The Planning and Zoning meeting started promptly at 6:00, with the full Commission in attendance. The City Planner, Pat Escher, the City Attorney Rob Collison and Councilman Dave Cannon were also present.

The agenda was as published, with the addition of a discussion topic: Duplex housing in ’neighborhood’ zoning areas.
Routine business such as minutes were dispatched and a motion for members William Gary and Jerry Burroughs to act as chairman and vice chairman, respectively was proposed and carried. It was noted that the next City Council meeting would likely be exceptionally busy due to activity at the prior P&Z meeting.

Food trucks in the city limits was the first topic. The purpose was review of language to be added to sections 4.2.3b and 4.4 of the existing code. This would restrict food trucks to premises by invitation only, with a further restriction in the core business district to permit only food trucks associated with a specific business — not vendors to that business as I understood this. These trucks would be licensed and permitted for specific use, with a limit on the use of generator power. Food trucks would be able to use generators in industrial and certain commercial zoning areas (e.g. shopping centers). The farmers market vendors, while they generally have both food and trucks are not subject to these rules, however a licensed food truck could operate there only by permission. The edited wording is headed to the City Council for their consideration.

The next topic was consideration of zoning for a Behavioral Health center that is no longer functioning, located next to the County Detention Center at the intersection of Woods Rd and Church Creek Rd on the south edge of town. Ryan Showalter, representing the current owners of the property who are seeking (or have at least some interest from) a buyer. The focus of the discussion was on the use on what is land zone as Industrial for alternative uses, how this might dilute a resource somewhat unique to Cambridge on the shore (industrial zoning), and how mixing in uses such as schools or medical facilities may impact those facilities if truly heavy industrial use locates there (by right) after the fact. This latter concern was important to the existing facility owners who saw their current ‘non conforming use’ status as a potential limitation for potential buyers who may wish to expand. The Commission seemed to lean toward the notion that these were satisfactory uses, but should not be a substitute for industrial applications. The idea that these facilities would be better in commercial or residential areas was neither well received nor explored, but a recommendation was made that any industrial area would be acceptable. As such they tabled this issue with a request for more information so they might set limits on the size of a facility (beds) and types of treatment.

With the business of the agenda covered, the Committee was open for discussion items.

The first item discussed, added at the start of the meeting, was allowing ’side-by-side’ duplex housing in ‘neighborhood area’ zones. It was unclear where this topic originated, but it was obvious that this was a recurring theme over the years. Specifically, the areas suggested for this type of structure are areas of the city with very small lots. There was a concept of ‘stacked’ vs ‘side-by-side’ units being less likely to be rental properties, which seemed to be the major objection to a duplex of any kind. Discussion noted that Maryland Ave, considered a showcase area, was in the zoning suggested for duplexes, with code proposed that would allow division of existing structures or new structures to be ‘side by side’ duplex. The Commission did not appear supportive of any change, even though the targeted areas where traditionally high density. The issue was tabled for further discussion, with 1 dissenting vote.

The last topic, solar farms, took the majority of the time. There is a proposal for a 300 acre solar farm on the west side of Egypt road, in the southern-most extent of the city boundaries. This is located in an area where an existing resource conservation area lies to the east of an area zoned for housing development. This entire area, including the housing area, would be used for what was noted as the single largest solar farm on the Eastern Shore. As a source of revenue that is compatible with resource conservation, this was considered attractive — though if solar energy became dominant the use land use may be permanent. Members did point out that it was also along a valuable byway for tourists headed to the Blackwater Refuge or the Harriet Tubman Museum who were not likely to see a solar farm as what they expected of Dorchester County. Some innovative proposals for screening were discussed (most notably berms) and the importance of managing view shapes was recognized.

The Dorchester County planning team sent two representatives, including Steve Dodd. The latter speakers offered useful insight into their experience and positions of sister counties on the shore, as well as the state. While this is the first project for the city, the county is on it’s 5th project, with typical lessons learned. Much of the solar farm discussion strayed, understandably, into areas such as revenue projection, but subjects such as competing uses, but the notion of overlay vs area zoning and technology life-cycle impacts where considered. The gentlemen from the county offered useful insights, for example, that solar farm developers avoid wooded areas and push back on view-screening requirements. With 87% of Dorchester County in resource conservation and agricultural uses, the county has noted it is not uncommon for solar farm developers to seek areas with somewhat denser population for access to the power grid. One consequence is the likelihood of unhappy neighbors is common. One useful observation from the county team was that virtually all solar installations should be ‘special exceptions’, to guard the interests of neighbors.

The influence of the state Public Service Commission was noted as not negligible. The commission adopted a motion to ensure Cambridge Planning and Zoning is registered as an intervening entity in any solar installation within city limits. Recent legislation was observed as both an opportunity, and a motivator to ensure both revenue and less tangible assets such as tourism appeal are balanced.

The meeting ended just before 8 pm.