) A copy of the sealed McAllister May 2007 survey being submitted for the file prior to Lot 1’s 

Recordation or the submittal of any Final Plat for any other lot(s), or until another survey is 

completed and submitted in its stead; and 

7) The details of the Phase 2 or any subsequent Final plat matching the details of this Lot 1 plat. 

No Lot 1 recordation plats were ever submitted for signatures, and Lot 1 is again included on this 

Final Plat. 

Total aggregate acreage figures have been made consistent between the Final Plat and the 

FCP/Landscape Plan. 

An unlabeled existing structure (labeled as a garage on the McCallister survey) is shown crossing the 

proposed Lot 1 – Lot 19 property line, shown as planned to be removed. 

The proposed large lot (#12) and the common open space together total 32.79 acres, or 63.37% of 

the 51.74 major subdivision acres. General Note # 12 prohibits any further subdivision of the large 

lot, proposed Lot 12. 

General Note # 2 indicates that the boundary line survey was previously completed. Per condition # 

8 of Preliminary Plat approval, a copy of the sealed McAllister May 2007 survey was submitted for 

the file prior to Final Plat review. 

General Note # 27 still seems ambiguous: Are the 5’ utility easements cited in General Note # 6 and 

the blanket access easements cited in General Note # 15 to be maintained by the Homeowners’ 

Association on private lots? Mr. Willen said no, the utility company will maintain the easements. 

Dwellings or impervious surfaces shall not occur on slopes with a grade of 25% or more covering a 

contiguous area of 10,000 ft 2 or more. On slopes between 15 and 25%, good engineering practices 

shall be used to ensure sediment and erosion control and slope stabilization before, during and after 

disturbance activities. 5 

5 The Cecil County Subdivision Regulations define steep slopes as “15 percent or greater incline.” The Cecil County Zoning Ordinance defines steep 

slopes as consisting of a grade of 25% or more covering a contiguous area of 10,000 ft 2 or more. The Cecil County Forest Conservation Regulations 

define steep slopes as “areas with slopes greater than 25 percent slope.” 

- 4 -

A 110’ perennial stream buffer is required from all perennial streams present. This buffer shall be 

expanded to include contiguous areas of hydric soils, highly erodible soils, and soils on slopes 

greater than 15% -- to a maximum distance of 160’. 

A 25’ buffer is required around all non-tidal wetlands and intermittent streams present. Permits are 

required from the (US Army) Corps of Engineers and MDE for all non-tidal wetland and stream 

impacts prior to recordation. JD’s are required in conjunction with permitting. If no permits are 

required, and if the proposed project meets the policy standards established on 3/20/95 and revised 

on 1/16/96, or if the FSD/Conceptual Environmental Assessment finds that there are to be no 

impacts to field-delineated wetlands or stream impacts, or if the FSD/Conceptual Environmental 

Assessment finds that there are no wetlands or streams and that finding is consistent with the details 

of County wetlands maps and USGS quad maps, then no JD is required. If required, then a JD is 

recommended to be done prior to Final Plat review by the Planning Commission, but required to be 

completed prior to recordation, per General Note # 25. 6 

Landscaping is not required, and sidewalks are not recommended, in the NAR zone. A Bufferyard 

Standard C is required, outside the right-of-way, along the road frontages of Weaver Meadows 

Road, as shown. 

Rows of street trees with 10’ planting easements are required, outside the right-of-way, along both 

sides of all internal roads, as shown. 

The FSD was approved on 4/5/06. The PFCP has been approved, and the sensitive species survey, 

completed. The FCP/Landscape Plan was approved on 9/23/10. 

A Landscape Agreement must be executed prior to recordation. 

Deed restrictions for the long-term protection of the planted buffers, street trees & Forest 

Retention/Afforestation Areas (FRAs) must be recorded & noted on the plat prior to recordation, with 

the metes & bounds description of the FRA being shown on the Record Plat. 

The proposed road name, Blarney Lane, has been approved. 7 

Covenants prohibiting the subdivision of the large lot (Lot 12) must be noted on the Record Plat and 

recorded prior to recordation. 

Access to common open space between lots must be marked with concrete monuments. 

A Homeowners’ Association for maintenance of common open space must be established with $50 

per recorded lot being placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation. 


The final SWM plan is technically complete as are the Street and Storm Drainage plan. Only 

administrative issues and the relabeling of the SWM easement remain outstanding. We will not sign 

the final plat until these issues have been resolved to the department’s satisfaction. 


A Groundwater Appropriation Permit Exemption has been filed with Maryland Department of the 

Environment. 

Final Plat is satisfactory. 

6 Per the Planning Commission’s policy, established on 3/20/95 and revised on 1/16/96, so long as the wetlands are in the common open space or the 

forest retention area or the large lot, a JD need not be done. 

7 Mr. Citrano, an adjacent property owner, previously requested connectivity to the proposed Blarney Lane. 

- 5 -

Vice Chair Doordan asked if anyone would like to speak in favor or in opposition of this project. No 

one spoke. 

Mr. Di Giacomo read the recommendation of the staff: 

APPROVAL, conditioned on: 



3) The Landscape Agreement being executed prior to Recordation; 

4) A Homeowners’ Association for maintenance of common open space being established with $50 

per recorded lot being placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation; 

5) Deed restrictions for the long-term protection of the planted buffers, street trees and Forest 

Retention /Afforestation Areas (FRAs) being recorded & noted on the plat prior to recordation, 

with the metes and bounds description of the FRA being shown on the Record Plats; 

6) Signature lines being provided on the Record Plat for the owners of Parcels 520, 576, and 513; 

and 

7) Deed restrictions being recorded prior to recordation prohibiting the subdivision of the large lot. 

A motion for approval with conditions was made by Mr. Wallace. 

The motion was seconded by Mr. McDowell. 


3. Sassafras River Club (formerly Bracebridge Hall), Lots 1-106, Grove Neck Road, Revised 

Preliminary Record Plat, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., First Election District. 

James Keefer, Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc., and Jim Chaffin, Chaffin Light, appeared and 

presented an overview of the project. 

Discussion ensued regarding the purpose of the proposed Natural Reserve Areas and the use of the 

existing manor house. 

Mr. Di Giacomo, P&Z, read the comments of the department; 

This proposal, 8 previously reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, seeks the 

modification of an approved and recorded subdivision. 

Zoning: SAR, RCA & LDA 

Density: The Concept Plat was approved at 1/5 bonus density 9 on 7/19/04, conditioned on: 

1) A boundary line survey being done for the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density 

calculation purposes; 

2) A sensitive species survey being done prior to the Planning Commission’s review of the 

Preliminary Plat; 

3) A JD being done prior to the Planning Commission’s review of the Preliminary Plat; 

4) A note being placed on the plat to the effect that the Critical Area portion of the property 

is exempt from the Forest Conservation Regulations, per §3.2B; 

5) A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) being completed prior to the TAC’s review of the 


8 It was reviewed by the TAC on 7/2/08. 

9 The SAR zone then permitted a maximum base density of 1 du/ 8 ac., or 1/5 if bonus density is granted. The RCA overlay zone permitted a density 

of 1/20. 

- 6 -

6) A mid-block turnaround being required on Gettysburg Drive (outside the Critical Area in 

so far as possible) and a mid-block turnaround being waived on McGill Creek Farm 

Lane; and 

7) Water quality issues being met. 

A Preliminary Plat with a slightly revised layout was presented to the Planning Commission, for 

informational purposes only, on 11/21/05. 

A 1-year extension of Concept Plat approval was granted on 5/15/06. 10 

The Preliminary Plat, proposing 106 lots on 530.502 acres 11 at a density of 1/5.005, was approved on 

8/21/06, 12 conditioned on: 

1) Health Department requirements being met; 


3) The FCP, Landscape Plan and Final Environmental Assessment being completed prior to 

Final Plat review(s); 

4) The requested (7/11/06 letter) details and plat copy being supplied to the CBCAC staff 

prior to Final Plat review; 

5) The adjacent agricultural operations notice being placed on the Final and Record Plats; 

6) Deed restrictions for the long-term protection of the Forest Retention/ Afforestation Areas 

(FRAs) must be recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation. The metes and bounds 

description of the FRA must be shown on the Final and Record Plats; and 

7) Bald Eagles Nest Zone 3’s critical dates being listed on the Final/Record Plats. 

The Final Plat was approved on 4/16/07 conditioned on: 

1) Health Department requirements being met; 


3) The Landscape Agreement being executed prior to recordation; 

4) The Critical Area designation, density and boundary being included on the Record Plat; 

5) The Record Plat noting the §3.2B exemption; 

6) The adjacent agricultural operations notice being placed on the Record Plat; 


(FRAs) being recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation, with the metes and 

bounds description of the FRA being shown on the Record Plat; 

8) A Homeowners’ Association for maintenance of common open space being established 

with $50 per recorded lot placed in escrow for improvements prior to recordation; 

9) A Mini-road Maintenance Association for maintenance of the mini road must be 

established prior to recordation, with the owners of all lots accessing the mini-road 

becoming members; and 

10) Permits being obtained for any wetland or stream impacts prior to recordation. 

The Record Plat was signed on 9/12/07 and recorded. Thus, all 106 lots legally exist. The plat’s 

Project Address (under ‘Site Data’) has been changed to Grove Neck Road. 

At one time, a possible bed & breakfast has been discussed for this site. Therefore, the applicant 

was advised that, per §84.1, bed & breakfasts are permitted in the SAR zone only with a Special 

Exception, and, per §84.1.a, only if the dwelling was in existence at the time of the adoption of the 

Zoning Ordinance (7/1/93). 

10 A Preliminary Plat was reviewed by the TAC on 4/5/06. 

11 26.711 acres of tidal wetlands had been deducted for a net tract area of 530.502 acres. 

12 The Critical Area Commission staff raised an issue regarding the RCA density calculation, because some lots outside the Critical Area would be 

served by a SWM facility inside. In the absence of specific citations regarding the interpretation of CA density calculation in the County or state CA 

Programs, and in the absence of precedents of its application, staff did not perceive that issue as the basis of any recommendation of disapproval of a 

Preliminary Plat. Subsequently, documentation was received on 1/17/07 that all CA issues had been satisfactorily addressed. 

- 7 -

The Revised Record Plat Preliminary Revisions were approved on 10/10/08, conditioned on: 

1) All previous conditions of Preliminary and Final Plat approvals remaining in effect, as may 

be applicable; 

2) All Health Department requirements being met prior to any submittal for approval of the 

Revised Record Plat Final Revisions; 

3) All DPW requirements shall be met prior to any submittal for approval of the Revised 

Record Plat Final Revisions; 

4) All Maryland Critical Area Commission comments being satisfactorily addressed prior to 

any submittal for approval of the Revised Record Plat Final Revisions; 

5) A revised FCP/Landscape Plan/Environmental Assessment being approved prior to any 

submittal for approval of the Revised Record Plat Final Revisions; 

6) The proposed Growth Allocation being awarded prior to any submittal for approval of the 


7) The proposed Variance for the private road being granted prior to any submittal for approval 

of the Revised Record Plat Final Revisions; 

8) Final Site Plan approval for the proposed clubhouse being obtained prior to any submittal for 

approval of the Revised Record Plat Final Revisions; 

9) The Master Water and Sewer Plan being amended prior to any submittal for the approval of 

the Revised Record Plat Final Revisions; 

10) Any necessary Special Exceptions being granted prior to any submittal for the approval of 

the Revised Record Plat Final Revisions; 

11) All §175 requirements being satisfied prior to any submittal for approval of the Revised 


12) Documentation of all necessary approvals for the shared facilities being submitted prior to 

any submittal for approval of the Revised Record Plat Final Revisions; 

13) All §100 and §157 requirements being met prior to any submittal for approval of the Revised 


14) All questions relating to HOA revisions and the possibility of a condominium regime being 

fully answered prior to any submittal for approval of the Revised Record Plat Final 

Revisions; and 

15) Consultation with the Cecilton Volunteer Fire Company on the issue of dry hydrants taking 

place prior to any submittal for approval of the Revised Record Plat Final Revisions. 

As relates to the 4 th condition, the Critical Area Commission detailed its concerns in the form of 

seven conditions of Growth Allocation approval as follows: 

1. The 110-foot Buffer, expanded Buffer, 150-foot stream Buffer, and 300-foot setback shall be 

fully forested in three-tier native vegetation at a planting density that is consistent with the 

attached planting Standard (Attachment B). If the final Buffer Management Plan (BMP) is 

submitted after the final effective date of the Commission’s Buffer regulations, then this area 

must be planted at a density in accordance with the planting standards found within the 

Buffer Regulations. 

2. The area of the 110-foot Buffer and 300-foot setback located landward of the existing McGill 

Creek Farm Lane and surrounding the revised parking area for the dock, as shown on 

Attachment A, may be planted in shrubs and understory trees in lieu of three-tier vegetation. 

The shrubs and understory trees shall be planted at a density that is consistent with Table 1 in 

Attachment B. If the final Buffer Management Plan (BMP) is submitted after the effective 

date of the Commission’s Buffer regulations, then this area of shrubs and understory trees 

must be planted at a density in accordance with the planting standards found within the 

Commission’s Buffer regulations. 

- 8 -

3. The existing parking area for the dock, and the associated stormwater infiltration trench for 

the parking area, shall be reconfigured so that the parking area and infiltration trench are 

located entirely outside of the 110-foot Buffer. 

4. Prior to final subdivision approval, a field delineation of the 150-foot stream Buffer along 

McGill Creek shall be conducted with Commission staff to ensure that the 9 th and 10 th holes 

are located entirely outside the 150-foot stream Buffer, in accordance with the Critical Area 

Commission’s Golf Courses in the RCA policy. 

5. Prior to the issuance of any permits or final approvals by the County, a detailed Buffer 

Management Plan at a 1”=50’ scale shall be submitted to the full Commission for review and 

approval. The Buffer Management Plan shall include, but is not limited to the following 

features: 

a. A fully forested 110-foot and expanded Buffer; 

b. A fully forested 300-foot setback from the edge of tidal wetlands; 

c. A fully forested 150-foot stream Buffer, expanded as necessary for steep slopes, 

hydric soils, and highly erodible soils, from all tributary streams located within the 

golf course area of the RCA; 

d. The hatched area of the 110-foot Buffer and the 300-foot setback that may be planted 

in shrubs and understory trees in lieu of three-tier vegetation, as shown on 

Attachment A; 

e. The location of the State tidal wetlands; 

f. All proposed trails, portions of trails, structures or areas for education located within 

the 110-foot Buffer, expanded Buffer, and 300-foot setback, including those areas 

proposed for public use; 

g. Locations for the removal of any exotic or invasive species; 

h. The locations of all golf course features within the LDA building envelope and within 

the RCA to ensure that they are located outside of all Buffers and setbacks; 

i. The locations of all twelve lots and the Manor House; 

j. The location of all road improvements, stormwater management facilities, and 

utilities, including copies of the grading plans for each feature; 

k. The Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Nutrient Management plans for the golf 

course area; 

l. A plan that shows the proposed limit of disturbance, the total number and size of trees 

to be removed, if applicable, and the arrangement of the planting to be done; 

m. A landscape schedule that shows the proposed species type, the quantity of plants, the 

size of plants to be installed, and the planting date; 

n. A maintenance plan that for the control of invasive species, pests and predation that 

shows invasive species and pest control practices, the provision of at least two years 

of monitoring, and a reinforcement planting provision if survival rates fall below the 

standards described above; 

o. A long-term protection plan that includes evidence of financial assurance that 

adequately covers the planting and survivability requirement, a provision for at least 

two years of monitoring, and if planting, an anticipated planting date before 

construction or the sales of the lot; 

p. An inspection agreement that grants permission to the local government and the 

Critical Area Commission to inspect the plantings at appropriate times; 

q. The signature of the party responsible for the proposed activity and for the survival of 

the planting. 

6. The tee for the 16 th hole shall be relocated so that disturbance to steep slopes is completely 

avoided. 

7. Prior to final subdivision approval, the applicant shall provide Commission staff with legal 

documentation for the easements to protect the McGill Creek and Back Creek nature 

- 9 -

preserve areas that will ensure effective implementation and enforcement of the Buffer 

management provisions detailed in the approved BMP. The easements must be held by a 

third party. These documents shall be provided and amended so as to be deemed sufficient 

ob the Office of the Attorney General. 

As relates to the 6 th condition, also on 10/20/08, the Planning Commission gave recommendation to 

the Board of County Commissioners for approval of the awarding of Growth Allocation, and, in 

turn, on 12/2/08, the Board of County Commissioners voted in favor of the awarding of Growth 

Allocation. The Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission (by a vote of 13-5, with two abstaining) 

voted to approve the awarding of Growth Allocation to Bracebridge Hall with the 7 conditions of 

that awarding. 

As relates to the 9 th condition, the Board of County Commissioners amended the Master Water and 

Sewer Plan on 11/18/08, which was subsequently approved by the MDE on 1/21/10. 

The staff comments at the 10/20/08 Planning Commission review will not be read again, but will 

appear in the minutes: 

The proposed golf course will require Growth Allocation and the reclassification from RCA 

to LDA. That is a requirement of §100.6. The Growth Allocation proposal exceeded to 90- 

point threshold established under §207. 13 

The proposed new club house facilities must be approved by the site plan process, consistent 

with §291 and Appendix A, as well as §100 and §157. 

The proposed golf course must be consistent with the provisions of §100 14 and §157. 

§100.4 requires vegetative screening (Bufferyard standard B) of off-street parking. This is also 

required by §157.8. How does this design satisfy that requirement? 

§157.2 requires 100’ & 175’ setbacks from lot lines for tees and greens, respectively, unless 

vegetative buffers are provided. Proposed vegetative buffers must be approved as part of the 

Landscape Plan, per §157.3. 

§157.1 mandates a 200’ setback for the fairway centerline from all lot lines, unless a 

vegetative buffer is provided. 

§157.2 requires 100’ & 175’ setbacks from lot lines for tees and greens, respectively, unless 

vegetative buffers are provided. Proposed vegetative buffers must be approved as part of the 

Landscape Plan, per §157.3. 

The proposed driving range is consistent with §157.5’s design standards. 

The proposed dwelling setbacks appear to be consistent with §157.4. 

The provisions of §157.10 shall not apply to this proposal. 

Private roads require a Variance from the Board of Appeals prior to the Planning 

Commission’s approval of the Revised Record Plat Final Revisions. 

13 If granted, the Growth Allocation and reclassification from RCA to LDA shall not increase the number of lots beyond the 106 that legally exist 

today. 

14 If the proposed golf course is to be a public facility, then it shall be consistent with the provisions of §106. 

- 10 -

The proposed use of shared facilities will require an amendment to the Master Water & 

Sewer Plan, as well as compliance with §175, prior to the Planning Commission’s approval 

of the Revised Record Plat Final Revisions. 

§175.2.k requires at least 70% open space 15 , which can include one “large lot.” 

§175.3.c.1 requires that there be 10,000 ft 2 of subsurface disposal area set aside for each 

dwelling unit using the shared facility. 

This proposal must fully comply with all provisions of §175, including §175.2.e, §175.2.i, 

and §175.2.l. 

All approvals of the shared community facilities shall precede final approval of the proposed 

revisions. 

The Zoning Ordinance is silent on the issue of fractional ownership. Single family 

dwellings, as a structure type, are permitted in the SAR zone. Inasmuch as the ITE Trip 

Generation manual suggests that interval ownership units generate fewer trips than single 

family dwellings, staff will not recommend a revised TIS. However, the Board of Appeals 

may want to revisit the TIS question in conjunction with any §84.1 Special Exception 

application as may be required. 

Would the fractional, or interval, ownership component have an impact on school attendance 

projections? 

Again, all required Special Exceptions, Variances, Master Water & Sewer Plan amendments, 

the Growth Allocation, and the site plan approval for the proposed clubhouse must be 

obtained in advance of final approval of the revisions by the Planning Commission. The 

Planning Commission’s approval of the Revised Record Plat Final Revisions shall precede 

recordation of the Revised Recordation Plats. 

The use of dry hydrants is recommended, in consultation with the Cecilton Fire Company. 

Any expansion of the existing boat dock shall be governed by §’s 169 & 198. 

All Health Department requirements shall be met prior to final approval. 

All DPW requirements shall be met prior to final approval. 

All Maryland Critical Area Commission comments shall be addressed. 

A revised FCP/Landscape Plan/Environmental Assessment shall be approved prior to final 

approval. 

Resultant, revised deed restrictions for the long-term protection of forest retention/ 

afforestation areas, street trees, and vegetative buffers shall be recorded prior to any rerecordation, 

with the metes and bounds description of the FRA’s appearing on the Revised 

Final and Revised Recordation Plats. 

As cited in Note# 19, this project is exempt, per §3.2B. 

15 The Growth Allocation application’s documentation cited an erroneous 60%. 

- 11 -

If revisions are necessary, then revisions to the HOA documents shall be recorded prior to the 

re-recordation of the Revised Recordation Plats. Would the proposed fractional ownership 

units fall under a condominium regime? 

All previous conditions of Preliminary and Final Plat approvals shall remain in effect, as 

applicable. 

The salient new feature of this submittal is the proposal that an interim Phase 1, using well and 

septic, be implemented to get the project started. The plats reveal that the phasing, as proposed, is 

technically feasible. 

It is recommended that the Phase 1 lots be given the same numbering scheme as is proposed for the 

ultimate Phase 2, even if there are sequential gaps. This would help avoid future confusion, as well 

as reinforce the notion that the ultimate intent is for there to be a community system at full build-out. 


1. The Cecil County Department of Public works does concur with the Developers request that the 

internal streets proposed be private. 

2. With the internal streets proposed as private the Department does not require nor want a 50’ wide 

ROW. We propose the use of a 36’ wide ROW similar to what has been approved for Elk Point 

Marina and for the same reasons. 

3. The Department would want assurances that if the management organization fails the ownership 

and associated responsibility for the roads would be legally transferred to the owners of the units 

proposed. The type, details and language of said assurances must be established to the 

satisfaction of this Department prior to our recommending approval of the final plat to the 

Planning Commission. 

4. The Developer will be responsible for the previously approved offsite road improvements and 

those improvements must be identified on the final plat submitted for Planning Commission 

review. A Public Works Agreement will be required for these improvements to Grove Neck 

Road. 

5. The plat proposed indicates that a shared waste water facility is provided to service this 

development only. 

6. It is the Department’s position that for shared facilities DPW be the Controlling Authority. 

However in accordance with Section 175 of the Subdivision Regulation the Board of County 

Commissioners of Cecil County designates the Controlling Authority. 

7. The Applicant needs to make a formal request of the Board of County Commissioners to 

designate DPW as the Controlling Authority. The issue of who is the Controlling Authority must 

be resolved prior to the Planning Commission review of the final plat. 

8. The Developer(s) must be aware of the fact that over and above the construction cost they will be 

responsible for maintenance and/or replacement costs for the proposed shared sewerage facility 

until the subdivision is built-out and the individual lot owners can begin paying this cost through 

a special taxing district or similar method. These costs must be established prior to final plat 

submittal. 

9. The Public Works Agreement for the shared sewerage facility will include adequate surety for 

the work proposed. 

10. The Public Works Agreement for the shared sewerage facility will include adequate surety for 

the work proposed. 

11. A SWM plan, Road & Storm Drain plan, Mass and Final Grading plan, and a Sanitary Sewer 

plan must be approved by the CCDPW prior to submittal for Final Plat Approval. The fees for 

design review of this project must be provided at the time of first design submittals. 

12. An Inspection and Maintenance Agreement will be required for the SWM facilities. 

- 12 -

13. PWA’s will be required for the streets and storm drains. 

14. The Final Plat must include the standard note recognizing the applicability of the Lot Grading 

Plans, which will appear in the minutes but will not be read at this time. (“A lot grading plan has 

been approved by the CCDPW for the construction shown hereon. A site construction as built 

shall be submitted to the CCDPW prior to use and/or occupancy of any of the sites shown 

hereon. Any change to the Forest Retention, Forestation, Reforestation will require a consistency 

review, of the SWM approval, with CCDPW.”) 

15. The Lot Grading Plan must include the standard note addressing the limits of construction, which 

will appear in the minutes but will not be read at this time. (“No clearing or grading is permitted 

beyond the limits of disturbance show hereon. Any expanded clearing and/or grading in the 

absence of an approved revised lot grading plan may be considered non-compliance with 

Chapter 251 of the Cecil County Code and either or both the developer and/or Builder may be 

subject to the enforcement of the penalty provisions therein.”) 


Submittal was reviewed as a preliminary plat. 

General: The Groundwater Appropriation Permit has been renewed and is valid through March 

2012. Water appropriations will also be required for the clubhouse facilities and golf course 

irrigation. 

Use 2009 Soils mapping. Submit a written proposal detailing the intended use of the two existing 

tenant houses and the boat dock for each phase. 

Phase 1, 18 lots: 

Adjust the sewage area on lot 18 to exclude hole 627. Limit the sewage area no more than 15’ 

downslope of holes 56 and 235. 

As shown, the house on lot 3 of phase 1 will need to be disconnected from its initial well and hooked 

to a new well when phase 2 is approved. With a slight revision to the proposed sewage area on phase 

1 lot 2, the well on lot 3 phase 1 can be drilled at a location which would stay with the house after 

recordation of phase 2. 

Phase 1 proposes a golf course with no identified clubhouse. Previous correspondence has indicated 

that the mansion house would serve as a clubhouse. Sewerage facilities at the mansion are 

inadequate for this use until the community sewerage system is installed and connected. How will 

sanitary needs be met if the golf course is approved in phase 1? Phase 1 plats showing a golf course 

cannot be approved by the Cecil County Health Department unless water and sewer systems 

adequate for that use have been approved. 

Phase 1 proposes use of the mansion house as lodging for guests and a sales office. Previous 

correspondence indicated use similar to a bed and breakfast. Submit a written description of the 

proposed food service operation to determine if a food service license is required. Any food service 

plan review that is required must be completed before site plan or building permit approval. 

Final and record plats for phase 1 are required to have the following comment: 

Interim use of onsite sewage disposal systems is approved for phase 1 of this development. When 

community sewerage facilities are constructed and put into service, lots 1-18 must connect and 

properly abandon the interim systems. 

- 13 -

Phase 2, 105 lots: 

Note 24 states that the manor house will be a sales office and lodging for guests. Previous 

correspondence and the location of the pool, fitness center, and cart barn indicate a greater use. 

Please confirm the intended use. 

Wells on lots 44, 80, 82, and 83 are less than the required 30’ from dwellings. 

Plans must be submitted to and approved by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene for the 

pool and the spa prior to Health Department approval of building permits. A written proposal 

detailing proposed menu items at the golf course snack shack must be submitted to the Health 

Department to determine if a food license is required. Any new or expanded food service operations 

associated with phase 2 must have plans submitted and approved by the Health Department prior to 

obtaining building permits or operating. 

Phase 2 of this project proposes 105 lots and amenities utilizing a common onsite sewage disposal 

system. This meets the definition of a shared facility specified in COMAR 26.04.05. A written 

request to the controlling authority to establish and operate a shared facility is required (COMAR 

26.04.05.02G). The controlling authority must be a “government entity empowered by the County” 

to manage, operate, and maintain a shared facility (COMAR 26.04.05.01B(2)). 

All structures generating sewage flow including the maintenance facility, dock building, and any 

restroom at the putting green must be incorporated into the community sewage disposal system. 

A Groundwater Discharge Permit (GWDP) is required from Maryland Department of the 

Environment (MDE) for the proposed sewage disposal system. A septic system design in compliance 

with MDE’s Large Flow Septic System Guidelines must be submitted for review. After review of the 

proposed septic system design, MDE may require additional tests or data collection deemed 

necessary to obtain the GWDP. The sewage plan must be approved by MDE, the Cecil County 

Department of Public Works, and the Health Department prior to final plat approval. The MDE 

permit number for construction of the community sewage disposal system must be listed on the 

record plat. 

Final and record plats must have the following statements: 

1. Public sewerage will be available to all lots offered for sale (by the owner’s signature block) 

2. Use of public sewerage is in conformance with the Cecil County Master Water and Sewer 

Plan (by the Health Department’s signature block). 

3. Lots 1-18 must connect to the public sewerage system upon its completion. 

All of the Health Department comments for this project listed above are valid for 6 months. 

Currently, COMAR 26.04.02 (governing onsite sewage disposal systems), COMAR 26.04.03 

(governing subdivision of land), and COMAR 26.04.05 (governing shared facilities) are being 

update by MDE. It is likely that these regulatory changes will be enacted prior to completion of this 

project. It is not known what grandfathering will be authorized or what affect any regulatory changes 

would have on this project. 

Vice Chair Doordan asked if anyone would like to speak in favor or in opposition to this project. 

Nick Kelly, Maryland Critical Area Commission, spoke in favor of this project. 

- 14 -

Discussion ensued regarding the proposed cost of the homes and the possible HOA fees that will be 

implemented. 

Mr. Di Giacomo read the recommendation of the staff: 

APPROVAL of the Revised Record Plat Preliminary Revisions, conditioned on: 

1) All previous conditions of Preliminary and Final Plat approvals remaining in effect, as may be 

applicable; 

2) All Health Department requirements being met prior to any submittal for approval of the Phase 1 

and Phase 2 Revised Record Plat Final Revisions; 

3) All DPW requirements being met prior to any submittal for approval of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 


4) All Maryland Critical Area Commission comments being satisfactorily addressed prior to any 

submittal for approval of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Revised Record Plat Final Revisions, as 

applicable; 

5) A revised FCP/Landscape Plan/Environmental Assessment being approved prior to any submittal 

for approval of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Revised Record Plat Final Revisions; 

6) The conditions of the approved Growth Allocation being satisfied prior to any submittal for 

approval of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Revised Record Plat Final Revisions, as applicable; 

7) Final Site Plan approval for the proposed clubhouse being obtained prior to any submittal for 

approval of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Revised Record Plat Final Revisions, as applicable; 

8) The approved Master Water and Sewer Plan amendment being noted on any plat submitted for 

interim Phase 1 final approval of the Revised Record Plat Revisions; 

9) Any necessary Special Exceptions being granted prior to any submittal for the approval of the 

Phase 1 and Phase 2 Revised Record Plat Final Revisions; 

10) All §175 requirements being satisfied prior to any submittal for approval of the Phase 2 Revised 


11) Documentation of all necessary approvals for the shared facilities being submitted prior to any 

submittal for approval of the Phase 2 Revised Record Plat Final Revisions; 

12) All §100 and §157 requirements being met prior to any submittal for approval of the Phase 1 and 

Phase 2 Revised Record Plat Final Revisions; 

13) All questions relating to HOA revisions and the possibility of a condominium regime being fully 

answered prior to any submittal for approval of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Revised Record Plat 

Final Revisions; 

14) Consultation with the Cecilton Volunteer Fire Company on the issue of dry hydrants taking place 

prior to any submittal for approval of any Revised Record Plat Final Revisions; and 

15) The lot numbering scheme used for any Phase 1 final approval(s) of the Revised Record Plat 

Revisions being made consistent with that used in Phase 2. 

A motion for approval with conditions was made by Mr. Wallace. 

The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiggins. 


General Discussion: 

Vice Chair Doordan stated that the Villages at North East report will be discussed first with the 

HOA fees being discussed second. 

Mr. Di Giacomo read the history of the Villages at North East project: 


- 15 -




Zoning: SR & NAR 

Density: The original Concept Plat was approved at a density of 2/1 on 9/16/02, conditioned on: 

1) The “potential roadway connection” being shown as an actual connection on the Preliminary 

Plat submitted for TAC review; 

2) A boundary line survey being completed in the preparation of the Preliminary Plat for density 

calculation purposes; 

3) Roadway names being approved prior to the Planning Commission’s review of the 


4) The Preliminary Plat including the details of the proposed recreation center, parking, and 

recreational facilities as required in §291 and Appendix A of the Zoning Ordinance; 

5) The Preliminary Plat including proper identification of the adjacent Old York Estates; 

6) A variance for the private roads being obtained from the Board of Appeals prior to the 

Planning Commission’s review of the Preliminary Plat; 

7) The Elk Neck Trail being identified clearly on the plat as to what it is and its location; 

8) A stub being shown to the 33 acres in the NAR portion; 

9) Shady Beach Road being designed and upgraded, by and at the cost of the developer, from 

their southern boundary to MD Rte. 272; and 

10) A Traffic Impact Study being completed prior to Technical Advisory Committee review of 

the Preliminary Plat. 

§4.0.9 then provided that Concept Plats were valid for two years from date of approval. The 9/16/02 

Concept Plat approval expired on 9/16/04, but was re-approved on 4/17/06. 

The Preliminary Plat, proposing 707 lots on 354.77 SR-zoned acres 16 , for a proposed density of 

1.99/1 17 was approved on 1/22/04, conditioned on: 

1) Heath Department requirements being met; 

2) Department of Public works requirements being met; 

3) The walking/bike path along Vermeer Boulevard being changed to the west (or left) side of 

the road because of the high number of right turns anticipated at the intersection with Dali 

Avenue; 

4) The final Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) and Landscape Plan being approved prior to Final 

Plat review; 

5) The Final Plat including the remaining details of the proposed recreation center, parking, and 

recreational facilities as required in §291 and Appendix A of the Zoning Ordinance; 

6) The developer, DPW, and SHA, prior to Final Plat review, determining 1) at what point of 

the build-out would traffic volumes trigger the unacceptable LOS (E or F), and 2) what 

specific improvements need to be implemented to bring the intersection to LOS D or higher 

(at full-build-out), as is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; 

7) The developer and DPW, prior to Final Plat review, determining and agreeing on 1) what 

specific Shady Beach Road improvements need to be implemented, and 2) when (in terms of 

the number of building permits) those improvements need to be implemented; 

16 The completed boundary line survey resulted in a reduction of acreage (396 to 354 SR acres, and 33 to 35.6 NAR acres), a concomitant reduction 

in the number of lots (792 to 709), and the discovery that a portion of the property was located on the west side of Shady Beach Road. 

17 The SR zone permits a maximum base density of 1 du/ 1 acre. With community facilities, a density of 2/1 is permitted. 

- 16 -

8) If the water source is the Town of North East, then verification of water allocation being 

received from the Town, and the water service area agreement between the County and the 

Town must be amended to include this parcel, prior to Final Plat review. 

9) If the water source is an on-site private system, then verification that the proposed water 

system is capable of serving these proposed lots and recreation center being received from 

MDE and documentation of all approvals for the system and the operator required by the 

Public Service Commission must be submitted prior to Final Plat review; 

10) If the water source is an on-site private system, then it’s being reviewed by DPW and the 

Health Department prior to Final Plat review. The details of any on-site private water 

system must be shown on the Final Plat; 

11) The required amendments to the Master Water and Sewer Plans being complete prior to Final 

Plat review; 

12) Verification of sewer allocation being received from the Department of Public Works prior to 

Final Plat review; 

13) S. Monet Avenue being of sufficient width to accommodate whatever traffic volumes are 

generated by the future development on the NAR-zoned portion of the property; 

14) The Elk Neck Trail greenway connecting with the adjacent, proposed Rhodes Mountain 

Estates; 

15) The name will hence forward be the Villages at North East; and 

16) All issues being resolved and questions answered relative to the greenway and Elk Neck 

Trail prior to Final Plat review. 

The Preliminary Plat approval on 1/22/04 expired on 1/22/06 18 , but was also re-approved on 4/17/06, 

conditioned on: 

1) All previous conditions of the 1/22/04 Preliminary Plat approval remaining in effect, as 

appropriate; and 

2) All previous agreements among the developer, SHA and the County regarding road 

improvements and their phased implementation continuing to be binding. 

§4.1.17 provides that Preliminary Plats shall be valid for two years from date of approval. 

Therefore, the 4/17/06 Preliminary re-approval was extended on 2/20/08, 1/21/09, and 1/20/10, the 

last of which remains valid until 1/20/12. 

The Phase 1, 2 & 3 plus Pump Station Lot Final Plat was disapproved at the 4/16/07 Planning 

Commission meeting, at which time Mr. McAnally had testified that the water system was to be 

public. Previously, the indicated water supply was the Town of North East. 

The Phase 1, 2 & 3 plus Pump Station Lot Final Plat was approved on 5/21/07, conditioned on: 

1) Heath Department requirements being met; 

2) Department of Public Works requirements being met; 

3) All previous agreements among the developer, SHA and the County regarding road 

improvements and their phased implementation continuing to be binding; 

4) Future phases/sections providing an additional 166.2 acres of common open space; 


(FRAs) for the site plan being recorded prior to recordation of the Phase 1, 2, & 3 Record 

Plat; 


(FRAs) for Phases 1, 2, & 3 being recorded and noted on the plat prior to recordation, with 

the metes and bounds description of the FRA being shown on the Record Plat; 

18 Per §4.1.17. 

- 17 -

7) The Landscape Agreement for the Site Plan being executed prior to the recordation of the 

Phase 1, 2, & 3 Record Plat; 

8) The Phase 1, 2, & 3 Landscape Agreement being executed prior to the recordation of the 

Record Plat; 

9) A Homeowners’ Association for maintenance of common open space, the clubhouse, 

common parking, landscape islands, and recreational facilities being established prior to 

recordation, including $50 per recorded lot being placed in escrow for improvements to the 

common open space and landscape islands prior to recordation; 

10) Active recreation improvements being included in the Public Works Agreement; 

11) The §186 street trees with 10’ planting easements, outside the right-of-way, along both sides 

of all internal roads being depicted and noted on the Record Plat; 

12) All references to proposed lots numbered higher than 709 being deleted and replaced by 

other nomenclature on the Record Plat; 

13) Conditions 11 & 12 of Preliminary Plat approval being fully satisfied prior to recordation; 

14) The Elk Neck Trail greenway connecting with the adjacent Rhodes Mountain Estates in 

future phases/sections’ Final and Record Plats; 

15) Any remaining issues being resolved and questions answered relative to the greenway and 

Elk Neck Trail prior to future phases/section’s Final Plat reviews; 

16) The details of the sidewalks and walking/bike paths, as well as walking and biking space on 

all roads being included in the construction drawings; and 

17) The adjacent Rhodes Mountain Estates subdivision being identified on the Record Plat and 

on future phases/section’s Final and Record Plats. 

Corresponding Record Plats have not been recorded. Thus, the necessity of the 2/20/08, 1/21/09, 

and 1/20/10 Preliminary Plat extensions. 

Also attached to the comments is a copy of correspondence from DPW, that outlines the various 

milestones in terms of build – out and the road improvements that were agreed to be done. See file 

for correspondence. 

The Planning Commission members agreed to have the staff draft a letter to David Meiskin, 

developer, regarding the requirement for him to come back before the board. Mr. Meiskin will need 

to explain the changes that have been discussed and proposed at the December Planning 

Commission meeting, specifically, the water supplier. 

HOA fees: 

Mr. Wallace gave an overview of previous discussions had by the Planning Commission regarding 

the use and amount of the “$50 per recorded lot being placed in escrow” for proposed developments 

at the time of recordation. The commission feels the amount is too low and they want to make 

certain that the escrow account is not being misused by the developers. Discussion ensued regarding 

the current use of SWM ponds and other alternative SWM practices. Mr. Sennstrom reminded the 

Commission members that the money put in escrow is only meant as a starting off point for the 

HOA. After the HOA is established, the amount of the dues is decided by the HOA members. 

Discussion ensued. 

Vice Chair Doordan suggested that HOA fees be added to the February Planning Commission 

agenda under General Discussion. 

Mr. McDowell asked if the other commission members would like to have a worksession prior to the 

scheduled public meetings regarding the Comprehensive Rezoning. The commission members 

concurred. Mr. Wallace made a motion to hold the above mention worksession. Mr. McDowell 

- 18 -

seconded the motion will all remaining members voting in favor. A pre-meeting worksession will be 

held on February 2, 2011 at 5:00 p.m. in the Elk Room. An ad will be placed in the Cecil Whig for 

public notification. A notice will also be posted on the Planning & Zoning website. Mr. Sennstrom 

explained the process of the review for the Comprehensive Rezoning. 

A motion for adjournment was made by Mr. Wallace and seconded by Mr. Wiggins. 


The January Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 1:57 p.m. 

Respectfully Submitted: 

Jennifer Bakeoven 

- 19 -

- 1 - CECIL COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?