Chesapeake Beach planning commission defends zoning map overhaul after residents voice downzoning, data‑center worries

The Chesapeake Beach Planning and Zoning Commission spent much of its May 20 meeting answering residents’ concerns about a proposed rewrite of Chapter 290 that would overhaul zoning districts, the land‑use table and the official zoning map.

During public comment, Andrea Smith urged the commission to prohibit data centers in the town and to require “complete transparency,” saying county-level non‑disclosure agreements have left residents uninformed about nearby campus projects. Deborah Buckingham and Wes Donovan raised separate objections to the scale and process of the draft: Buckingham asked how the commission could repeal and replace large portions of the code without formally revisiting the town’s comprehensive plan, and Donovan said properties between Cox Road and Route 261 appeared to be downzoned to RMD without owner requests.

Planner Miss Franklin, who led the staff presentation, said the commission had been asked to “modernize and simplify” the land‑use table and discovered long‑standing inconsistencies between the comprehensive‑plan map, the plan’s text and the town’s zoning. She told the commission that the RV1 and RV2 classifications had been applied inconsistently on past maps and that resolving those inconsistencies required limited map adjustments so the text and map would have a clear, rational basis tied to road patterns, lot characteristics and pedestrian safety.

Miss Franklin also addressed the data‑center concern directly: “Data centers are currently permitted in Chesapeake Beach. I do not know when they were permitted,” she said, and added that the planning commission chose to remove them from the draft after commissioners questioned why they were allowed without standards.

Commissioners and staff identified three practical steps: (1) limit map edits to those required to fix clear inconsistencies (not wholesale remapping), (2) correct the RPC overlay and ensure an underlying residential zone is applied where the overlay has been ambiguous, and (3) document the rationale for each change so the public record shows why a parcel’s zoning was altered. The commission instructed staff to adjust the draft map to include a small coastal parcel referenced by residents (the Seagate/Stenit area) and to return next month with a refined map.

Residents who said they had not been sufficiently informed asked that the record explicitly state why any parcel was changed and whether a property owner had requested the change. Miss Franklin agreed the commission would add documentation — citing roads, lot form and safety — to explain each limited correction and avoid the appearance of spot zoning.

Why it matters: The town is balancing an immediate need to make the land‑use table clearer and compliant with recent state law against residents’ concerns about unanticipated changes to allowable uses on their properties. The commission said targeted fixes now would be followed by a broader comprehensive‑plan review next year (the plan’s five‑year cycle) if further changes are needed.

What’s next: Staff will fine‑tune the RPC overlay and the limited map adjustments discussed at the meeting and reissue a revised draft for the commission’s June meeting (June 24). Any final zoning changes would later go to the town council for adoption.