[0:00] Okay. Oh, you're here. I just want to add that it's not live stream, but it's going to be recorded and uploaded tomorrow.

[0:10] Okay.

[0:12] Very good. Well, the obvious when Janice gets here, because we'll be able to steer.

[0:17] And of course, I thought several people have watched it online, so I guess maybe they won't.

[0:24] Yeah, not today.

[0:28] Well, that's the biggest.

[0:31] All right, well, I think it is.

[0:32] My clock says it's six o'clock.

[0:39] So, that's good.

[0:42] So, I will go ahead and call the planning

[0:46] as any commission meeting to order.

[0:48] Today is March 29th, 2023.

[0:52] Welcome everyone.

[0:54] And why don't we begin by establishing a core on please.

[0:58] Okay, Mr. Mothers.

[1:01] here. Ms. Kirkner, we'll hopefully be here soon. Mr. Lester.

[1:07] Here. Mr. Hall. Mr. Kane.

[1:15] Mr. Smith. Mr. Gordon. And Secretary Eisenberg. Here.

[1:23] Please let the record reflect that five members are present and we do have a form.

[1:28] Very good. Thank you. Let's stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, please.

[1:34] Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, to the states of America, and to the Republic for which it stands,

[1:41] one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

[1:51] We'll move on to item four,

[1:54] which is review and approval of the agenda we were sent, a revised agenda on Monday. Do we have any

[2:01] the revisions? No, just for a vision that was sent on Monday adding a new item six for

[2:09] community solar and the agricultural zone. We just wanted to bring this to your attention and

[2:13] bring it into the line item for the statement. Those are the only changes for the agenda.

[2:19] All right. So with that, is there a motion to approve the agenda as presented as up Monday?

[2:26] I make a motion to approve the agenda as presented. Second. All right. Motion second.

[2:32] all in favor. All right, that looks unanimous. Thank you. The agenda will stand approved. We'll move on to item five,

[2:43] which is the Administrator for Port. I'll turn it over to Madam Secretary. All right. Good evening, everyone. Thank you for being here.

[2:51] And again, as we said earlier, and this will be posted tomorrow. We are recording this meeting.

[2:57] The reason is because there's a conflict with one of the commissioners town halls this evening

[3:02] So we can't live stream both at the same time

[3:05] So those that are participating are participating by signing up from our link on our website and logging in that way

[3:13] Also for April 18th meeting

[3:17] So this is kind of technically taking the place of our first Wednesday of the month work session

[3:23] And then our next meeting will be April 18th, which is our daytime meeting.

[3:28] That meeting will be short, and it will only be limited to two items.

[3:32] We're going to try to finish up by 11 if we can.

[3:36] The reason is, is that the commissioners have their budget.

[3:39] At that time in the afternoon, so we want to make sure that we're wrapped up and done

[3:42] So the commissioners can have their budget deliberations and meetings, which will actually be in 003.

[3:48] three. So that's reason why we've added more items than usual to this evening's agenda.

[3:56] And the same will be true for the main meeting as well that first May, I'm going to get to the

[4:03] date exactly for the May third evening meeting. That will be a longer similar to this type of meeting

[4:11] length and time. And we'll actually have two development review projects on that meeting since we

[4:18] on the April 18th.

[4:19] So just want to give you an idea of what's coming up

[4:21] in the next several meetings.

[4:23] And also, unfortunately, as many of you know, Mr. Kosek

[4:26] had to step down from his role in the planning commission.

[4:30] So we are looking for members.

[4:32] So again, if you know anyone, you think

[4:33] a big great fit for this planning commission,

[4:36] please get the word out.

[4:38] I think we'll be doing a press release

[4:40] and the commissioners will let folks know as well to apply.

[4:44] So that's all I have for this evening.

[4:46] Thank you.

[4:48] Thank you. Then we'll move on to item six, which is the Community Solar and Agree Cultural

[4:53] Zone, Moratorium Overview.

[4:57] I'm so this evening we have from us from Landon Resource Management, Brenda Denny. She was the

[5:04] main staff person in charge of the Community Solar Text Amendment that happened several

[5:11] years ago. I believe the only person on this commission at that time when this was put into

[5:16] with Mr. Walther, so you may have some recollection of the extensive process that Brenda and

[5:23] her team went through to flesh out the community's solar aspect in the agricultural zone.

[5:29] That was in response to the state's pilot study that they had launched at that time, which

[5:36] actually, I believe, now I'm correcting if I'm wrong, Brenda, went from pilot to fully, fully

[5:41] like the pilot ended in the states going with the community solar allowance for the state.

[5:47] Don't happen if the legislation passes the general fund like this term.

[5:52] Oh, good. Okay. Yeah, I knew it was that that was something happening. So that's happening.

[5:57] And then I'm not sure how many of you have been paying attention and Brenda will go over all of this.

[6:02] Some of the community solar projects that now have made their way through our system to some extent

[6:08] Because of that pilot program in the state of Maryland, we're going through the development review process.

[6:17] And that drew up some concerns from the surrounding communities.

[6:20] So in response to that to kind of re-evaluate what our code says.

[6:24] The Board of County Commissioners decided to have a six-month moratorium to specifically figure out if there's anything else that we need to do as a county for the code for

[6:38] the community solar in the ads on specifically. So with that I'm going to turn it over to

[6:43] branded to update you up where we are in the process. We are not to you yet but we wanted to

[6:49] give you the heads up that this will be something you'll be seeing in the upcoming months.

[6:54] So with that I'm going to turn it over to Brenda, thank you. I do. So I'm going to

[7:08] Can I share my screen more for the PowerPoint?

[7:26] Thank you.

[7:27] Can everybody see that?

[7:31] Yes.

[7:32] I can see it.

[7:33] Thank you.

[7:34] Yes, I can too.

[7:35] Thank you.

[7:41] It's just a beautiful castle.

[7:45] Ah, I guess we'll put you.

[7:48] There you go.

[7:49] Now it's on our screen.

[7:50] I think that castle could use a little solar.

[7:55] I'm just saying.

[8:00] That's where we're going to meet next time.

[8:03] Okay, so I'm not here to give you an extensive presentation or anything.

[8:10] I really just wanted to as Linda said, give you kind of a heads up.

[8:16] This is happening because you'll be part of the process and it will be coming to you to review and

[8:22] recommend what you know what's being proposed or provide a recommendation on what's being proposed.

[8:29] So I'm just giving you a heads up, as Linda mentioned,

[8:36] you know, this moratorium was adopted recently.

[8:39] And if Mr. Weathers was the only one that was on the planning commission at the time.

[8:44] And you know, it could help to just have a little heads up and maybe get familiar with what's

[8:49] but it's currently in place that will be on, you know, subject to revision.

[8:56] Excuse me, Brenda, can you do this in full screen mode or presentation modes?

[9:00] We can see the full slide.

[9:01] We're still seeing the note side on the sidebar.

[9:05] Just to make it easier to see.

[9:08] And we still kind of show us it too.

[9:10] And no, now it's showing another.

[9:12] Okay, it just might be the screen situation.

[9:14] But that's fine, thank you.

[9:16] It's probably because I have two screens.

[9:24] So this when we were initially started this process two years ago, solar was allowed commercial

[9:35] solar.

[9:36] So we have accessory solar and we have commercial solar.

[9:40] Accessory solar is you know what somebody might have on their house and we need a form.

[9:45] Any property could have it but it's intended basically to serve that property only.

[9:49] It's not intended to be a facility that, you know,

[9:55] you are actually selling the energy for.

[9:58] Commercial solar is just the opposite.

[9:59] It's intended for the energy to be, you know,

[10:02] a commercial operation.

[10:04] It's put back into the grid and sold in some manner of fashion.

[10:10] So, community solar is different than sometimes

[10:15] commercial solar in that it is a subscription-based operation. So it's much smaller than what

[10:24] would typically be considered a utility or large-scale operation.

[10:30] And all of the person who

[10:32] operates it or the entity to operate the cell subscription to the facility and the subscriptions

[10:39] are limited in what you can purchase based on, you know, like your average bill. So you can't

[10:47] subscribe to much more than what you would normally be using. So that's a difference between

[10:53] the commercial and general and the subset of commercial quality solar.

[11:01] So all can any type of

[11:04] commercial solar is allowed in commercial industrial homes. But two years ago, the board asked that we come up with a proposal that would allow community solar facilities on remaining portions in the agricultural zone.

[11:22] And part of the reason for that was, you know, that probably one of the main reasons for that was a push from the state, you know, the state has energy goals that include renewable energy solar, you know, primarily solar winds that we have to, that they want to reach very quickly.

[11:42] So, there's been a lot of pressure for local jurisdictions to have areas available for solar development.

[11:52] And every year we've seen stuff come through the legislature, you know, proposing to do this or that,

[12:00] and some of it would be mandating, you know, that certain amounts of solar have to be required.

[12:05] So part of the effort to get ahead of that and show that we're making a good face effort to actually provide opportunities for some kind of the solar.

[12:15] This that was the main emphasis for this effort. So in the fall of 2020.

[12:22] We had the concept that we brought out to some stakeholder groups and got their feedback.

[12:29] And then went back to the commissioners in December with this concept.

[12:32] They gave us some direction on some stages to make.

[12:36] And then January, February, we went through the process to review those changes with the planning commission.

[12:41] And then the planning commission made a recommendation to the board.

[12:43] The board worked through that and then adopted an amendment to the zoning code in May

[12:49] of 2021.

[12:53] So, although this could completely change, just to give you context, I wanted to just quickly

[13:00] review the current requirements that are in the zoning code.

[13:05] And so, community solar facilities in Perilf County are limited to two megawatts inside.

[13:09] And to a megawatt is roughly five acres, you know, and so to megawatt would be roughly 10 acres of pounds.

[13:19] And then there's associated infrastructure.

[13:22] But state has used to cap in it to megawatt, and now they're caping it at five megawatt.

[13:28] So it's increased as we adopted this, but because we, the commission adopted it at two megawatt,

[13:35] it still captured two megawatts for Carol County. There's also a 28- or maximum size of the area

[13:43] that used for the solar facility, which includes the panels as well as all associated infrastructure,

[13:48] which includes access roads, inverters, landscape buffers, everything associated with the facility.

[13:55] There's a requirement because these are on remaining portions, and those

[14:01] Most of the remaining portions have already taken a residential development rate, that's why the remaining portions.

[14:08] A conservation season is required for the portion of the properties that is not under solar.

[14:15] And part of the reason for that, the main reason really was there was a lot of concern about these facilities expanding in the future.

[14:23] And the conservation season it was a mechanism to try to address that concern by limiting the ability for its facilities to expand.

[14:31] Of course, the site plan is required, it is a commercial use, and so that plan will be going before the planning commission for review and approval.

[14:39] So the requirements also say no productive top social year-end news, and there should be no impact in environmental resources.

[14:47] One of the requirements that maybe was a little more progresses than we've seen in a lot of other places, at least we think so, is agricultural co-location.

[14:58] Since that time, the buzzword is...

[15:01] So if you hear terable text, that means that there's a solar facility with an agricultural use on the same space.

[15:11] So for our requirements, it had to be, they had either grades, the race and kind of crop, which would probably be wouldn't be a row crop, but it would be a specialty crop, it could be raising sheets.

[15:23] or the other option would be to achieve a solar,

[15:30] a pollinator-friendly solar designation

[15:32] from our own department of natural resources.

[15:36] Being in the reason for that being that,

[15:38] you know, like agriculture needs be.

[15:42] Then it had a requirement for landscape offer,

[15:45] which in the regulations that does say it should provide full screening

[15:50] at times of installation.

[15:51] There's a 40-foot step-back requirement, 15-foot height requirement, and the reason it's

[15:57] that high is to allow the grazing underneath the utility lines to be undergrounded, and

[16:03] then it requires the decommissioning plan, which also requires a public works of

[16:08] agreement and a bond so that if the company is not around when it needs to be removed,

[16:13] we use the bond to do that.

[16:17] So, the more time is adopted by the Board on March 9th, and as to Linda mentioned, it'll be a fixed month moreatorium, and during that time, we'll be processing review, permitting, and construction of 3D solar energy generating systems in the agricultural zone will be held.

[16:40] So the board gave us direction on the March 23rd regarding the applicability, so we're talking

[16:47] that community soul only in the agricultural zone.

[16:52] The issue that we need to address were identified.

[16:56] The Commissioner of Big Leodie has presented a series of points with a number of concerns

[17:01] that he put together based on what he has been hearing, and if you're not familiar with those points,

[17:07] You can go to that PowerPoint and read what his points for.

[17:13] And then as well as some additional staff identified issues that need clarifying.

[17:18] So, you know, having been in place for two years now, there are some things that, as it goes to the development review process,

[17:24] we realize need some cleaning up or need clarifications, so we'll be doing that at the same time.

[17:29] And to do this process, the commissioners asked us to put together a work group and staff

[17:36] we're in the process of forming that so that you can provide an input on the concerns

[17:41] and then we can go back to the board with the options to consider for the different issues

[17:46] that have been concerned.

[17:50] The work group, and then this is some more direction, will consist of two members of the

[18:01] But Jason's property is to currently propose community solar facility and the CFDGS stands for

[18:08] 3D Solar Solar Energy Generating Systems, a representative from the solar industry, and then a property owner

[18:16] who has a proposed facility on their property.

[18:20] And then we have plant staff in those, those three departments, by working on a resource management,

[18:26] so myself and this director are facilitating the workgroup and then we'll also have staff from these

[18:33] three agencies that we'll be working with us in supporting the effort as well.

[18:42] So the process is

[18:43] we are on the first blue block there and so we have six months to go and so we're putting the

[18:51] workgroup together now. The workgroup holds several meetings to go through and discuss the main points

[18:58] to issues, talk about applicability, come up with feedback and options, and we'll go back

[19:04] to the commissioners, give them a briefing on where the discussions that are happening,

[19:10] get if we get any further direction, we'll go back to the work group for another meeting

[19:13] to wrap that up, then back to the commissioners to review what the options are and what's

[19:21] discuss and then now give us directions when they're ready to then go take this to you for review and to look at the code change and you see that's the yellow block here.

[19:35] So we review the draft code changes and then you'll provide a recommendation to the board and of course that that's requirement under state law that the planning commission has to review any

[19:46] zoning code changes and make a recommendation to the board before the board can make any changes.

[19:53] So your recommendation then goes back to the board's commissioners.

[19:57] They'll review and discuss the proposed amendments and decide what's going to go out to public hearing.

[20:01] Public hearing will be held. Then they discuss delivery and decide whether they're going to adopt.

[20:07] So that's all happening between now and sometime in early September.

[20:16] And so if you have any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them, but you can also find more information.

[20:23] It's got an easy URL here.

[20:26] It's CarcannyMD.gov slash community solar.

[20:29] So we are going to be posting information and updates on the process.

[20:36] And then some measures PowerPoints that we've given are there at view the place for the public and anybody to go to the update of them.

[20:46] going on with this process or feel free to contact me if you have questions about community

[20:51] solar or anything in the process that might help you understand what's going on meeting

[20:58] up to us coming back to you with the proposed code revisions.

[21:05] David, have a question?

[21:08] So, Brenda, that was very helpful.

[21:10] I do have a couple of questions.

[21:12] The more authoritarian does it, does it have any effect on the commercial solar or is it

[21:17] community solar? Well, I just just for clarification, community solar is commercial solar. It's

[21:25] just one subset of it. But this particular, the moratorium was only applying to community solar

[21:33] and only community solar in agricultural zones. So it will not affect anything that happens

[21:38] in the commercial industrial district. Okay. Yeah. My question was a poor question. Thank you.

[21:47] I just think it's important for those that are watching this to understand it doesn't.

[21:53] It's not a moratorium on all solar everywhere in the county under all circumstances.

[22:01] The worker by just had a question on from the agricultural community.

[22:06] I didn't quite understand the box.

[22:08] Was it folks from the ad community, some that support this and some that are opposed to it?

[22:14] There's a balance there.

[22:18] Well, that what we were directed to do by the commissioners was to have two members from the

[22:25] airfiltro community that opposed solar in airfiltro zone, and they specifically mentioned

[22:33] the Farm Bureau.

[22:35] So we'll be asking representatives from Farm Bureau to sit on the workgroup.

[22:41] Is there any member from the agriculture community that is going to be on the workbird that is in favor of this?

[22:48] It just seems you'd want to have a balance there.

[22:51] Right, right.

[22:51] I think that what the commissioners thought was that the property owner who has a proposed project represents somebody from the agricultural community who supports solar.

[23:04] Now, okay,

[23:08] that's, I had read in the paper, I think, a comment from somebody and I might

[23:13] thought, I read it, I just give it, but I thought there was a comment somewhere that said

[23:17] that no one, no farmer in the ad community supported this.

[23:24] And I might have gotten that wrong, but in my recollection is, when we were going through

[23:27] this process, we heard from a number of people

[23:30] in the ag community that were farmers,

[23:33] and many were opposed to it,

[23:35] but there were also folks that came forward

[23:37] that were in favor of it.

[23:40] So to the extent,

[23:43] anyone thinks that that's the, that it's one-sided.

[23:46] My, my recollection is as we heard from the community,

[23:48] we were very sensitive for wanting to hear from

[23:51] the farming community.

[23:53] And my sense, my recollection is we had both sides

[23:56] of that argument come to us.

[23:59] Matt, you're in the farming community.

[24:00] I see you have your green light on.

[24:03] Yeah, I would say they're probably more pose and for it,

[24:07] but there are some on both sides.

[24:09] I'm kind of neutral.

[24:11] I mean, I know that as a county, we're worried about what might happen

[24:18] if we don't have enough solar and the state mandates something.

[24:22] I think that's what the former commissioners were worried about.

[24:26] and that's why they went in this direction. So I try to tell them that, but it doesn't mean they're not opposed.

[24:32] So I think it'll be pretty easy to find two that are opposed.

[24:37] Yeah, you are right about that. We did part of the presentation was

[24:41] that if the county wasn't interested in doing this at some point, the state was likely to mandate it

[24:47] and the county would have left the voice. Yeah, I mean, what farmers really don't want

[24:53] a hundred acre solar farms. And I think the commissioner's view was this might alleviate

[24:59] that happening at some point, but you still don't know that because in a lot of counties,

[25:04] that's the case. Yeah. Well, I don't think I'll say, I'm sorry, Picohead. Right. You know,

[25:12] I'm just going to say, Brendan, did I hear you correct to say that, you know, if you did it all the

[25:18] you could get basically one megawatt out of an acre. Is that what I heard you say?

[25:25] But basically, I mean, the industry standard is that it roughly takes five acres per

[25:32] megawatt of solar panels. Okay, so you know, it's curious to me that we said that you

[25:39] a 20-acre, we had a 20-acre max when 10 to 15 would have probably sufficed, assuming that

[25:54] topography and everything else worked in that way.

[25:57] Was that why we said we made it 20 was to give a little extra cushion there?

[26:03] Why did we say 20 and not something more along the lines of 15 to alleviate these fears of

[26:09] these mega fields of solar panels.

[26:12] Why did we say 20?

[26:13] I'm curious.

[26:15] Right.

[26:16] Well, I mean, whether it was 12 or 22 megawatts

[26:19] is it going to take any more space on 12,

[26:22] then it will on 20, then it will on 12.

[26:25] But yeah, that basically what you said is accurate that,

[26:28] you know, in some cases, the facility may not be

[26:32] right up against the road.

[26:33] So it'll need an access route.

[26:35] And that needs to be part of that 20 acre.

[26:38] It has to include the landscaping in the inverter and sometimes based on play conditions,

[26:45] they may not, there might be a gap between groups of some panels.

[26:50] So that's primarily why.

[26:53] Okay.

[26:54] All right.

[26:55] Everything is good for us.

[26:57] Go ahead, come, sorry.

[26:59] The other potential too is if you want to put certain types of specialty crops underneath the panels.

[27:08] Sometimes what they'll do is they'll face the panels out war to allow more sun to get through for those kind of props.

[27:15] Right, that makes total sense.

[27:17] And then the last thing I'll ask is, can you forward this this presentation to us please?

[27:22] I didn't get it in advance of the meeting.

[27:24] And I'd love to kind of flip through it again.

[27:27] Sure.

[27:27] I've Laura has, and I'm sure she can forward it.

[27:29] Thank you.

[27:30] Thank you very much.

[27:31] I can spend the sense that I can support that too soon.

[27:35] And we'll also post it on that webpage right there.

[27:39] So that'll be another way it can be accessed by you or by anybody else.

[27:44] Any other questions for Brenda?

[27:49] Well, Brenda, thank you for the presentation.

[27:52] It's very helpful.

[27:53] And I know the commission will look forward to being part of this process as this moves forward.

[27:58] So thank you.

[27:59] Well, if we stay on track, and I look forward to seeing you in June.

[28:05] Take care. Thank you.

[28:07] Okay. Thank you.

[28:11] We'll move on to item seven on our agenda, which is water and sewer trianial update,

[28:16] and we're getting an intern introduction tonight from Price Wagner.

[28:20] Hey, Price. Good morning, or had you good evening, sorry.

[28:24] Can I share my screen, please, Laura?

[28:30] Yeah, just give me a minute here.

[28:31] Okay. Thanks. So yeah, just before, you know, my screen, I'm able to share what I'm going to do is.

[28:44] Is that everybody able to see that? Yep.

[28:51] You've been for you for the aspect of amendments to our water sewer matter plan.

[28:59] Well, this is the trilineal update, which is occurring throughout the every three years.

[29:05] And what happens with that is state mandated and is the, so,

[29:12] so since everybody except for Mr. Waters is probably this is new to them for the water sewer aspect of things.

[29:19] what exactly is the water sewer, you know, what's the master plan? So it's based on

[29:30] Title IX, so Title V of the health environmental article of the anti-to-code of

[29:35] Maryland and requires a Carroll County to review and adopt a water and sewer

[29:41] master plan every three years.

[29:45] So the big thing is the Carroll County we don't have a

[29:48] central authority overseeing in water and or sewer services. So we work with all the different

[29:54] municipalities, aid ovum, as well as the freedom area which the county owns.

[30:00] We work with the water sewer service. We work with them to incorporate them into our water sewer master plan.

[30:07] And the objective has there's three main ports of the objective. One is to make sure there's an ample water supply to be collected for current development as well as future development. I could occur.

[30:20] Also, that there's wastewater is able to be collected and delivered to the points that are

[30:27] singed for that distribution and then finally wastewater can be either treated before

[30:34] as discharge to state waters and compliance with water quality standards in some cases

[30:41] and the city of Westminster just begun this. They are doing a pilot for a water wastewater

[30:47] we use program to incorporate and add hopefully a new source of water.

[30:54] So the county government requires a developer's plans and we're so the government body is

[31:00] we're really the coordinate agencies we work with all the talents and the providers and their

[31:07] staff whether it's their planning staff and conjunction also with their water facilities staff

[31:17] to get this plan worked on and put together.

[31:22] And it's not only public systems,

[31:25] but there are some private systems within the county.

[31:32] So, you know, why do we update the plan?

[31:34] I guess that is required by the state,

[31:37] be up there to every three years.

[31:39] And the last update was done and adopted

[31:42] and approved by the state of Maryland in July of 2019.

[31:46] Now, since then, we've done 15 total amendments or if you'll look at this way, we have

[31:56] done roughly six five cycles that total 15 of them is each. So we spring a 2020,

[32:08] spring a

[32:11] and follow 22. So pretty much every twice a year we're always amending the plan and that's

[32:19] typically comes from the fact that either a owner has come to us and say that they may not

[32:27] want to be a part of a system or they need to get into a system. So we talk with the provider to

[32:32] see if there is a variable capacity for that aspect or if the provider comes to us and says

[32:39] at this time, we have a new development coming in and they were in future, which is seven to

[32:48] 10 years out. Then they look at that and say they're ready to go. Let's come and bring them into

[32:54] the priority aspect. So we change the service area maps to incorporate a property into where it

[33:02] to go as well as update of the charts for the demand as needed. Now, the waters who were

[33:12] the plan and Texas amendments, these amendments actually supersede the 2019 plan. So,

[33:19] if whatever plan, whatever amendment was done, if it was in, let's say the town of Manchester,

[33:24] and it updated the map. If that map now is based off of the newest map there, not the

[33:31] map in 2019, as well as the man's in that type of thing.

[33:38] So the process, I just

[33:39] driven and worked with the towns and distributed their chapters, the water and sewer as

[33:45] well as the maps for them to look at the uses data to see how much is being used as well

[33:52] as infrastructure projects that are in the works that could potentially expand the system,

[33:59] help alleviate what it comes to, sewer, inflow, and infiltration, which is considered,

[34:05] which is called I&I, or is water areas that have leaks, where they're pumping more water

[34:13] than they're billing for. And you look at the sewer side, you're actually, their flows are higher

[34:18] going to the sewer plant, and they are actually being billed for, so that shows you have more water coming from the ground into your system going to the sewer plant.

[34:28] So we look at all that, just sort of see what the average daily flows are.

[34:32] What the demands are, if any of their wells, if they're on wells, if there have the ability to, if they've been increased or if they're all flying for some reason.

[34:44] So we've worked with them to make changes since the last 12-in-L of date and look at all the maps.

[34:51] Looking at when it comes to the maps, where the lines are, if the lines are up the date, if a new system has come in,

[34:58] the good example is Stone Gate here in the Westminster.

[35:01] In 2017, or actually I'm sorry, 2019, that was not a shovel had not hit the ground yet.

[35:07] It was just starting, now that is close to being built out.

[35:12] So that is now shown more as an existing service area.

[35:16] And we have lines that show that they are now

[35:19] aligned in the ground.

[35:21] Once everybody is comfortable with what has been presented.

[35:26] So I would see the information from the towns,

[35:28] from the providers, and incorporated in their exact chapters.

[35:33] And we send our ass back and forth,

[35:35] to make sure that, if they're still with their saying, everything looks good as the same goes

[35:41] with the maps. So once we feel everybody is on the same page and says, yes, this is what we

[35:47] we're talking about and this is what we are hoping for. Then a week I go in front of their

[35:54] their towns, the town councils, or not the county, but the paying commissions, and ask them to

[36:00] or five their sections, their chapters, or consistency with their the most recent or most current

[36:07] water suit, the most current competent to plan.

[36:12] So what have I done so far? All the staff,

[36:15] the meeting with municipal staff is complete. I've worked with everyone back and forth multiple times

[36:24] to get all the information and make sure everything is concise and I've also made updates to the

[36:29] municipal chapters, so the water resource is chapter. Working on demographics,

[36:35] the zoning, and reference maps. We have maps that show the areas, the different rock

[36:41] formations, different soils, as well as that type of thing. So for, we've presented a three

[36:50] three planning commissions, the city of Tony Town, city of Westminster, and town of

[36:59] plan. And in the very first slide, you may have seen a small little blur that is the plan

[37:07] cover that that was designed for this current section. So what I have coming up next, the

[37:15] town of Manchester chapter is pretty much complete. And I'm looking to go in front of them on

[37:21] April the 18th, as their planning commission for consistency with their 2018 comprehensive plan.

[37:27] And I'm currently working with the Towns of Hamstead, Union Bridge, and about

[37:31] area to finalize their texts, maps, and tables.

[37:35] And looking to go and find out these talented Union Bridge on the 20th,

[37:41] Mount Area of the 24th, and Hamstead on the 26th,

[37:44] for their consistent see statements and certifications.

[37:48] And at the same time, in the meantime, I am working with our bureau of utilities

[37:52] to finalize just the data for pleasant valley water and sewer systems and barcill water

[37:59] system and then finalize the data for the hamstered sewer system as well as the freedom

[38:04] water and sewer system infrastructures

[38:09] and then after all that is done and complete I will

[38:13] come in front of the planning commission again on May the 16th or to request certification

[38:19] of the entire document, as well as the chapters for Hampstead and Freedom, and those certified

[38:27] consistent with our plans and asked for a recommendation to do for that to the County Commission.

[38:36] So that is sort of the brief overview of the Water and the sewer master plan of what we're

[38:43] what is about and if there's any questions, I'll be more than happy to answer them. Thank you.

[38:53] Any questions for for price?

[38:59] I I just want to know how you manage to go to so many meetings. It seems like a

[39:05] Marathon for you to be attending all of these. It can be but I am fortunate enough. I have a

[39:12] bunch of great colleagues that they have also have

[39:16] They've all for to from when it comes to the certifications

[39:20] to learn and if it's called some of the meetings do fall in the same night.

[39:25] So I do have to have the ability to hopefully have some help and I've had,

[39:30] they have said yes they're more than happy and if they're able to do it.

[39:36] So they actually help and they do this sort of a patient aspect.

[39:40] I got all the documents, everything falling.

[39:43] So pretty much when they get there,

[39:46] VATIS happens to say, here, we just need the certification and all the questions, hopefully,

[39:52] been answered beforehand. Something in LA, Monday night, I did have new winter certification,

[39:59] also, at the same time, Tony Town was looking at VATIS, and a question came up in New Winter,

[40:05] and I texted the planner who was going to be talking with Tony Town to say,

[40:10] if this happens to occur, I gave her some, just what happened to some guidance, and she responded

[40:15] back. She's like, I wouldn't have no clue what to do in that situation. So thank you for

[40:20] for letting me, you know, give it that to me, but luckily nothing came out out of the ordinary.

[40:25] So it can be a marathon, but it's sort of trying to get down to a good science.

[40:32] Well, the reason I made the comment was that your thoroughness honestly, I think gives us more comfort

[40:39] when you're bringing it back to us, knowing that you've taken this process of seriously

[40:42] you're attending these things or your colleagues are,

[40:44] your answering questions, and it's something

[40:47] that's done comprehensively and thoroughly and seriously.

[40:51] So we very much appreciate that, Price.

[40:53] Yeah, so yeah, I definitely, I, multiple phone calls,

[40:56] emails back and forth with all their responsibilities

[41:00] and the providers.

[41:02] And before I go to their planning commissions,

[41:05] I send everything to them for one last review

[41:09] to make sure everything looks concise

[41:12] So what they're looking what they sent.

[41:15] And so yeah, I want to make sure I get,

[41:16] we get it done correctly the first time and then.

[41:20] So when we called to our planning commission,

[41:24] it is not a rubber stamp, but it's a,

[41:28] they have the, the know-how of, yes, it was done,

[41:33] concise and thorough.

[41:35] So what is being provided is the very good information.

[41:44] I would ask one question that seems to be coming up here in the Freedom District and I'm not asking for an answer tonight, but I would just ask you to kind of check your decimal points and everything concerning the data because what's being quite

[42:02] question here in this area is, has the county in a desire to enable some developers to

[42:13] have increased density on proposed developments, have we given some of the capacity that

[42:20] was earmarked towards existing homes that are currently on sewer and they have smaller

[42:30] to connect to, I don't understand it all, but it's my understanding that they will not have

[42:35] an option that they're going to have to go on to sewer.

[42:38] And so if they're in that priority sewer area, you know, is the capacity that was earmarked

[42:45] for those homes that are going to need sewer access, has that capacity been given to proposed

[42:52] developments?

[42:53] And so, I just ask you to repeat, yeah.

[42:56] We have gone over this multiple times with that community group and specific people.

[43:02] This was specifically addressed in the free and unplanned.

[43:05] That very thing, yes, we did 100%. I've told Joe Grundy that.

[43:09] I've told other members have to express that concern.

[43:13] Multiple multiple times.

[43:14] We absolutely did.

[43:15] We took smaller lots that were unwell in septic.

[43:18] Where we the county have no CIP to extend the lines to those area.

[43:25] However, what we did do was reserve 20 additional percent capacity in the system if and when the time should come that there is failures because we have not been alerted by the health department or anyone else that there are systemic failures in that system

[43:40] But we do have a safeguard that if something should happen. We the county can look to transfer those folks over and actually we're looking now for future ahead what it would cost to actually put the lines and it's very

[43:54] owners and we're not taking it lightly because the citizens would have to pay considerable amount

[43:58] of money to hook up considerable amount, tens of thousands of dollars to hopefully,

[44:04] truly, in addition to what the millions of dogs have across the county to extend those lines.

[44:08] So this has been addressed. I'm sorry if I'm coming up a little harsh, but we've talked about this

[44:13] multiple times. I think even planning commission. I feel like, you know, that this group is beating,

[44:19] this drum that really isn't there to beat. And so I just wanted to be very clear. We have done

[44:23] you diligence on that? Yeah, and getting an answer like that and having you know prices

[44:29] well, you know echo that to, I mean, it just, again, that just helps us else as a commission,

[44:35] you know, answer those questions and say that we've asked, you know, so I appreciate you

[44:39] addressing it, Linda. Thank you. Right, any other questions for a price?

[44:46] All right, a price?

[44:47] We can turn you loose tonight. Thank you very much. Thank you. With that, we'll move on to item

[44:55] 8 Manchester annexation number 41 the tap scoon

[45:00] 91 LLC, and I think Anna Weber is standing by to present us.

[45:07] Hello, Hannah.

[45:08] Yes, I am. I'm the lucky one now. So, as you presented, we are here for a Manchester

[45:15] annexation with us today. I believe is the Town Administrator of Manchester, Mr.

[45:22] Paracone, as well as Kelly Shaffer, who is representing the property owner and the

[45:27] of this annexation, they'll be here to answer any of your questions as they come up.

[45:34] Can you guys see my screen, the presentation?

[45:39] Yes, we can. Okay, perfect. So just for tonight, we have an informational briefing.

[45:45] I'll be coming back to you all on April 18th for your formal recommendation to the Board of

[45:52] commissioners. Getting started as we said this is in the town of Manchester. We are like

[45:59] right in the middle of a residential area. If you follow my cursor, this is the annexation area.

[46:05] It's approximately 13 acres with access on Jomer Drive through a private drive and then also

[46:14] access on Washington way via via prior way. One thing to note about this annexation is

[46:24] that it is in an existing on-clave. So as we all know on-claves are a big

[46:30] note for annexations and you can see the big corporate limits around and this

[46:37] small donut hole which includes the annexation area. You can see we're in the

[46:43] other part of the corporate limits of Manchester and the on-clave includes this 13 acre

[46:49] parcel annexation area as well as four other parcels. Going back to this flat, you can see

[46:57] the annexation number 14 that is surrounding the annexation area was actually enacted in 1977

[47:05] And then this annexation number 18, which is on Jommer Drive was actually enacted in 1979.

[47:13] So was nothing that was obviously done recently, and it was probably done before Maryland

[47:18] State Law prohibited the on-clave rule.

[47:25] So back to this particular annexation, as we said, it's approximately 13.92 acres.

[47:32] It's slightly improved with some buildings, but no one resides on the annexation area.

[47:41] The current zoning of the annexation area is R-40,000 residential and conservation in

[47:47] the county.

[47:48] The petitioners have requested the town of Manchester to be placed in the R-10,000 residential

[47:54] and the public conservation zone as well.

[47:57] The plan is to keep the conservation zone the same when going into the town and just move the R 40,000 portion to the R 10,000 portion.

[48:09] So, since the R 10,000 zoning district is 50% more dense than the R 40,000 zoning district in the county is zoning waiver is required for this annexation and it has been requested by the petitioner and the town.

[48:25] The designated land use is medium density residential.

[48:30] This is taken from the 2018 Manchester Comprehensive Plan.

[48:36] This annexation area is actually in the no service area for both water and sewer.

[48:42] It's kind of uncommon because it's in the growth area.

[48:45] But as we just heard, Christ Wagner talking about the triennial update.

[48:49] One of the updates for the town of Manchester is going to be to bring the entire annexation area into the priority.

[48:57] service area for both water and sewer to aid in the development of the property when it is

[49:06] annexed. So all that we are recommending is the town of Manchester give public notice by

[49:11] posting the property prior to the date of the public hearing and notifying all of the

[49:16] adjoining property owners. Next steps as I said we are going to come back before you all on April 18th

[49:23] for your recommendation to the county commissioners and then we have time reserved on April 20th

[49:28] in April 27th with the board for their decision on the zoning waiver and comment letter.

[49:37] That does it for me. Jeff, if you want to turn it over to the representatives for the town or

[49:42] Kelly. Yeah, Mr. Pericon or Kelly, do you have anything you want to add?

[49:54] Kelly, I can see

[49:54] you talking and your microphone appears beyond, but I can't hear you.

[50:00] Kelly, check your gear wheel and the

[50:02] right hand corner and sometimes you need to refresh the microphone.

[50:31] Anything? Yes, yes, I can hear you

[50:34] know. Okay, all right, thank you. I appreciate that. Good insight for future meetings. Good evening,

[50:42] everyone. Kelly Shaper Miller, I'm here tonight on behalf of the applicants or petitioners in this

[50:47] case, Tapco 91 LLC. I also have Linda Alexander from CLSI and one of the property owners

[50:54] online to just in case there are any questions. And I know that also Mr. Pericone from Manchester

[51:00] is on to answer any questions specific to this town. I really don't have much to add,

[51:06] I think, in a did a great presentation, but I am here and available and happy to answer any questions

[51:12] that this planning commission has. This has been through the, you know, different municipalities

[51:18] review these annexations differently before they get to the county for review. So this has been

[51:24] a little bit more of a thorough planning commission and mayor counsel review from the town,

[51:31] then other municipalities would have, so there's been lots of discussions and hopefully I

[51:37] have all the answers if you do have any questions tonight. So, the only question I have,

[51:43] which is the question we typically ask on these things, is has the town taken an official position

[51:48] on this in support of the annexation or is that still pending or are they against it?

[51:55] I will let Mr. Pericone chime in if his opinion differs but they I believe that so far the position has been that they support this did go through an amendment it was initially submitted with a request for our 10 over the entire portion of the property.

[52:10] and through discussions with the Towns Planning Commission and Mayor and Council and just the code clarifications on our part we amended the request to keep the existing conservation zone portion of the property conservation zone and the remainder our ten zone and in doing that we have shown kind of rough concept plans to the town.

[52:34] that show 14 locks on the R10 portion here, which is my understanding that any approved annexation

[52:45] will then be subject to kind of a lock maximum at the town through an annexation agreement.

[52:51] So all of that kind of been talked about it and because of all of those discussions and

[52:57] clarification, I believe it's fair to say that now the town is supported.

[53:01] Thank you.

[53:03] Mr. Perry County.

[53:09] You may have to find your wheel too.

[53:11] I can't hear you.

[53:17] No, no, yes.

[53:19] How about now?

[53:20] Yes, yes.

[53:21] Well done.

[53:22] Well done.

[53:23] My apologies.

[53:25] No, no, no, no.

[53:26] Mr. Perry County for the town of Manchester.

[53:28] At the December 20th meeting in 22 of the town of Manchester Planning Commission.

[53:34] They did recommend to the Mayor and Council to accept this annexation with just basically the same points.

[53:42] Ms. Miller has outlined.

[53:44] It was accepted in January by the Town Council in Mayer and the scheduled public hearings for it.

[53:52] I believe we're doing our April 11th Town Council meeting for a public hearing.

[53:57] Then it will be voted on for final acceptance from the town.

[54:01] That's not funny.

[54:03] Good to know. Thank you very much. Any any any any any other comments on this tonight is obviously just

[54:11] Trying to find it sort of an introduction. I guess we're not taking any action tonight. There's anything else that

[54:17] Any one would like to add for our information we always appreciate you said this is going to be 14 lots is the plan for this piece of property

[54:29] That's the concept plan that's been prepared by CLSI.

[54:33] They haven't gone to the extent of preparing a full site plan or anything, but based on a concept drawing that is what we believe would work.

[54:45] And I may have missed this part, and if I did, I apologize.

[54:48] I'm assuming that the town of Manchester is not going to have any, I guess, financial responsibility for extending water and sewer down into.

[54:58] use lots?

[55:01] Well, we will work with the town on, you know, resolving all of that,

[55:05] or any of the site plan process, and there will be public work agreements, and bonding,

[55:09] and all of that. But yeah, it's my understanding that, you know, the developer will be

[55:14] out of the cost of extending public water and sewer. Oh, I was right.

[55:22] Very good.

[55:23] Even any other questions?

[55:26] Oh, I'm good. All right. Thank you. Thank you for that. Anyone else?

[55:32] All right, well, we very much appreciate all of you being here this evening and being available to answer questions

[55:39] We know everyone's busy and we thank you for making yourselves available for us and providing information to us

[55:46] So thank you very much, and we'll look forward to seeing this presented at the next meeting. Thank you everyone

[55:52] Thank you very much

[55:58] So we will go on now to item nine the transportation

[56:04] master plan, something we've heard a little bit about.

[56:13] Claire, we can see you talking, but we can't hear you.

[56:16] Tell these giraffeele issues, sorry guys.

[56:35] Yes. Yes. Perfect. Great. Laura, can you do that one more time,

[56:40] made me a presenter? Sorry.

[56:51] I figured it out, just kidding. I was going to say it's you already. All right,

[56:57] So, everyone can see my screen.

[57:01] Okay, great.

[57:02] All right.

[57:03] So again, good evening.

[57:05] Mary Lane and I are with you this evening.

[57:08] To present or wrap up the plan roadway section.

[57:13] And this is Chapter 6 of the Transportation Master Plan.

[57:16] So I'm going to start with Tony Town,

[57:18] and then Mary is going to wrap up with the new Windsor and Union Bridge areas.

[57:24] So, just taught me at any point at the questions.

[57:34] So, the 20-10 is located in the northwestern portion of the county.

[57:38] The current road-based system provides commuter access,

[57:41] southeast to Westminster, northwest to Emmetsburg,

[57:46] west in the Frederick County in North Indepensalvania.

[57:49] 20% of 20-10 residents commute to Westminster,

[57:53] and 12% to Frederick and Baltimore counties.

[57:55] 25% of 20 town workers traveled from within the sub-area and 25% from Pennsylvania.

[58:05] 20 town's group rate is anticipated to be low when a regional level but the highest rate for the county.

[58:13] And traffic congestion in the sub-area is modest.

[58:16] There's light congestion along Maryland 140 in the PM peak hours at Maryland 194 and Grand Drive Chevrolet Drive.

[58:29] This is staff is recommending 13 roads in the Tone Town area for adoption into the Transportation

[58:35] Master Plan.

[58:37] There's one state highway project, four planned major streets, and eight planned neighborhood

[58:42] connections.

[58:49] So, our one state highway project is Maryland 77, also known as Middleberg Road.

[58:54] This is from the Frederick County line to Maryland 194 in Kiemar.

[58:59] This section of 77 is located Southwest of Tony Town and Northwest of Union Bridge.

[59:08] It's 1.5 miles of tooling reconstruct.

[59:13] The highway functions as a principle arterial.

[59:17] And the project is in state highway administrations.

[59:20] Highway needs inventory document.

[59:23] And at this time, the project has not been identified as a priority for the county.

[59:33] And so we have four plant major streets as I said, an eight plant neighbor who connections included in the plan.

[59:40] You can see from the map that all of the plan-radways are either within 20 towns for a third area or just outside.

[59:48] And the county and city staff have met several times since 2021 to discuss the plan and have agreed upon the following raids for inclusion.

[1:00:00] So, the first planned major street is keyword crossing. It's located in eastern Tony Town. It's halfway in the city limits and entirely within 20 towns for its area.

[1:00:14] It's a half mile of planned roadway from Stunt Town Road to Old Tony Town Pike, crossing over Maryland 140, just east of the circle.

[1:00:25] So, from some down to Old Tony Town, crossing over 140.

[1:00:31] The road is associated with future residential and commercial development.

[1:00:37] It will add to the overall connectivity of the roadway network, providing alternative routes for local vehicles.

[1:00:44] Its future plan functional classification is undetermined as of now.

[1:00:54] So our second plan major street, Robert Hill Road extended is located in the northern area of

[1:01:00] 20 town, partially in the city limits and entirely within the growth area.

[1:01:06] It's a point four mile extension of the northern terminus of the existing Roberts Mill Road from

[1:01:14] pump-house road to horny road.

[1:01:19] So this is the existing Robertsville road

[1:01:22] from pump-house road to horny road.

[1:01:26] The extension will provide access to development,

[1:01:29] one adjacent property and provide an alternative east-west connection

[1:01:35] between one-nine-four and horny road

[1:01:37] parallel to west-view drive.

[1:01:41] West-view drive.

[1:01:43] And its plan functional classification is a minor collector.

[1:01:52] The third plan major street is the 20-town greenway,

[1:01:56] also known as the interim boulevard extension.

[1:02:03] It is located in the south and western area of the city,

[1:02:07] partially within city limits and entirely within 20-town square area.

[1:02:11] It is a two and a half mile planned roadway from the terminus of the Entrum Boulevard at Trevannion Road to Maryland 140 northwest of the city square at about the halfway point the road is planned to cross over Maryland 194.

[1:02:30] So, starting at the Terminus of Anthem Boulevard, over 1994,

[1:02:41] and to Maryland 140.

[1:02:44] So, this is the square I'm telling you down right here.

[1:02:49] On the project, we'll redirect truck traffic and through traffic away from downtown

[1:02:54] and away from the intersection of Maryland 194 and 140.

[1:02:58] It will also provide redundancy in the network, improving access and connectivity to a large

[1:03:05] amount of undeveloped industrial land, south and southwest of town.

[1:03:10] It's plan functional classification is on determined at this time.

[1:03:16] And the Tony-Town bypass is included in the approved FY24 priority letter, not as a top priority,

[1:03:25] But as a project, which the county is committed, the party letter request and not investigate the efficacy of reevaluating the potential for the 20-time bypass for inclusion in the state's highway needs inventory.

[1:03:44] Are there any questions regarding the bypass or greenway?

[1:03:52] I don't think so.

[1:03:53] Okay,

[1:03:56] right moving one, the last planned age of street is

[1:03:59] Worthington Boulevard.

[1:04:01] It's located in the northern, in northern Tony Town,

[1:04:05] partially in the city limits and entirely within the

[1:04:08] Growth Area.

[1:04:10] It's a 1.4 mile planned roadway from

[1:04:12] Franger Road to the future Tony Town Greenway,

[1:04:17] Crossing over Harnie Road and 140.

[1:04:21] To Franger Road, across the river Harnie,

[1:04:24] 1-40 and to the 20-town greenway or bypass right here.

[1:04:34] And we're thinking bullbard is proposed to serve future development in northern 20-town.

[1:04:39] It's intended to be part of an overall roadway network, providing alternative routes for local vehicles.

[1:04:48] And its plan functional classification is a collector road.

[1:04:55] So, Allen Delane extended is our first planned neighborhood connection.

[1:05:00] It's located in southwestern portion of the city, partially incorporated and entirely within the growth area.

[1:05:09] It's a point six mile extension of the existing Allen Delane to the proposed 20-town greenway.

[1:05:16] So, this is the existing Allen Delling, and then to the green way, which connects into the

[1:05:23] ancient boulevard trivia and intersection. This extension will be connecting 194 and 140,

[1:05:32] and will provide access for development of the industrial property. It's plan and functional

[1:05:38] classification is local red by. And if you recall from chapter five, this plan

[1:05:45] roadway, including the short extension, extension two, and triple of art. So the plan

[1:05:52] roadway, including this section, is one of the most promising potential improvements.

[1:06:03] The second plan neighborhood connection is cross mill road, realignment.

[1:06:11] It's

[1:06:11] but within the growth area. It's a 300-foot re-alignment of the existing

[1:06:17] cross mill road to allow for the suitable intersection with proposed planned

[1:06:23] neighborhood connection shower road. So the highlighted road is cross

[1:06:29] mill, re-alignment. This dark blue dotted line is shower road, which we'll get to in

[1:06:37] couple slides.

[1:06:41] The realignment includes the termination of

[1:06:43] a cross mill road at a call to sack away from the 194

[1:06:48] intersection, so a call to sack possibly right in this area, and then the

[1:06:57] functional classification is a local roadway.

[1:07:06] So the deal road

[1:07:10] located in Eastern Tony Town and is not located with an east of the town, I'm sorry, and is not

[1:07:19] located within the growth area or priority funding area. It's a point four mile realignment of the existing

[1:07:27] roadway. The existing road has a sharp bend just south of its intersection with Angel Road.

[1:07:34] So here's about intersects with Angel, so we'd eliminate this 90 degree bend.

[1:07:42] The realignment will create improved geometry at Angel Road, and thereby better the traffic flow.

[1:07:48] With continued development in the northeast portion of Tony Town, this improvement will help the safety and overall roadway network.

[1:07:56] And its plan functional classification is a local roadway.

[1:08:03] Moving on, the fourth plane neighborhood connection is these are road relocated, it's located south of Tony Town and is within the growth area.

[1:08:15] It's a .35 mile realignment of the existing road, which goes through a series of sharp bends to the east of its intersection with Autordale Mill Road.

[1:08:27] So the intersection right here at the Autordale Mill would it would remove these sharp ends.

[1:08:34] To reconstructing this segment of the road will create improved geometry for both through traffic and local residents.

[1:08:42] And this road as well has a functional classification of local roadway.

[1:08:50] Cell's Mill Road relocated is located in the south eastern portion of Tony Town, just north of the circle.

[1:09:01] It's a point to mile-re alignment of the existing road, eliminating the current cell's Mill Road intersection close to the roundabout and moving it to the west, providing a safer traffic situation.

[1:09:17] So the road would follow the original line in right here and would just pop out a little more west of the circle and not so not so close.

[1:09:28] The project will provide access for development of property adjacent to the roadway.

[1:09:35] And it's plan functional classification is local roadway.

[1:09:44] next we have shower road connection. Again, this is an area of cross mill road relocated, which is the one that I showed you a couple slides back. Again, located outside of this city, outside of the city limits to the west, but is within the growth area. This is a point to my plan roadway from 194 to the cross mill road realignment.

[1:10:11] With the termination and cold-a-sac of cross mill road,

[1:10:16] it will provide the needed connection to Maryland 194.

[1:10:21] And this intersection relocation is to be done in conjunction with the construction of the 20-town greenway.

[1:10:29] So again, that would be cold-a-saccing cross mill and using shower road to reach 194.

[1:10:38] And at this time, the plan functional classification is undetermined.

[1:10:47] To plan either of a connection number seven is Starboard Drive Extended.

[1:10:52] It's located in Southern Tony Town.

[1:10:55] If a one tenth of a mile extension of the existing Starboard Drive to Traveignion Road,

[1:11:04] so the existing Drive and the Traveignion Road,

[1:11:09] The extension will provide new residential access to Traveignion Road.

[1:11:14] It also will provide a second access location for the local neighborhood, which currently

[1:11:19] only has access off of when the hill is dried.

[1:11:25] And I apologize I cut that off, but this is when the hill is dried right here.

[1:11:28] And the roadway just loops around the starboard.

[1:11:32] And it's plan functional classification is local roadway.

[1:11:39] And then our last planned neighborhood connection is Stunktown Road relocated.

[1:11:46] It's located in the eastern area of Tony Town.

[1:11:50] It is a quarter, a one quarter mile realignment of the existing road to eliminate a 90 degree bend.

[1:11:59] Reconstructing this segment of Stunktown will improve geometry and provide better traffic flow

[1:12:05] in the area proposed for future residential development and it's plan functional classification is

[1:12:14] look over it by.

[1:12:18] So those are the four-plan major streets and eight-plan neighborhood connections.

[1:12:24] I'm going to move on to the three roads that staff is recommending for removal in the

[1:12:35] So

[1:12:39] the first is commercial access road.

[1:12:44] It's a planned neighborhood connection,

[1:12:46] located in southeast 20 town,

[1:12:49] just south of the circle.

[1:12:51] It's a point two mile connection

[1:12:54] and linked to development of the commercial property south of the circle.

[1:13:01] The plan right away is being removed by request of city staff

[1:13:04] because the property was developed with internal circulation and connectivity that replaces the need for the road.

[1:13:18] The second road recommended for removal is Crimson Avenue Extended.

[1:13:23] It's a planned neighborhood connection located in Northeast Tony Town.

[1:13:28] It is .5 miles from existing Crimson Avenue to Angel Road.

[1:13:34] This is the existing Crimson Avenue and the Angel Road right here.

[1:13:39] one ninety four. The redway was constructed as part of the meets crossing subdivision and now serves the city as a local redway.

[1:13:50] So that one has been completed. And then the third redway recommended for removal is genitive drive extended.

[1:14:00] It's a plan neighborhood connection in Southeast 20 town. It's less than one tenth of a mile in length.

[1:14:08] In connects existing genitive drive to answer a rule of art.

[1:14:13] So it made this connection right here.

[1:14:16] It was constructed in conjunction with the commercial properties to aid in connectivity to these commercial properties.

[1:14:28] And that's it.

[1:14:30] Does anyone have questions before we move on to Mary with Union Bridge and New Windsor?

[1:14:39] Doesn't look like anyone has any questions for you, Claire.

[1:14:42] Alright, thank you.

[1:14:44] Thank you.

[1:14:45] Nice presentation.

[1:14:46] Yeah, Mary, I'll turn it over to you.

[1:14:50] First of all, can you hear me?

[1:14:52] We can hear you.

[1:14:53] Yes.

[1:14:53] Okay, good.

[1:15:01] Can you see the presentation? Perfect. Okay. As Claire said, this is the last of the plan major roadways chapter 6 that we've been going over for the last few months.

[1:15:14] And this is New Windsor and Union Bridge. As you can see, and as you already know, I'm sure this is in the north western part of the county, as you see in the circled area.

[1:15:24] staff is recommending for Maryland State Highway Projects all in the H&I, the Highway Needs in

[1:15:30] Ventory, as well as for Plan Major Streets. And as with all of these we have talked to the

[1:15:34] municipal staffs about these. And particularly in the case of Union Bridge, there were some

[1:15:40] comments that we'll integrate into the plan, although we won't really, it won't really affect

[1:15:46] including the road in, but we will be making some comments because they did have some concerns.

[1:15:52] So, the four state roads are Maryland, 97, from when 1994 to 75, Maryland, 84 from 75 to

[1:16:02] Balschurch Road, Maryland, 31 from the Frederick County line to the town of New Windsor.

[1:16:07] And then the last is not a capacity enhancing project.

[1:16:10] It's the Maryland, 31 new Windsor streetscape.

[1:16:14] And I think we've talked before.

[1:16:16] We included when we talked about the Elders Bergeria, the Sykesville streetscape project.

[1:16:20] And these will be the last two state streetscape projects in the county that have been going on for at least 20 years.

[1:16:28] So the first Maryland 97 from when 94 to 75. This is where Claire left off when she discussed Maryland 97 with the Tony tell presentation.

[1:16:38] This is a complete reconstruct.

[1:16:42] There's a little bit here that exists. That's middleburg road, but this would all here being mostly new roadway.

[1:16:49] would all be new roadway. And in speaking with the plan or for the town of Union Bridge,

[1:16:56] there's pretty big concerns that this is no longer feasible because of some ag press,

[1:17:01] as well as other constraints on it. It is still in the state's highway needs inventory,

[1:17:07] and within the next few years, they may be reassessing it, but we're recommending that because

[1:17:12] it is still in the state's plan, we at least leave it in this long range plan. At the very least,

[1:17:17] they would like to see the end of it here all the way,

[1:17:22] I guess that would be what you're John,

[1:17:25] that would help with keeping traffic off of Main Street.

[1:17:28] So although this entire improvement may not be made,

[1:17:33] there may be a smaller improvement,

[1:17:35] still recommended closer to the town.

[1:17:41] Second improvement is Maryland 84 from 75 to Balschurch Road.

[1:17:50] That is 3.74 miles, it is a rural collector, and this would just be a two-lane upgrade to this.

[1:17:59] No work has been performed on this project other than to identify the future need.

[1:18:03] And again, as with a lot of things in this area of the county, this may be a problem because it may impact some ag press properties.

[1:18:11] But you can see that it goes through the historic town of Union Town north to there.

[1:18:22] The next project is Marilyn 31 from the Frederick County line to New Windsor.

[1:18:29] This is 2.92 miles. It's a rural minor arterial, a two-lane reconstruct.

[1:18:35] And again, there are possibly egg preservation easements located along the alignment here.

[1:18:40] And I did look in Frederick County since some of these are impacted by Frederick County

[1:18:44] to see if these were in their long range plans or even a priority of theirs.

[1:18:49] they are not at this point. So I thought that was of some interest. I think these will have to be reassessed when the H&I is reassessed.

[1:19:00] And then the last state project is Maryland 31, the Main Street Street Skate. This is quite a history. It's about half a mile.

[1:19:08] It's to enhance the community through improvements to sidewalks, streetscape, pedestrian crossings and system preservation.

[1:19:14] this has been a high priority for construction in the county's priority letter. There's a bit

[1:19:19] of a history of an effort was made to coordinate with the relocation of some water lines that's taken

[1:19:27] years that looks like it's passed back on track. But again, the commissioners just this last week

[1:19:35] agreed to continue putting it as a high priority in their priority letter.

[1:19:43] So then there's four

[1:19:43] planned major streets as well.

[1:19:45] The first three are in Union Bridge, the connector road,

[1:19:48] George Street extended, Mount Pleasant Boulevard,

[1:19:51] and then the fourth one is in the town of New Windsor.

[1:19:54] And basically the three Union Bridge projects

[1:19:57] are all serving the same purpose.

[1:20:00] They're alternatives to going through the town.

[1:20:02] They're increasing the connectivity

[1:20:04] and they're important because they could keep truck traffic

[1:20:06] off the town, out of downtown.

[1:20:11] So the first one is the connector road.

[1:20:13] This will only be necessary.

[1:20:15] You can see this connects Union Bridge to the future Maryland 77, which doesn't exist yet.

[1:20:20] This obviously would only be necessary if Maryland 77 is constructed.

[1:20:25] And that's the one we just talked about.

[1:20:27] But here's Main Street.

[1:20:29] And again, the whole purpose of all of these is really to keep traffic off of Main Street.

[1:20:39] The next one is called George Street extended.

[1:20:42] But it may need to be renamed.

[1:20:43] As you can see, it comes off of George Street, avoids the downtown area and connects here.

[1:20:49] This is currently industrialized zone and developed as a solar development.

[1:20:54] So at the point at which that is decommissioned and something else is developed there,

[1:20:59] it's still a possibility but unlikely because of other things that have gone in around here.

[1:21:04] We've been informed by the town.

[1:21:05] So it's really possible that the connection might come off of wide road and be a smaller connection.

[1:21:13] But still they would like to keep a connection in here and they plan on doing that when they do update their plan.

[1:21:19] So we may rename this from George Street because it may not come out of George Street.

[1:21:25] Um, there's nothing, okay, that's pretty much what you need to know about that.

[1:21:30] The third one in Union Bridge is another connection here.

[1:21:33] It is from Barkill to Maryland 75.

[1:21:37] It is part of the overall roadway network for alternative routes.

[1:21:41] And this would eventually be disrupted by the developer of that property if that ever takes place.

[1:21:52] So the last plan major street is a new Windsor.

[1:21:57] And it is the relocation of Springdale Avenue from, I'm

[1:22:07] sorry, it's the realignment of Springdale Avenue with new Windsor Road.

[1:22:11] and basically it will get rid of this dangerous intersection here and allow this to happen.

[1:22:16] There was at one time a call to sack that was proposed.

[1:22:20] That has been taken off the plan, but basically this is in there to provide improved geometry

[1:22:25] and better traffic flow at the primary gateway on the east side of town and this is considered

[1:22:30] basically a safety improvement. There are no planned neighborhood connections and there's nothing

[1:22:36] being taken off the plan in this area. Do you have any questions about this?

[1:22:43] Doesn't look like we do, Mary. Okay, then that completes for now. Claire and my assessment

[1:22:50] of the plan major streets throughout the county, as I said last time, we'll be coming back to you

[1:22:55] with an assessment of the prioritization of the importance of all of them, and we'll be going over

[1:23:01] that early in May with you. Well, thank you very much. It's been a big project.

[1:23:07] It's still going on.

[1:23:09] Yeah.

[1:23:11] Well, thank you very much.

[1:23:12] Have a great evening.

[1:23:14] You too.

[1:23:16] So we'll move on to item 10, which is planned commercial center text amendment and introduction.

[1:23:24] And I believe Madam Secretary, you're walking us through this.

[1:23:29] Yes, I am so.

[1:23:33] Let me share my presentation with you.

[1:23:35] Can you see my screen?

[1:23:36] Yes. Okay. Um,

[1:23:44] so this came about because of the Stablow's property plan commercial

[1:23:52] center development back in like the late summer of 2022. Um, do you all recall that particular

[1:24:01] development case that we had? And at that time, the planning and zoning commission chose to

[1:24:08] and I, in that particular case, because of the clause that's in May approved.

[1:24:15] And then the property owner, the board of zoning appeals, and this case was then overturned

[1:24:24] by the board of zoning appeals.

[1:24:27] At that time, the community surrounding that filed an appeal then to the Maryland Circuit

[1:24:34] Court, and that was an administrative hearing.

[1:24:37] And my understanding and gym almonds on one,

[1:24:39] he can better elaborate on this.

[1:24:41] My understanding at that time was that this was

[1:24:44] an administrative hearing, and all of the,

[1:24:50] essentially documents that were presented were not

[1:24:54] into the circuit court in time,

[1:24:57] and so they dropped the case.

[1:24:59] So as of now, this property owner has the right to develop

[1:25:04] a Planned Commercial Center with the second story

[1:25:09] residential component.

[1:25:11] And so what we're here to discuss with you this evening,

[1:25:15] as a result of that is many members of the community

[1:25:18] backing up to this particular property,

[1:25:21] had concerns regarding the residential component

[1:25:26] of these Planned Commercial Centers.

[1:25:29] And I think a lot of the anxiety comes

[1:25:31] from a similar property that's developed closer to the intersection of 26 and 32, referred

[1:25:41] to as the Princess Shopping Center.

[1:25:43] And so there's a lot of concerns with that particular look and style of residential

[1:25:49] development on top of the commercial.

[1:25:52] So with that, I'm going to go ahead and change my slide here on October 6, because of letters written

[1:26:00] And by the community at large, we're concerned regarding the second story residential option

[1:26:08] that the Board of County Commissioners had a meeting at their regularly scheduled open session

[1:26:14] and decided to refer this particular section,

[1:26:20] section 155.09 to plan commercial centers, they decided to forward the residential portion to

[1:26:31] this body, the planning commission for your review and consideration and commenting on if this

[1:26:38] should be any further text amendments done to this particular district.

[1:26:45] I'm not going to go through

[1:26:46] So all of this, this is the code specifically for 155092, and just to be clear, so 155092 plain commercial centers.

[1:26:56] The residential is a part of that overall development style.

[1:27:03] The plain commercial centers really are our typical strip center that you see.

[1:27:08] in the county. So when you have two or three different types of commercial uses in a typical strip set, and that is also a planned commercial center, it's the residential component.

[1:27:21] And that's found here in section D of the current code. So I'm going to flip to the next slide, which shows that a little larger. So currently our code allows for, and this is subdivision not zoning.

[1:27:33] Allow us for accessory uses, regardless of the underlying zoning district, and these are

[1:27:40] allowed and all C1, C2 and C3 that the Planning and Zoning Commission may allow, and this

[1:27:46] is the issue that we had during that meeting was that we may allow.

[1:27:51] Doesn't say shout, it's as name, that second story structure is not more than a total of two

[1:28:00] And that residential units may be providing on that second story of the structure and no residential uses are permitted on the first story of the structure within any claim commercial center.

[1:28:13] And then they give some four area limits that the floor area of a residential unit should be not smaller than 600 square feet, but no greater than a thousand square feet in size.

[1:28:25] In the area of all residential units,

[1:28:28] Shaanotic Seed, 50% of the total area of the structure.

[1:28:31] So basically, it has to fit the footprint of the first floor exactly to the second floor.

[1:28:38] And it has to for the residential component,

[1:28:40] it has to mean all concurrency management standards,

[1:28:42] so schools, roads, things like that,

[1:28:45] water, sewer, any issues with that, residential development impact these.

[1:28:51] And then this has been on the books for decades.

[1:28:54] we only have one developed, but then there's a redevelopment clause in here that a plan

[1:28:59] commercial center existing after 2007 may be redeveloped to include residential units on the

[1:29:05] second sort of any existing structure. And I think Mary found through her research,

[1:29:09] this really dates back to 2004, but I believe the first one would have been built around 07.

[1:29:16] And then an amended site plan is approved by planning commission if you want to redevelop

[1:29:22] and that in compliance with the subdivision chapters.

[1:29:27] So that is what is before you this evening.

[1:29:31] What we'll be doing is not at the April meaning,

[1:29:34] but sometime in May we'll be coming back to you

[1:29:37] with some additional information, some suggestions,

[1:29:41] and perhaps edits to the code as it stands

[1:29:45] if that's the direction that you all want to take with regards

[1:29:48] the second story on residences.

[1:29:52] I'm going to go ahead and stop sharing my screen.

[1:30:02] Okay.

[1:30:10] Thank you, booted.

[1:30:14] Okay, there we are. All right, got good for a second. So, and I know we have some callers on the line that signed up for this evening to discuss this with you.

[1:30:22] I would say this, at this point in time, this legislation would not affect the current development of this fabulous property would not have been given any direction to affect its already in process, but this would be more looking toward the future.

[1:30:36] If you all want to remove that secondary residential provision, so I'll let you all discuss for a minute and if you have any direction that you'd like to give us, we won't really give in any direction per say other than let's investigate and research this with you off.

[1:30:52] Do we do we know why I may have asked this when we were looking at this project before what the genesis is for having residential on the second story of a planned commercial center.

[1:31:06] You know, I can't say why Carol County did it and we don't have any note for any information on why Carol kind of specifically chose to take this.

[1:31:15] I would say this though, in the early to mid 2000s that was a favorable development technique of the traditional neighborhood development kind of going back to, you know, like a typical mainstream community or

[1:31:31] Shopkeepers would have their residences above,

[1:31:34] with maybe their shop below.

[1:31:35] This was Carol County's take on that.

[1:31:38] And also to try to address within the same development

[1:31:42] footprint residential with commercial,

[1:31:45] because we don't have a lot of zone land for rental units

[1:31:51] and more affordable housing.

[1:31:52] We just don't in Carol County.

[1:31:54] This is an attempt to try to do something

[1:31:57] with expanding the development envelope

[1:31:59] to keep it within a similar footprint.

[1:32:03] So that's, you know, kind of the,

[1:32:06] what maybe, that's the advocating for the way forward is that,

[1:32:09] you know, we do have a critical need.

[1:32:11] There's a national housing shortage.

[1:32:14] Here are counties that spared from that.

[1:32:16] And we have residents and citizens that need housing

[1:32:20] to live in that they can afford.

[1:32:24] And so this is one way to do that.

[1:32:26] Potentially, we're not setting the market price on this,

[1:32:28] But one would think it would be more affordable being co-located with commercial.

[1:32:34] Okay. That's helpful. Matt, you have a question.

[1:32:38] While to say, I was adamantly against this project, not because of what it was,

[1:32:45] because of where it was more than anything. In the fact that they actually took land

[1:32:49] scraping out of it between the initial and what happened at the end.

[1:32:55] But, I mean, I've been to Urbana, Urbana's got two and three story ones like that, that look great.

[1:33:01] I mean, I just think, you know, location and, you know, I remember asking the question, was this an upper down thing when that came in front of us?

[1:33:11] And we were told it was upper down and then I'd go back and change some stuff to make it see fit in a little bit better in the neighborhood.

[1:33:18] you know, that was my take. I'm not like totally against them. I just think, you know, the way it's wrote, we should have discretion if it fits in that area and it definitely, in my opinion, did not fit in that area. So I was, I was not very happy to turn over, but.

[1:33:40] And it seems to me, you know, Matt, one of the things that, you know, where it's done well, there's, there is, Linda, you're hitting it on the head and we're talking all around it, but there's an architectural element to it.

[1:33:55] there's a street to skate, feel to it, to where,

[1:33:59] you know, it doesn't come across as some motelists

[1:34:04] and a melt, motelish.

[1:34:06] And I don't know how to say it any other way.

[1:34:11] And then one of the complaints

[1:34:13] were getting from the current one that is developed

[1:34:15] at the Princess Center is that, you know,

[1:34:17] people are driving their laundry on the balcony.

[1:34:20] And it's just not that that's not indicative

[1:34:23] of the community that we want to have.

[1:34:25] And so, is there a way for us to create some architectural design elements on this type of development?

[1:34:35] So that it does look more residential.

[1:34:40] You know, the way that was developed, you know, it actually

[1:34:45] Harkens more towards, you know, retail on the first floor and maybe office on the second floor.

[1:34:51] It doesn't really look very residential.

[1:34:53] You know, there's not really yet an apartment feel to it, so that's some of the comments that I'm getting or the comments I would get staff to is that if we could put some architectural guidelines around this, it might be helpful for both the community.

[1:35:11] And it might attract the quality of the development that the community is seeking because what was done is not reflective of what's up in our ban.

[1:35:20] I mean, I know I think I know some of the developments that you're talking about and those mixed

[1:35:26] use when it's done well is really cool. I think y'all are right as a staff to say, you know,

[1:35:33] this is one way to do this. But I think if we don't do it correctly, it's not a good thing for the

[1:35:45] Yeah, I do think that we need to have some kind of architectural requirements, but as far as laundry,

[1:35:56] you know, that would be in the development of the property.

[1:36:03] I mean, that's whoever the owner is of that complex to put up some kind of restrictions.

[1:36:10] And I don't know that we could mandate that.

[1:36:15] I think that's more for the developer to do when he's building up.

[1:36:20] But the architectural requirement would be great.

[1:36:25] And I'm sure we will probably discuss this further at another time.

[1:36:30] Unfortunately, the project that came before us is able to move forward as it is.

[1:36:39] Mike correctly.

[1:36:41] No.

[1:36:41] I mean, so far, there's been no stay or anything for this particular property that the project

[1:36:48] has been overturned.

[1:36:50] So I mean, as of now, it's still moving forward.

[1:36:54] And I think this is a really great discussion to give us guidance to look at architectural

[1:36:59] standards more in depth with this.

[1:37:02] You know, I'll go back to what had happened in the fall was really unfortunate.

[1:37:06] And that project had been heard the year before and during concept that was really the time to say we didn't want the second story residential.

[1:37:18] I think that was really the burden at that time. And then we had a complete change over and planning commission between what it was first heard in second time it came through.

[1:37:28] And then that was a very big challenge that at that point to go back and say,

[1:37:34] what changes do you want me because we're already in final?

[1:37:37] So I think, you know, lesson for all of us, that those are things that

[1:37:41] have been addressed during concepts for all of us moving forward. But again, it did get overturned

[1:37:47] so that it would be a move point anyway with regard to that. And maybe it would have been

[1:37:52] more palatable with better design standards. And I think that's a great thing. I mean,

[1:37:57] books for almost 20 years. We've only had one property. Really. You wouldn't take advantage of it.

[1:38:04] It knows you've been redeveloped that way yet. But that's not just that they wouldn't do it in the future.

[1:38:08] And I think it would look much better. I agree with you, Pete, that we would want to see something

[1:38:13] maybe a little more. Little nicer looking, I guess. So just speaking, I don't agree with the kind of

[1:38:19] that motel feels. Maybe not what we're going for. Maybe more mature. President Chuck scenes some more

[1:38:24] things and the countenance and Montgomery County and stuff like that, so I mean those areas

[1:38:29] they have the first floor, commercial but then the residents or kind of more condoage.

[1:38:34] Yeah, you're exactly right, Linda. And again, I apologize because when you say there's a problem

[1:38:42] with something you ought to have a solution, I really don't have a solution for this. And when you say

[1:38:47] architectural standards, I wouldn't know where to start. I really don't. Other than you know

[1:38:52] when you see it, and that's not it. And so I apologize because I really don't have much,

[1:38:59] you know, one of the things that I kind of think of when Gina said what you did about the laundry,

[1:39:04] I don't necessarily, I agree with her, it would be hard to enforce, you know, that, that hey,

[1:39:08] you went swimming, you know, you went to somebody's pool, you, you put your, your towel,

[1:39:12] that's a dry, I mean, you know, that, that, you know, makes some sense. But, you know,

[1:39:16] if we required laundry hookups in each unit, I don't know, is that something that we want to do?

[1:39:21] I mean, I don't know.

[1:39:23] I really don't know what the solutions are.

[1:39:27] And the other thing I would ask is,

[1:39:32] when we say that anything we do here

[1:39:35] would not apply to this development,

[1:39:39] is that because it's written in the code

[1:39:43] or is that our customary because they've gone through the process

[1:39:47] that they did where everything they were supposed to do,

[1:39:49] it's our fault there's a county that we didn't do things differently. I mean, or is it the case

[1:39:56] that we could say, listen, you know, if you haven't been issued a permit, you haven't put a shovel

[1:40:01] in the ground, you've got to go back and design it this way. What is the statute there that we're

[1:40:10] leaning on where we can't get this stuff to step up and do something better?

[1:40:14] Well, I'll defer to Jim, but Maryland is typically what they call high-vesting state.

[1:40:19] So really, what the standard typically for Maryland has been in the past as shoveling the grounds, kind of thing, or even footers in the grounds, so to speak.

[1:40:29] However, I've seen some recent court cases where vesting has been just investment to a substantial amount, so that's demonstrated that, you know, they have, you know,

[1:40:40] It gone through the entitlement process and other than pulling the permits, and they've spent

[1:40:47] tens of hundreds of thousands of dollars on things, and they have contractors lined up,

[1:40:54] depending on what the next step in the process would be, a court could say, you know, what we do see that.

[1:40:59] I mean, there's no hard and fast rule for investing.

[1:41:02] Jim, I think you'd be better at that.

[1:41:04] It needs to elaborate.

[1:41:06] Right.

[1:41:07] Yes, Mr. Lester.

[1:41:08] So traditionally, Maryland courts have found that a project is vested, and that basically

[1:41:15] means it can move forward no matter what changes are made to the code's subsequent.

[1:41:21] And the courts have found best in traditionally when the project has obtained a development

[1:41:29] right and a permit. So basically approval and the permits and has basically put shovels

[1:41:38] on the ground and moved dirt. If that happens then the project is invested in any subsequent

[1:41:45] changes within the fact that specific project.

[1:41:50] So it really, I guess just depends on the project

[1:41:54] where it is in the actual construction of it.

[1:42:03] Thank you. Thank you very much.

[1:42:06] That's your welcome.

[1:42:08] Yeah, I was just going to say that, you know, I think we need to have some different language

[1:42:15] that gives us the right to, you know, I think it's a good thing to have this in the code.

[1:42:25] But I don't know if, if we're as, also the planning and zoning are going to have any teeth in it.

[1:42:33] I mean, I really think, you know, because like in front of there in her ban, you know, that's where like the main entrance is coming into a development.

[1:42:40] And it's got town homes all around it. It fits. It doesn't fit right beside a state highway that's got a 30 foot back behind it and got, you know, our 40,000 or after there's lots of bigger net back behind it.

[1:42:54] And it doesn't even have, you know, my, my biggest take was, you know, the state roots

[1:42:58] that you're going to put across walk in for people to walk across Route 26, it's very congested,

[1:43:03] right there already. And the fact that he took landscaping out of the project, even though he put

[1:43:10] in the sidewalk out front that didn't connect anything, he took landscaping out when he came to

[1:43:16] final, which, you know, I could hear the people complaining that, you know, it's like,

[1:43:23] but, you know, I think it's something that fits good, but I think it needs to fit in

[1:43:27] right area.

[1:43:27] And I don't think that was a right area.

[1:43:29] That was my taken.

[1:43:29] I don't know if we can craft a language to make it associated with more of a development.

[1:43:36] I don't know.

[1:43:40] I'm Stephen God.

[1:43:41] You know, I agree.

[1:43:43] I mean, to me, this area is, it just, to me, just doesn't make any sense of what you, they're trying to put where they are, I mean, especially with literally across the street you already have commercial development that has a lot of vacancies in it to be honest, so it just seems to me like you're kind of doing the same thing, you're just building another building that, yes, architecture does not fit.

[1:44:08] That obviously, as we've seen from emails, the residents and people in the area are not very welcoming too, so

[1:44:17] Yeah, I agree that it will be nice if we had a little bit more

[1:44:21] Ability to, you know, make some changes, you know, stuff for the architecture and all, because it's just

[1:44:26] To me, it just doesn't make any sense

[1:44:28] Why you're putting this there, I guess

[1:44:34] You know, and my frustration was

[1:44:36] was it seemed like our role with academic and actually fairly useless, because we all

[1:44:45] offered a number of comments, I think we articulated pretty clearly all the things we're talking

[1:44:49] about tonight. We even stepped back and said it's not even just the architecture,

[1:44:54] but Matt to your point, you know, I thought we couldn't have been clearer that we didn't think

[1:44:58] fit with the surrounding community.

[1:45:00] It wasn't even consistent with the master plan, all things that are, you know, dead on things we're supposed to consider. And it still makes no difference. And so what's the point, really?

[1:45:11] When, as I've said to Jim before, my frustration is that it just gets appealed to Novo. And then that's it. And the reasons we gave and the community comments that we heard and incorporated really are given away when it goes up.

[1:45:29] And so I think it is a flawed process.

[1:45:32] We can change the statute, but the process is always going to be a problem.

[1:45:36] I think, and when it came to us in concept,

[1:45:40] I was critical of the residences on above.

[1:45:45] And I made it clear that it was a problem for me,

[1:45:47] and it was going to be a problem when they came back.

[1:45:50] And so I encourage them to design it differently, which they didn't.

[1:45:54] And then they just moved it on through, they just shoved it on through.

[1:45:57] And there was really nothing this commission could do about it.

[1:46:02] And so I think no matter how you change the code to accomplish these things,

[1:46:07] which I would be in favor of.

[1:46:09] I don't know that the process makes it any more meaningful.

[1:46:13] I think we'll say we don't like it and we don't approve it,

[1:46:16] and it ought to be different.

[1:46:18] And then it'll go on up and depending on how the hearing goes,

[1:46:21] day and over, new day, nothing we said matters.

[1:46:26] If they can convince the BCA, and this is not a criticism of the BCA at all, it's just the process I'm very critical of.

[1:46:34] So it's like, why do we even bother?

[1:46:36] Now, maybe the lesson learned is that we can be maybe I should have been more aggressive at the concept stage.

[1:46:45] But say the commission that said we don't like it, we don't want residents on it, we don't approve the concept plan.

[1:46:51] And they come back at the next stage full of residences.

[1:46:55] What do we do about it?

[1:46:57] We can say we don't like it again.

[1:46:59] We still don't like it.

[1:46:59] We didn't like it last time.

[1:47:00] We don't like it this time.

[1:47:01] Too bad.

[1:47:02] We deny it.

[1:47:03] They appeal it.

[1:47:04] It goes in.

[1:47:06] So I don't know what the bigger solution is because I think we did a very good job in articulating.

[1:47:14] Well, first of all, listening to the community.

[1:47:17] And then looking at the bigger picture.

[1:47:18] this thing doesn't fit where it's going. It just doesn't. And you can you can dress it up

[1:47:25] and you can decorate it and you can make you put pretty lights on it. It's still in the wrong place

[1:47:29] for the wrong use right now and it isn't safe for the reasons that we said. That's a busy highway

[1:47:35] and there's not even going to be a crosswalk or a walk indicator. I worry that somebody's going

[1:47:41] get hurt or killed there. And yet it's going in. So I have, I don't know, I'm frustrated by

[1:47:49] all this. And Michael, I didn't give you a chance to be, I'm sorry about that. So Michael, did you

[1:47:55] have a comment? I know Pete, you have a comment too. I was, Jeff, I was just going to, you know,

[1:48:00] pretty much say what you were saying. It's frustrating. You know, this was one of my first cases I

[1:48:06] Yes, when I joined the board and specifically remember you wasn't confrontational, but, you know, bringing those guys holding them their feet to the fire and saying, hey, we asked you to do this when you were here and nothing's been done and then they go and change take the landscaping out at the final, you know, kind of it's like okay, why do we have the code?

[1:48:31] And then the BZA to overturn it, despite what the code says or the May, when that May word gives us the power to say,

[1:48:42] no, this has to change. We don't like this blah blah blah. With no regard to that.

[1:48:49] And it's just, it's frustrating. I sense your frustration and you're right. It's like,

[1:48:54] why something else, there's the disconnect somewhere in that appeal between us and the BZA and the BZA, did they review our meeting notes? Did they review the recording of those meetings? Did they review your statements about when it first came through?

[1:49:15] I doubt. Doesn't seem like it. Do they ask for any further input? No.

[1:49:22] That's the disconnect. So what's the purpose of having the code? What's the purpose of having

[1:49:31] these processes in place so that we can offer feedback to the developer and say,

[1:49:38] this isn't going to work here. You need to do this, this, and this, and then for them to ignore it

[1:49:42] or peel it and win, there's that's that just connect that thing between the

[1:49:47] piece of the way and the planings are in the kitchen.

[1:49:51] I guess what I wanted to say is I value and respect the fact that the developer has

[1:50:02] rights to the extent that an appeal is exactly that.

[1:50:07] He's appealing to someone else, you know, can you not take another look at this?

[1:50:11] And so to give them the right of appeal is a great thing.

[1:50:17] Having said that, Jim, I'm wondering if we had language

[1:50:22] and I don't mean to put you on the spot.

[1:50:24] So this doesn't require you to respond.

[1:50:27] But if the language, like I think Michael is kind of headed there,

[1:50:31] the word may.

[1:50:32] I mean, if there were stronger language that in certain circumstances,

[1:50:37] you know, better exceptional or I don't know what it would be. But you know, there's the

[1:50:44] word may open us up to where we're being arbitrary and capricious, you know, or can you

[1:50:50] set a standard that says, look, in certain circumstances, this could be done, but it's going

[1:50:59] to be rare. You know, how do you do that? How do you write that? And so, you know, good look

[1:51:03] with that job.

[1:51:05] The right, very carefully is how you write it, because as you said in this, there are

[1:51:12] a group of arbitrary recesses, and also do processes using constitutional issues with equal

[1:51:18] protection.

[1:51:20] You know, just both the treat everyone the same way, and that goes to developers even, just

[1:51:27] because they make a lot of money doesn't mean they lose a legal protection, so there would

[1:51:33] concerns, there's always concerns when the government has discretion and they use that discretion

[1:51:42] to make differences between person A and person B based on a sort of arbitrary and the

[1:51:51] precious matters you were saying before. So we can certainly explore language to do that, but we'd

[1:51:58] to do it very carefully.

[1:52:01] And then that is where I fall back to,

[1:52:04] and again, I'll be quiet

[1:52:05] because I know that people that wanna talk

[1:52:06] that are citizens.

[1:52:08] And that's where when it gets approved,

[1:52:10] you're gonna, from a landscaping standpoint,

[1:52:12] from a lighting standpoint,

[1:52:13] from a safety and security standpoint,

[1:52:16] from a traffic's pattern standpoint,

[1:52:19] and from an architectural, just being welcoming

[1:52:23] as a residence, it needs to be upgraded

[1:52:27] in certain ways. How we do that? I don't know. I really don't. I wish I wish I didn't.

[1:52:34] My question would be, could we make it where the wording would be as it would be

[1:52:40] part of a community? Because the ones that I've seen that look good are attached to a community.

[1:52:46] I mean, because, you know, if you build a nice, I mean, you know, as you said, we need much more

[1:52:51] or we need more housing and care organic everywhere.

[1:52:59] And if it was attached to a community like some of the ones

[1:53:01] that I've seen, I mean, I think they look good,

[1:53:04] even as long as you have the architect right on the front of it,

[1:53:09] as you're entering a development or kind of a strip

[1:53:12] mall attached to a development, they look good.

[1:53:18] So.

[1:53:18] Yeah, certainly not lying with me, 10 is poor.

[1:53:23] The question I come back to though, even if we do that, I mean, in some ways we did that.

[1:53:27] I mean, here it has to be, I mean, part of what we're required to look at is whatever the project is consistent with the master plan.

[1:53:35] Is it consistent with the surrounding community?

[1:53:38] And we're asked to exercise discretion around that.

[1:53:41] We take input from the community.

[1:53:44] Lots of people came in and talked to us. Lots of people sent us letters.

[1:53:47] We take all of that into account.

[1:53:49] We exercise discretion, we hold up that standard, so we can, you know, would this be better as part of a community?

[1:53:55] How does this fit with the surrounding community, all of those things, which we did?

[1:53:59] We articulated pretty clearly, I think, between all of us as a commission, in holding those standards up,

[1:54:05] why we thought this one was inconsistent, and therefore shouldn't be approved.

[1:54:10] And I know it beat a dead horse here, but the problem, I think, with the process is when it does get a PO,

[1:54:15] And I certainly understand, I'm the property owner.

[1:54:17] I want the right to appeal, and I don't have a problem with that.

[1:54:20] I have a problem with the fact that the process then takes it to an appeal.

[1:54:24] We're none of the community input.

[1:54:26] He is considered by the BCA.

[1:54:28] None of the letters, none of the comments, none of the conversation,

[1:54:31] the community conversation that happened,

[1:54:33] unless they're all going to sort of descend on Moss on the BCA to do it all again,

[1:54:39] as opposed to the BCA being required to consider the record from below.

[1:54:44] So community citizens aren't inconvenience a second time to try to clear their schedules to go say the same thing they already said before when there's a record of it in the first place.

[1:54:53] So I think the process is the inconsiderate to the community.

[1:54:56] I think it's disrespectful to this commission.

[1:54:59] I think it's.

[1:55:01] I just think it's not the best we can do as a community.

[1:55:04] I think it's deficient in a lot of ways and it's so easily fixable.

[1:55:08] All of that work by the community by this commission.

[1:55:13] could be captured if the appeal just had to be on the record so that they did have to take

[1:55:17] consideration of that. Janice, you would have your hand up.

[1:55:22] I do think one place we fell short, we heard the concept plan and I could have sworn we said

[1:55:33] we wanted to see it back, but that was quite some time back and not everybody was a part of the

[1:55:40] mission then, but it came back to us in a final plan. So then we were trying to backtrack

[1:55:50] and tell them what to do and it's the frustration came over and then motions were made

[1:55:58] We said, no, so I think we need to be more cognizant of front and make sure that if it is a concept plan and it appears questionable that we stipulate that we need to see the preliminary before it comes back before final.

[1:56:22] So, yeah, and that's a great question because Janice, or part of you, Linda, from a process

[1:56:30] standpoint, if this something like this were to happen in the future, you know, where we,

[1:56:36] we've seen something and we said a few things and it comes back and they didn't do anything.

[1:56:41] Well, our action this time, we, you know, we denied it.

[1:56:48] could the alternative have been, you were not ready to approve this yet.

[1:56:55] We're not going to deny it, but we're also not going to approve it.

[1:56:58] You need to go back. Could we have done that again to the sky?

[1:57:04] I don't think we could do that, and Jim, please crack me if I'm wrong,

[1:57:07] but I think you could have approved it with additional conditions that you wanted to see

[1:57:12] as far as the landscape being in stuff goes.

[1:57:14] If you thought that was sub-sub-par, so like in your latitude range, you can change signs.

[1:57:24] You can change parking traffic patterns.

[1:57:27] We're interested to do it on our property.

[1:57:30] You can ask for more landscaping and you could have held them to that too.

[1:57:36] I think those are some things that definitely can be done.

[1:57:39] I'm not sure if the idea there's supposed to take your concerns at concept

[1:57:44] and bring them back. And it should, your concern should be what they go from concert to preliminary to final.

[1:57:52] I mean, that really should have been done.

[1:57:56] So my, so then I hear you on that. If I'm a developer and I don't want to do what we're suggesting. I bring it at concept.

[1:58:02] Commission says, you got to change all these things. I leave, I come back.

[1:58:08] I didn't change any of them. I'm now at final. I didn't like any of the commissions ideas or requirements.

[1:58:13] or conditions. So I say, here we are final. I know you had all these conditions. I know you

[1:58:18] wanted all this extra landscaping. I'm not doing it. I'm just not doing it. We deny it. It's

[1:58:26] really sort of what happened here, including at five. No, they even took away some of the landscaping.

[1:58:33] So we get somebody who's just the fire. You know, they come in at concept. We couldn't be clear.

[1:58:37] Yeah, we could have been clear. I get that. Suppose we were. I'm not sure it would have been different.

[1:58:42] I'm pretty sure they would have come back and said, yeah, we heard you with our ears, but we're not doing any of the things that you want.

[1:58:49] Now on the final, now what can we do is a commission at final?

[1:58:55] Yes, we can ask for special report.

[1:58:56] Maybe after they come in a concept, we want a special report that come back at the special report.

[1:59:02] They're still defiant.

[1:59:04] So we want another special report, maybe we want five special reports.

[1:59:07] You know, at some point, we get to the end point.

[1:59:09] And they've either done what we want or they haven't.

[1:59:13] And if they just haven't, what can we do?

[1:59:17] Other than keep adding conditions or, you know,

[1:59:20] say we want a 40 foot bar on the whole place or, you know,

[1:59:23] things like that.

[1:59:24] Ultimately, at some point, it gets across the finish line.

[1:59:27] And then it goes up on the day-no-vo appeal.

[1:59:30] And so it's really, you know, we have the, you know,

[1:59:35] But the fight, I guess, petitioner at concept.

[1:59:41] What do we do as a commission?

[1:59:42] And that's not an answer for tonight.

[1:59:43] It's just, you know, we're working hard to do the things the code says we're supposed to do.

[1:59:51] And we're listening to the community and we're balancing out,

[1:59:53] and we're exercising our discretion consistent with the master plan

[1:59:57] and some around the community and all of those things.

[2:00:00] Community agrees without sometimes they disagree. But we always have taken it seriously. We've always taken all that information.

[2:00:06] And we always consider those things to what end, I guess. So Jim, you have a green light on.

[2:00:16] Yes, I just wanted to follow up on and I understand all of your frustration with the appeal process.

[2:00:23] And I just want to emphasize that is a function of state case law and not the county code.

[2:00:29] No, I know that, because I'd raise the issue with you.

[2:00:32] I used the word as a hard wire in the code and your answer, your legal advice is

[2:00:37] rightly that it is.

[2:00:40] That doesn't mean I have to like it and it doesn't mean I think it's right or fair.

[2:00:44] Because I think it's, I think it's a, I think it's a significant flaw.

[2:00:50] And changing that would, would fix a lot of the things that we're talking about.

[2:00:55] Tonight still gives up fuel rights.

[2:00:57] I just think it would be a more meaningful appeal to everybody involved if we're on the record.

[2:01:04] Because we're doing our work, but the record is of no value is the problem.

[2:01:11] So anyway, why I appreciate everybody's one-less thing to me, Van, which is a lot of worthless thing that's being done.

[2:01:20] But maybe there'll be a way at some point in the future where that could change for the better.

[2:01:25] Stephen, did you have a question or a comment?

[2:01:28] Yeah, no, no.

[2:01:28] I was just kind of commenting on use or to define.

[2:01:32] And I do remember when the developer came in,

[2:01:35] he definitely was very, I guess,

[2:01:38] standoffish was probably the best way to describe his demeanor

[2:01:42] with not only us, but with the members of the public

[2:01:45] that actually came out in mass, you know,

[2:01:48] as the largest amount of citizens come out against anything,

[2:01:54] really, you know, to one of our in-person meetings. I mean, that's just a really good way to describe it because

[2:01:59] it definitely was defined or stand-off-ishness. I guess you get say from the word go.

[2:02:08] Yeah, I think so. And look, that's their prerogative and they can do that. And you know, that's all right.

[2:02:16] I just would like the communities input and our exercise and discretion to be more meaningful,

[2:02:22] I guess, and be part of the consideration as it moves through the process.

[2:02:26] I think the VCA, if I were on the VCA, I would appreciate having that record as opposed to having to

[2:02:32] develop it all from scratch every time. If we're doing our job, their job should be better.

[2:02:38] We should elevate the decision-making process because we're elevating the conversation because we're

[2:02:42] bringing more to the table. Instead, they've got to do all the lifting all the time.

[2:02:46] and it's one person. It's just it's a it's a bad set up for everybody.

[2:02:53] So anyway, I'll get up my high-force and I guess Linda's or anything else on this

[2:02:58] before we open up the general public comment.

[2:03:01] No, that's all we do have a speaker Bill McCormick who actually also sent in a

[2:03:07] comment letter and a petition to the Planning and Zoning Commission earlier this

[2:03:12] So he just wants to comment on the topic.

[2:03:17] So I'm going to turn that over to he and Lord on New York.

[2:03:20] There you go, Bill McCarty.

[2:03:23] Can y'all hear me?

[2:03:25] Yes, yes.

[2:03:26] Great.

[2:03:27] I first want to say that I really appreciate you taking time to listen to the

[2:03:31] concerns.

[2:03:33] I know you do.

[2:03:34] I know you take it seriously.

[2:03:36] So I definitely appreciate that.

[2:03:39] I just, I know it didn't come across this way when whoever said it said it, but I think the phrase was an unfortunate lesson learned from the county perspective and, you know, from our perspective, it's a little bit more than that.

[2:03:54] You know, developers invest money, you know, somebody said tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, but there are dozens of citizens who have invested tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[2:04:04] They can care all county their home and I believe they have rights too. I believe in if you should should be its own zone

[2:04:13] I can't remember who said it but somebody said this particular topic shouldn't be addressed at this time

[2:04:18] because it would affect every

[2:04:21] commercial property in the county

[2:04:24] I think that's kind of the point nobody should really be able to just laugh apartments in any commercials on in the county

[2:04:30] It's mixed use with its own zone and we're allowed for more transparency within the community.

[2:04:35] It would allow the planning and zoning commission more oversight into ensuring mixed use zones fit with the surrounding community.

[2:04:42] At a minimum, though, I think the code for Plankermerseless Centers needs to be overhauled with regards to access where use.

[2:04:49] The current code is sloppy, seems like apartments are just kind of slapped on as an afterthought.

[2:04:54] Just to kind of quote unquote keep up with what is thought to be the current trend in community development.

[2:05:00] But based on input from at least one source, our previous state delegates, Susan Krebs, what was submitted to the planning and zoning commission to illustrating what mixed use could look like is in no way in no way in the way resembles past projects or currently plan projects.

[2:05:17] Given this estimate that the process was flawed and misguided and definitely misrepresented.

[2:05:23] the current code allows for discretion. However, not all parties that rule on these cases understand

[2:05:30] that or care to use that discretion. Given this mislimant standards should be developed in order

[2:05:36] to maintain a higher standard for our community as a whole. The argument against standards for

[2:05:42] whatever reason is that of property rights. However, property rights do not come with carte wants

[2:05:47] to undertake any endeavor on property that you want. I can't open a bar my basement, I can't open

[2:05:52] of firing range on a half acre of land.

[2:05:55] I can't open a dispensary within certain distance from schools.

[2:05:58] There should be standards.

[2:06:00] Besides, I've mentioned the petition that I submitted,

[2:06:02] I submitted that petition of people who are

[2:06:05] agreed with removing second story apartments

[2:06:07] from plant commercial center code.

[2:06:09] I'd also ask that you take into consideration those who

[2:06:12] have been critical of these types of projects very recently

[2:06:15] by writing into you guys.

[2:06:18] So, somebody mentioned that the projects which are currently underway, it's kind of tough to stop that, and that's kind of confusing, which is kind of the reason we were here.

[2:06:31] I would ask that if you do agree that this particular use should be more thoughtfully executed, that you make your motion, when you decide to, that the code take effect that data is passed for all projects that have not been issued a building permit and broken grounds.

[2:06:47] County Code should not be written in stone. I would ask if it's considered to be

[2:06:51] the second story of apartments from play for Marshall Smith until something that the

[2:06:54] community can be proud of can be thought to be introduced. And then again, thank you

[2:06:59] for listening to me.

[2:07:02] Thank you, Sarah. Is there anyone else that is on the line to offer public comment?

[2:07:11] No, I believe he was the only person that signed up for this evening.

[2:07:14] Okay, very good. Then we've reached the end of our agenda.

[2:07:19] We're on item 12, which is the German. So is there a motion that we adjourn?

[2:07:27] I'll move we adjourn. I'll see you back. All right, motion the second all in favor of adjourn, it's A.

[2:07:34] All right. All right, thank you. Thanks, unanimous. Thank you all very, very much. Great to see you in the evening and we'll see you in the next few minutes.

Carroll County Planning and Zoning Commission Evening Meeting

Transcript