[0:02] Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Planning Commission meeting for September

[0:09] 3rd. I'm thirsty. If I don't seem like I'm quite with it, because Mr. Hickman always

[0:16] does a heck of a job and I just sit here and follow along. So I'm going to do the best

[0:20] I can. He's not going to be joining us today.

[0:24] So first we take attendance and we've got

[0:28] very strong here Sean Quinn I mean Sean Jones there we go

[0:36] yeah and Jonathan Quinn yeah Ray Craig go crowd

[0:41] I got one of these days I'll learn who's on the move

[0:43] for Al Paul Ruggie first

[0:49] we'll everybody read the minutes is there

[0:52] I have a motion to accept or are any corrections move to accept the

[0:57] Minutes as stated.

[0:58] Second.

[0:59] Move motion to the second, all in favor say aye.

[1:02] Aye.

[1:03] Aye.

[1:05] Motion carried.

[1:07] Okay.

[1:07] First, first up.

[1:09] This will be the Warford Handys Point, a preliminary final site plan for a board storage area.

[1:17] Carla, would you like to give us a little preview?

[1:23] Good afternoon.

[1:24] Carla Gerber, Planning Director.

[1:27] I'm here to present the staff report for the Warford Handys Point.

[1:32] for their out-of-water boat storage area.

[1:36] It's the proposing to construct a 2.837 acre gravel storage area on their 39 acre parcel located at the end of Greenpoint Road near Wharton.

[1:47] The storage area will tie into an existing gravel area and there will be space for at least 124 boats.

[1:53] Currently out-of-water boat storage utilizes the parking lot from the arena and during the off-season vehicular pedestrian movement becomes dangerous and difficult.

[2:00] The new storage area will separate car parking from boat parking and the parcel is owned

[2:05] marine and surrounding areas in mix of residential and agricultural uses.

[2:11] The relevant issues, the applicable laws article 3 section 2, number 46, which permit out-of-water

[2:19] boat storage but not multi-level boat storage, so this is a permitted principle use.

[2:26] The application meets the setback requirements and includes of 25 feet from off of Green

[2:34] Point Road, 500 feet from Wharton Creek, and there will also be a 7-foot chain leak security

[2:42] fence with strands of barbed wire on the top for a total height of 8 feet.

[2:47] Site plan review standards are found in Article 4, Section 1.3 of the Unified Development

[2:52] ordinance which outlines the objectives that must be fulfilled at each stage of the process.

[2:57] Staff and tack comments. The proposal is consistent with strategy and goals of the comprehensive plan.

[3:04] Separating the out-of-water boat storage area from the vehicle parking area will improve safety.

[3:10] There are no known unreasonable demands on public services and infrastructure.

[3:13] structure. There are, as had been discussed at concept review, the dumpster has been located

[3:22] toward the center of the boat storage area. The sufficient parking is provided. The applicant

[3:29] is not proposing any new landscaping. There is an existing hedge of white pines and hardwoods

[3:37] long Greenpoint Road. There is an existing forest at Buffer along the Ward Creek and given

[3:42] the park that the park for this site is well-screened. Let's see. The nodal lights will be installed

[3:51] in the Boat Storage area. There are some existing lights on the pole barn building that's already

[3:57] on site. Those will remain, but there aren't any additional lights.

[4:03] They have meant the 10%

[4:05] that water quality improvement standard for the intense development areas.

[4:10] They have applied to MDE for a general permit for discharges of storm water associated with construction activity.

[4:18] And so staff recommends that preliminary and final approval may be granted.

[4:28] And then signing of any site plans would be conditioned on getting approval from MDE

[4:33] of that general discharge permit and submission of any required

[4:38] sureties for sediment control or storm water management.

[4:42] There have been no correspondence on the application.

[4:45] Thank you, Carl.

[4:50] From the applicant that would like to give us an overview.

[4:56] Those of you who please keep standing, raise your right hand.

[4:59] You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

[5:04] Yes.

[5:04] Okay, he states your name and address for the record please.

[5:09] Bucknickerson, 2, 3, 6, 8, 0, Reikens Branch Road, Chester Town, Maryland.

[5:14] Chris Meyer, 1, 1, 0, 3, 0, St. James, New Town Road, Ward, Maryland.

[5:18] Thank you.

[5:23] This board saw the concept plan well over a year ago, not much has changed since that concept

[5:30] plan other than the addition of the dumpster, like Carla mentioned, and the question was brought

[5:36] about the lighting, and it was decided that no lighting would be needed for this site,

[5:40] because basically it's fenced in closed off and there's really no reason anybody should

[5:44] be there after dark.

[5:48] So the big hold-up has been stormwater management of getting a analysis done of the existing

[5:55] pond.

[5:56] This site currently drains to a pond and the proposed grading will go to the pond and we

[6:03] needed to mathematically prove that that pond would store the runoff from that to meet the

[6:08] regulations.

[6:09] And that was a hold-up trying to get somebody to run a HUDDRACAD report for that.

[6:15] We had a couple different options that kept falling through, but we finally got it accomplished.

[6:19] Back

[6:22] to the fencing, is there any security like for at night, is there any security as in people?

[6:29] Yeah, you know, somebody should, you know, you have an onsite manager, the end employee that live on the site.

[6:36] Yeah, they live on a site, but the boat's up here, is there a way we do have cameras?

[6:43] Yes, it's just curious, maybe you don't want to tell anybody, but they can say it's deterrence

[6:50] is great too.

[6:51] Unfortunately, in today's world, as long as there's boats are pretty expensive.

[6:57] Yeah.

[6:59] I also have full-size copies of both the site plan and the stormwood or management plan.

[7:04] I know sometimes it's hard to read a reduction of a two-foot by three-foot sheet down to a eight-and-a-half by eleven

[7:10] So I have full-size copies of anybody would like to look at them or if anything any reason arises that we need to

[7:17] The study of those in detail

[7:19] One

[7:24] other question I had this

[7:31] site plan here. Does this go up to where that restaurant was?

[7:36] It's a different Marina that's that's your at work Creek Marina

[7:39] this is the next marina up or towards the mouth of Wharton Creek at the

[7:45] end of Green Point Road. There was never been right around at the end of Green

[7:49] Point.

[7:56] I was looking at that off the space up there looks like a restaurant

[7:58] sometimes. Well it used to be a restaurant I thought. I never got served there.

[8:06] I've been here over 12 years I think ways back they used to be one. Okay.

[8:12] But the evaluation on the pond waste water being the whole is it? Is that for your MDE

[8:19] district permit? Yes. Okay. That's what it's all about. And actually, it's kind of a two-sake

[8:26] phase thing we have to get the storm water management plan proved through the county, but also

[8:31] because the site is over an acre of disturbance, you have to have the MDE NLI notification of intent.

[8:37] And that gives the state the option to do additional review or maybe more detailed.

[8:42] What I'm kind of expecting, the Marine already has a stormwater pollution prevention plan

[8:48] in play, an SWPPP, and like they don't have enough acronyms, but it's basically follows

[8:56] the same protocol as far as, you know, if there's a storm event, you know, you check your discharge

[9:01] points, you look for erosion, you look for any problems, you fix them, keep track of all

[9:05] that kind of stuff.

[9:06] So the two run in parallel, so if they do hit us up with wanting that, I can basically take the stormwater pollution prevention plan and mimic that, so that's under review has been submitted to the MDE just waiting for reply.

[9:22] What

[9:33] is it might one

[9:37] of the TV motion

[9:51] we grant major site plan preliminary and final approval for to work at handy point and

[9:57] Corporated

[9:59] We find they've met all

[10:02] Permanent to

[10:05] article four

[10:07] Section three of the County Unified Development Ordnance in

[10:23] the Department of Environment

[10:25] For their general permit to discharge stormwater and associated

[10:29] associated with construction, activity, and submission of the required

[10:35] suities for sediment control and storm water management.

[10:39] Any

[10:48] strong?

[10:49] Aye.

[10:50] Sean Jones?

[10:52] Aye.

[10:52] Mr. Quinn?

[10:53] Aye.

[10:54] Mr. Craig?

[10:55] Aye.

[10:55] Any info?

[10:56] Any info?

[11:01] Any info?

[11:01] Thank you so much.

[11:02] We are talking.

[11:25] Tony Agenda is for the Kent County Government, the Major Site Plan, Preliminary and

[11:31] the FOIL and Millington and the wastewater treatment plan.

[11:37] You first there.

[11:39] Carly Gerber again, so this is the site plan for the county's proposed wastewater treatment

[11:47] plan for the town of Millington and the surrounding growth area.

[11:52] The plan will be located on a newly created 6.6 acre lot that will initially be accessed

[11:59] via a private road.

[12:00] The plan will serve, as I noted, the regional wastewater treatment needs, the parcel is located entirely within the mixed use development critical area district and it is consistent with the county's comprehensive plan.

[12:16] The proposed wastewater treatment plan will be owned and operated by the county and therefore is a public utility that is permitted by right.

[12:25] The design standards, the applicable laws Article 4, Section 3.6, staff notes that the engineers

[12:34] on this plan are working to design the wastewater treatment plan are aware of standards related

[12:41] to landscaping and the performance standards for the certified engineers report.

[12:51] and they have indicated a willingness to comply with those standards, however,

[12:56] those items have not been submitted at this time.

[12:59] Site plan review is Article 4, Section 1.3, which again has a list of objectives to be met.

[13:06] Staff comments.

[13:07] The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

[13:11] It's consistent with the general intent and use design and environmental standards in the unified development ordinance.

[13:16] And the county continues to work through the approval process with MDE.

[13:22] Convenience and safety of vehicular pedestrian movements have been considered.

[13:26] There are no known unreasonable demands on public services and infrastructure.

[13:31] The proposed plan will place an existing plan that is currently located in the floodplain.

[13:36] And it will also be upgraded to current best technology, so therefore it will improve environmental conditions.

[13:43] Sentiment control and storm water management will be implemented according to approved plans.

[13:48] No tree removal is anticipated.

[13:51] The development meets the required setbacks.

[13:57] As noted, a landscape buffer will be provided to screen the facility from the surrounding

[14:03] property owners.

[14:04] We have not seen the details of that buffer yet.

[14:07] There are adequate provisions for off-street parking.

[14:10] including the plant, while it does need some screening has also been cited to take advantage

[14:17] of existing mature vegetation to protect the surrounding area.

[14:22] And staff recommends granting preliminary site plan approval, but you can certainly at

[14:30] your discretion consider granting both preliminary and final contingent upon the couple of items

[14:37] that are still outstanding and I have not received any correspondence on this.

[14:47] Other than landscaping, is that the anything that's outstanding?

[14:50] The Certified Engineers Report, which again I would expect this to be in compliance.

[14:55] Those are the noise, does particulate matter or odor report.

[15:00] We're meant that the county has.

[15:07] With the civil consultant, actually, KCI technology. The whole

[15:17] truth and nothing but the truth. Yes, I can say your name and address and record. My name is Jim Lover. I'm here representing KCA to KCI technologies. We're located in Newark, Delaware, at 600 White Clay Center Drive.

[15:35] I guess what I'd like to say today is that we're well aware of the comments from Carla's office. We also just received comments regarding our storm

[15:42] on water management design, as far as having not submitted the landscaping plan yet, to be quite honest, we hadn't done that on purpose, we didn't want to throw good money after bed without storm water management comments first, so we know we're going to have to change the grading a little bit to address those comments, we might need an extra pipe here or there, and we owe a pretty significant buffer for screening both for code requirement purposes, but as also as a condition of the land sale, we owe additional landscaping.

[16:11] We owe a substantial landscaping buffer around the perimeter of this property and we didn't want to

[16:16] Put a significant design together and then have to go backwards in our in our process one we found out

[16:21] We had to change some grading here at a swell there are those types of things

[16:24] So we were I apologize for not having submitted it

[16:27] But we were aware that we were you know needed to do that moving forward once we got those technical comments back about the stormwater management

[16:33] I

[16:40] guess you know that's

[16:43] one thing but grant since the landscape and then it has to be

[16:47] pretty well reviewed by the developer around you.

[16:52] I think it might be wise to let him take a look at it

[16:55] before we get somebody fine on it.

[16:57] That's the only holdup I would say, you know.

[17:03] Is that a holdup?

[17:04] I'm just curious, you show one way in,

[17:07] is there two, is there another access?

[17:10] No, the one way in is going to be temporary

[17:13] and then the property is going to be developed around us

[17:16] and then once it's developed around us,

[17:18] I am under the impression that the road that we're building will remain.

[17:23] And then there will be a new road constructed that actually takes us out to the main road that we front on.

[17:32] So, but those things are beyond our control.

[17:35] Those are in the hands of the developer of developing the rest of the property around us.

[17:39] So, for temporarily, we're going to have-

[17:42] I guess I would have to ask you say it's beyond your control, but

[17:44] It's supposed to develop or decide she doesn't want you to have any access.

[17:48] Well, those agreements, what gives you the protection that you need to keep that ingress in egress area?

[18:00] Those agreements are all worked into the sale of the 6.6 acres that he sold to us.

[18:04] So he is committed to building that additional entry.

[18:08] I have a little concern with that.

[18:11] That's just a good point out that the property

[18:14] that the county owned also has frontential long route 291.

[18:18] But it does.

[18:19] In a worst-case scenario,

[18:21] that county could put in its own interest.

[18:23] Well, that's kind of where it was going.

[18:25] Maybe would it make sense to delineate it on a site plan

[18:29] where it could be?

[18:31] No, I think that county's agreements with the county

[18:34] has for how to access this sufficient.

[18:45] Now,

[18:48] I'm just bringing it up because I just think that something should happen on that

[18:54] road to get in and out.

[18:58] There needs to be maybe some other designated area other than getting a bulldozer and just

[19:03] making a road when you have to.

[19:06] So

[19:10] maybe down the road, if you want to do something else there, or add something to it, it just

[19:16] needs to.

[19:16] It's just my thought, so I think it's worth no

[19:26] more comments up here.

[19:27] Anybody from the public that are on the screen, is there anybody that would like to make

[19:34] a comment?

[19:39] Seeing none, I guess we'll entertain a motion here.

[19:45] That we grant preliminary site plan approval for the County Government for their Millington

[19:53] In wastewater treatment plan on map 31, parcel 6, lot 1,

[19:59] fine and they have substantially answered most of the questions in Article 4, section 3.6 of the Kent County Unified Development Ordnance.

[20:12] the

[20:19] motion do we have a second?

[20:26] Yes.

[20:27] Sean?

[20:28] Yes.

[20:32] And I'll say yes.

[20:34] I'll vote with the majority.

[20:38] So I'll set the go.

[20:39] Thank you, gentlemen.

[20:41] I've been head-started anyway.

[20:53] Should I add it to the minute situation we've recouped?

[20:56] Not a pre-tune Mr. So.

[20:59] We'll make sure that gets there.

[21:08] Senator agenda.

[21:15] Chester town community energy initiative for a preliminary site plan review of their utility scale

[21:21] All right Paul Keane and the new associate planner here for Kent County. So this is the first time I'm presenting for this committee. So this should be fun.

[21:32] So I'm presenting today the Chester Town Community Energy Initiative site. So it's at 10263 Wharton Road in Chester Town.

[21:41] It's in the third election district. It's owned for the Employment Center zoning.

[21:46] So it's a 72 acre parcel, it's about 16 of it is being used for this particular project.

[21:58] There's no demolition, grading or tree clearing or wetland disturbance as part of this project.

[22:04] All of the work is occurring inside of the employment center zoning.

[22:09] The rest of the parcel is known for agriculture.

[22:11] culture. The

[22:17] subject parcel is bisected by a separate parcel that opens to open water

[22:22] upon an intermittent stream. So this project also includes some assistance with making sure

[22:30] that stays delineated. The proposed limited disturbance is 16 acres, 35 foot wide perimeter landscaping

[22:39] buffer. It's planned to be around the facility. The project will egress from Wharton Road.

[22:45] Once in operation, traffic to and from the site is expected to be minimal.

[22:51] So the project

[22:54] meets the applicable laws in Article 5, Section 4 of the U.K. Development Ordnance for requirements

[23:00] for setbacks, insulation and maintenance standards along with landscaping and irrigation requirements.

[23:07] The proposed up-back for the area air abuse is required a hundred feet greater from any

[23:13] lot line of the projected site.

[23:15] The project uses six above-ground utility poles within the site.

[23:20] We requested those to be moved underground if possible.

[23:23] The applicant and Delmarva power both preferred above ground power to the site, so we've agreed

[23:29] with that.

[23:30] They've also provided a glare assessment, which shows there's no anticipated glare as a result

[23:35] to the project.

[23:40] They submitted a forest conservation worksheet even though there is no plan to disturbance

[23:44] of trees on the site. They've also submitted a landscape maintenance plan in lieu of using

[23:50] the traditional irrigation methods. They're using a combination of watering bags and watering

[23:55] trucks to facilitate the landscaping plan. They also have submitted a preliminary support

[24:02] of water management plan, and at this time we are just simply waiting on an SHA approval

[24:10] for the site.

[24:16] Staff recommends granting a preliminary site approval or a preliminary

[24:20] plan approval for this site.

[24:33] I'm going back to these polls.

[24:37] The coordinate says that there's to be no above-ground utilities,

[24:43] And I guess my problem is it doesn't say unless the developer and the power company decide they'd rather have a

[24:52] Above ground and underground, but you know they they never want to put them underground. We have it in there.

[25:01] We I don't know where it says that it's just because you decide you'd rather have them above ground. You can have them above ground.

[25:09] You know, and I said when you came in here for concept or they came in here for concept that we wanted some letter then from Del Marva saying that they wanted them above ground and not underground.

[25:21] I mean if you're building a house and the county says you got to have 50 foot entrance and you and the builder decide you don't want to have 50 feet, you want to have 20 feet, you can't do that.

[25:35] If Del Marva and Choptank are going to continually say they prefer them above ground, then they should come in here and ask for their zoning ordinance to be amended to say that.

[25:50] That's my opinion I would anyhow.

[25:54] They did provide the letter as you requested, so there is a letter.

[25:58] Well, I think they need to amend the ordinance because it says you won't do it.

[26:03] It doesn't say you have that ability to change it just because you want to have them above ground.

[26:09] They can come in and convince the planning commission and then the commissioners that, you know,

[26:15] would safer to have them above ground than fine.

[26:20] But my gosh, they sat there and, you know, in my opinion, they gutted air utility scales

[26:27] zoning ordinance to begin with and for some reason that was left in there and

[26:31] now they don't want to buy by that. It's

[26:38] hard to do that to you for the day up here.

[26:42] I knew what brought to the gun head. I'm aware.

[26:49] And there's the applicant.

[26:51] Where is it? Do we have a representative from the applicant here?

[27:06] Where is your right hand?

[27:09] You all swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing

[27:11] with the truth? And state your name and address for the record please.

[27:16] My name is Ted Hastings. I'm a senior associate with Beckham-Morgan Associates at a Salisbury, Maryland.

[27:23] That's at 312 West Main Street Salisbury, Maryland and with the Civil Engineers of the project.

[27:29] My name is Jack Rowland and the Director of Development with the applicant, Chester Town Community,

[27:33] Energy Initiative, the parent company's called ECAPower.

[27:36] And the office address is 203 Crescent Street, Suite 106, Waltham, Massachusetts.

[27:42] My name is Nicholas Hetland, I'm a civil engineer with the applicant Testerton Community Initiative ECAPOWER, the same address 203 Preston Street and one of the Massachusetts.

[27:55] Thank you. Obviously we're looking at a solar project. I've seen this before. Under the concept, we went through the technical advisory committee concept.

[28:04] been in front of this board for concept and went back in front of the

[28:08] technical advisory committee and we're here again. This is a 11.52 fence

[28:14] din area of the 72.78 acre parcel where utilizing an existing access off a

[28:22] warden road is going to be improved in order for us to be able to access a site

[28:26] but it's an existing access or using the same access point. It's a two megawatt

[28:31] Not single access tracker, which means it follows the sun.

[28:37] Stomach management and Registration Center control have been reviewed.

[28:41] There's still under review.

[28:42] We had a couple of minor comments over a dresser, and now we're about to re-submit to those

[28:46] agencies.

[28:47] We're to the point now where this project, the LaRais, the fence, the landscaping, the

[28:52] entrance is not going to change.

[28:54] What you see is what you're going to get.

[28:57] With that, and we also submitted this week a preliminary decommissioning plan and an estimate

[29:04] there will be updated obviously when we get to the third party stamp and signature for final,

[29:10] but that can be done prior to the signature of the final signatures of the plan.

[29:15] With that, we ask for this project to be considered for preliminary final, not just preliminary.

[29:23] nothing's going to change, it's going to be the same project throughout.

[29:27] The

[29:30] thing that'll be outstanding is once we get final approval from the Registration

[29:34] Senate Patrol's solar management, that's when we get the estimates for solar

[29:39] management for construction for, you know, all the Registration Senate

[29:43] Patrol measures, just to make sure they don't say that this plan's conceptually approved,

[29:49] this plan's approved contingent upon adding a filter lock here, so that way we

[29:53] we can add that in the last second and make sure that there's estimates or correct.

[30:00] I mentioned the landscaping is going to be maintained using water canons and water bags. They're spot, you know, so when they go up, they can actually hit the base of the trees with water canons. The water bags hang on the trees, which slowly watered the ground. So when you first hit them with water, you know, water has to see to run. The water bags eliminate calm. They'll slowly drip and maintain the ground to be moist and increase the survivability rate of the landscaping.

[30:28] And also the Maryland utility case, and that's 218 states that there has to be a 70%, excuse me, a 90% of our ability rate.

[30:40] So we have the main, they have to maintain and make sure that that landscape maintains a 90% of our ability rate through the life cycle of the project.

[30:51] We submitted it and let

[30:58] you have any questions, but I'm going to give it over to Jack so he can explain a little bit more about the amount of power which seems to be a concern and some other items.

[31:06] Yeah, again, my name is Jack Roland.

[31:08] There are just a couple items that I wanted to circle back on from our last meeting with you.

[31:13] all the first one was in regards to the overhead crossing versus the underground crossing.

[31:19] So, we've expressed the county's ordinance with our contacts at Delmarva Paranlite that

[31:27] it's requirement to be underground.

[31:29] So, we had some additional discussions about going overhead versus doing bidirectional boring

[31:35] and going underneath the road.

[31:37] And so there are a couple of concerns that have come up that sort of are why the rationalist

[31:43] to go overhead here.

[31:45] The first is that there are existing utilities.

[31:49] It's sewer and a three different fiber lines that are on the east side of Wharton Road,

[31:54] so on our side of Wharton Road.

[31:56] And it would be right where a riser would need to be installed for this underground crossing.

[32:00] And then second, there is the potential that there would be PFAS in this soil because of a recent,

[32:08] I think, 2017 EPA report that they're in the groundwater there.

[32:13] So just in the abundance of caution, we like to limit doing additional digging boring,

[32:19] et cetera, on the east side of the property.

[32:23] And so, yeah, we just believe with these complexities and concerns for an underground crossing here,

[32:28] that in this instance going above ground would make more sense.

[32:34] The second thing that we touched on in the last meeting here was I was asked about personal property estimates for the county as well as community benefits.

[32:44] So we hired a third party accounting firm called out Ryan LLC to provide us with some estimates for the personal property taxes for this project.

[32:54] And obviously, this number could change over the next couple of months as prices change

[32:59] and whatnot, but their estimate over the projects 35-year-life would accrue just under

[33:07] $1.3 million in personal property taxes for the county.

[33:11] The first year would be just around 70K, and it'd depreciate around 3.3% a year, and then

[33:17] obviously, real property taxes would go up as well.

[33:20] Additionally, I'd spoken about community benefits that we like to do for projects like

[33:24] With this, I don't know if it's already happened or if it's in a process, but one of our business

[33:29] partners is making a donation to the County County Ag Center, we're going to be making

[33:35] a donation to them as well, and then we're also going to be making a donation, and we're

[33:39] also happy to do training with the Chester Tam Volunteer Fire Company, that's something

[33:44] we do for all of our projects.

[33:47] So I have nothing else to add, I just wanted to bring up those two points from last time

[33:51] that were left someone open.

[33:59] The don't marvellous admitted the letter.

[34:02] Did we see this letter?

[34:04] What did we do?

[34:05] Yeah, it was an email exchange that was submitted.

[34:09] We did see that I apologize if it did not make it to you.

[34:13] Okay.

[34:13] What was the gist of the letter?

[34:14] What's the rationale for why they didn't want to go under?

[34:17] Is that the people?

[34:18] Is that them speaking or is that you speaking?

[34:21] So they brought up the underground utility crossings

[34:24] in the ditch in the front.

[34:26] We're just aware of the PFAS as an additional thing on top of it.

[34:29] But that was your comment.

[34:31] That was my separate comment that we just,

[34:34] because we had additional discussions about it,

[34:36] because we expressed how important it was to the county.

[34:38] But then that came up as just an additional thing

[34:40] during that discussion,

[34:41] which wasn't included on the email.

[34:42] So I'm just sharing that with the group.

[34:48] Question about the watering of the plant.

[34:52] So I've seen in the documents here,

[34:55] you know, you didn't want to do irrigation

[34:58] because there's no well there.

[35:00] and there's also no town water sewer on that side of the road.

[35:05] So, you know, that's a main thoroughfare going into Wharton and all that.

[35:10] And, you know, who's responsible to make sure all this gets water?

[35:16] I mean, my preference on all these sites would be irrigation.

[35:20] So, that's going to give your best survival.

[35:23] Yeah, so it's twofold.

[35:25] Obviously, you can answer the operation,

[35:27] that's very the knock-in for the life cycle of the project.

[35:31] But I mean according to the state law,

[35:36] you have to have the 90% of our ability rate.

[35:41] And also the landscape is bonded through the county.

[35:45] So for any reason, it's not being taken care of,

[35:48] maintain properly, you can pull that bond card out your back pocket

[35:51] and make them do it.

[35:56] It hasn't worked at all so far.

[36:02] There's a lack of accountability.

[36:05] And the other thing was the decommission.

[36:08] It was like with $385,000.

[36:12] How does that ramp up in the future?

[36:17] Because as this goes on, it costs more money to do everything.

[36:22] And so, you know, that doesn't sound like a lot of money

[36:26] to decommission as something happens.

[36:29] I know a lot of other jurisdictions

[36:30] that they have to be re-evaluated every five years.

[36:34] I'm not sure if that's in there, because that's in there.

[36:35] Because it's well.

[36:37] So it does, it has to be re-evaluated five years.

[36:39] So if the bond is up, then obviously,

[36:42] I have to get re-bonded for the higher amount.

[36:47] You have to go up toward this corridor,

[36:50] but on T-70, there's a solar site up there

[36:53] were to, you know, the grass around it is falling manicured and the trees are

[36:59] trimmed. You can't even tell it looks like it looks like a development model, you

[37:03] know, from the radar you can't see it's they keep it very nice and neat and I don't

[37:07] know how we in the county can get accountability to do something similar to this.

[37:17] So part of the solar array is the plant pollinator metamix underneath the

[37:21] So it maintains the site and meta condition, which reduces the runoff from the site.

[37:26] You're going from a farm field to a meta.

[37:29] It actually has a reduction through the TR55 calculations.

[37:33] And you also help out the pollinators.

[37:34] And we're also in a Monarch butterfly corridor then, which helps them out.

[37:38] There's a lot of benefits having that meta mix underneath the array.

[37:43] It gets met a few times a year.

[37:45] Obviously, they don't want it to grow up too high and block the panels where it's not being productive.

[37:50] but they also, we choose a seed mix that doesn't grow too awfully high, but it still has to be made a couple times a year, but that's about it for the inside of the array for the matter area.

[38:01] We're not going to bet the outside, you know.

[38:05] Yes, we would be maintaining the fire break area, immediately outside it, and then we're leasing that that whole area, so we'd be responsible for maintaining that area surrounding the array in the month area.

[38:15] So, what are our local maintenance company to do all that?

[38:19] I mean, you're in Maine, you're not sending a courier down here from Maine?

[38:22] No, so we work with a company called Kilvmiller Brothers.

[38:25] They handle the construction, operations, and management.

[38:28] So, yes, sometimes they will hire a local group to handle the maintenance.

[38:31] Other times, it'll be a career they've been working with for a while.

[38:34] That might be based on a sales break, but that's their decision.

[38:37] But no, we're not sending a courier down from Massachusetts to cut grass.

[38:40] I

[38:43] noticed in your maintenance plan, you'll use herbicides, you know, that piece of property

[38:51] right alongside of this has been sold to a dairy operator that has organic fields and

[38:59] I don't, did we have to provide some protection between that and the organic growth, I don't

[39:06] know.

[39:06] Yeah, I can tell you the meta mix that we used for underneath the array is animal friendly.

[39:13] A lot of these are companies that we deal with do what's called aggregate little takes.

[39:18] You put sheep underneath the array degrees, so it has to be safe for them.

[39:22] I don't think this particular project is proposing that at this point, but if we're any reason

[39:26] down the road, we have chosen to see the mix to be able to do that later on down the road

[39:30] if necessary, if they want to do it.

[39:32] sometimes just cheaper just a lot of a bunch of cheap police underneath the

[39:36] rail instead of bringing somebody in and cutting grass.

[39:51] Last reiterate that we

[39:52] would like preliminary final today if absolutely possible if you feel that's

[39:56] necessary or your acceptable. A couple months ago we made a decision that we wouldn't

[40:03] grant preliminary and final unless it was advertised for final. It was.

[40:08] It

[40:13] was recommending this preliminary.

[40:18] That was at the time the staff report was

[40:21] We didn't have a couple of the items that submitted over the last week.

[40:27] We didn't have a decommissioning plan at that point.

[40:31] There was a miscommunication about the self-destruction of the plan,

[40:34] which we had, they then reasoned it as well.

[40:37] May I ask, so it was advertised as preliminary and final,

[40:42] but the agenda list is preliminary only.

[40:47] So if you aren't going to entertain that,

[40:50] I would ask you make a motion to amend the agenda

[40:53] and then take a vote on that, if that's something that you're going to consider.

[41:04] Let's take some comments.

[41:07] That question, Paolo from Korea, Bill Biber's?

[41:10] Yeah, just a road.

[41:12] So, might just, sir, please come up here, just, uh,

[41:23] Grigory Andrew.

[41:24] Yup.

[41:25] Could you tell the truth, the whole truth, how about the truth?

[41:27] Yes, sir.

[41:28] And name and address to the record, please.

[41:30] Okay.

[41:30] Paolo Fetsi, one idol while better, too.

[41:39] Yeah, so I had the question that's where the neighbors in front across the road

[41:43] The shop tank shut us down to do a solar farm. So I suppose the question is you guys are connecting to them

[41:49] Marva. That's correct. Okay, and so you had no problems to connect to them Marva. Yeah, but the community solar

[41:55] Program, it's with the IOUs like the investor on utilities

[41:58] We've tried working with shop tank. We've not been able to do any community solar projects with them

[42:02] But they're not obligated to do community solar with the state the way down Marva power and light would be. Okay

[42:07] Okay. So, okay. That was my question since the job thing. It does not allow us to do a sort of formal in our land, so thank

[42:17] you.

[42:18] Thank you.

[42:31] My name is Cora Dixon. I live in Rock Hall, Maryland. Do you need my full address?

[42:36] That's the truth. The whole truth is nothing but the truth.

[42:38] I do. I stick to the three boys laying in Rock Hall, Maryland.

[42:42] I'm here as just as a citizen, but I do have a consulting firm called Solid Policy Associates.

[42:47] So, I have a question, maybe for Planck Mission or maybe for a company.

[42:54] You mentioned, a Gauss start with the easy one, you mentioned the community benefits.

[42:57] Is that a written agreement?

[42:59] Like is it written somewhere?

[43:00] Is it just a oral discussion?

[43:02] I just wrote a discussion.

[43:05] And I wanted to ask the county, are you charging the business property tax on electricity, electric

[43:13] generating facilities?

[43:14] that's in a code, have you calculated that?

[43:19] Yes, so over the 35-year lifespan of the project,

[43:25] we expect the personal property taxes

[43:27] to be just under 1.3 million,

[43:29] the first year would be around 70K,

[43:31] because the personal property taxes do show zero percent,

[43:34] but under, I'm linking on the actual ordinance,

[43:37] because it's an energy-generating facility,

[43:39] we are charged to 2.55 percent personal property tax.

[43:42] Somebody said I thought that was a business property tax.

[43:45] It was really confusing.

[43:47] Yeah, that's correct.

[43:48] OK, all right.

[43:49] Thank you.

[43:50] Is

[43:56] there anything else?

[43:57] Anybody else?

[43:59] I come up here for a motion?

[44:02] Question again, first.

[44:03] If you were to tell them, though, Marva,

[44:05] that you wanted the ground, the lines on the ground,

[44:12] would they say, no, we're not doing it?

[44:14] What does that mean?

[44:15] Well, no, they would look into doing it,

[44:17] and they'd probably maybe they'd find a way to do it.

[44:20] but I was just, so like, it's not a hill that we're going to die on or I don't know if we're going to die on.

[44:27] They just expressed those concerns.

[44:30] If we pushed and they absolutely said no, we can't go, or you said absolutely no overhead.

[44:36] Yeah, I'm sure they could find a way to go underground, but just with the soils, the existing utilities that are there,

[44:45] they feel it's the highly preferred method to be overhead here so.

[44:51] They bore these things, when it's a problem, I want them to bore because they can drop it down to 6-7 feet and go right underneath of everything that's out there.

[45:00] It's, it's usually pretty simple, less disturbance, and I was just curious why they were so, so fast on not wanting it. Yeah, initially, yeah, there was fast, but we've had the discussion sense about it. But this why and why and 150 feet roughly do you need six poles? That's three. I think you might have to speak to this. I'm not by any means electrical engineer. Yeah, so they, they want to have their poles. So they're

[45:29] successful and they can manage them and they can construct them and there's.

[45:35] And so they'll do like each one of those polls will hold a piece of equipment

[45:41] necessary for the transmission of the electricity. So that's their preferred method.

[45:48] It's essentially how we do almost all of our projects. You know, so we are we did

[45:54] bring the concern of the county to them. It's not a concern. It's it's the

[45:58] coordinates. Yep, and we shared with them the coordinates too. And so there is a sewer

[46:04] force main. It crosses board and road along the north parcel line and then it comes across

[46:12] the street and then it comes down. So it would be kind of right where that far side of

[46:19] you know the directional board will come out to a force main. You know we haven't measured

[46:25] measured it, but it would probably be forced to be deep.

[46:28] You know, we don't know, but that would be probably right

[46:31] in the area of that.

[46:32] Boring, and then there's the communications

[46:35] and telecommunications lines that are there.

[46:37] There's the roadside swell.

[46:39] We're proposing a new culvert there for the entrance.

[46:45] So those would be the reasons.

[46:48] It's ultimately their decision.

[46:50] Yep.

[46:51] So we not only have the six poles.

[46:53] you got six poles with some sort of devices on them besides wires. So down below

[46:58] there's like a disconnect switch just to and for like the utility other one for

[47:02] the fire department. So those are things that are down there as well but it seems

[47:08] like an awful lot of poles and 150 feet. Yeah that's that's that's their standard

[47:13] cell.

[47:31] They haven't disclosed if it would be higher or lower in this case.

[47:34] We'd be happy to do underground, if that was the preferred method here, and we've done

[47:40] underground on a lot of other projects.

[47:46] Think you can understand why we do what the polls are an issue.

[47:50] I mean it's especially, you know, you're going to drive up

[47:53] road and that's all open land and now you have a bunch of

[47:59] poles hanging up in the air.

[48:01] So the other side of the road, there is that industrial facility.

[48:05] So I will say that.

[48:07] Oh, that's one side of the road.

[48:09] We're trying to keep it from maybe we're trying to keep it from

[48:11] happening on to the other.

[48:12] And if we dig on the ground, the six poles would still be

[48:15] there. That wouldn't change if it was above the line,

[48:18] above the Wharton Road or below it we'd still have those poles to connect our

[48:23] project to the grid on our east side of Wharton Road here

[48:29] just for our three

[48:31] poles and then Del Marbus three poles for safety reasons and that also

[48:34] connected to the grid. We get around that you know you read it it says it's all

[48:41] underground there it says it's all on a above ground but those poles are all

[48:47] about because it's all pole mounted equipment disconnects there's no

[48:51] ground-mounted equipment for a solar field?

[48:54] Not in this case, no.

[48:58] Again, I'm not an electrical engineer, but yeah, not in this case.

[49:06] I'll tell you, I'm willing to give you a preliminary, but you're going to do something about the polls for final,

[49:11] in my opinion.

[49:13] We've done this enough. It's always an excuse that the polls have to be above,

[49:17] and I don't know why it was ever granted the first time.

[49:20] I mean, the ordinance is the ordinance.

[49:24] We can't live with the polls, change the ordinance, and now we're attempt to change it.

[49:29] But you're coming down that road and 150 feet, six utility polls up there, 25 feet or whatever.

[49:41] And we got them on the other side of the road, but we don't have them on that side of the road.

[49:44] And this is called a planning commission, it's not a zoning commission.

[49:59] I'll entertain a motion.

[50:04] Make a motion and grant preliminary approval, if

[50:11] it gets a second.

[50:13] I make a motion and grant preliminary site plan approval for a Chester Town Community

[50:17] Energy Initiative LLC,

[50:22] property located at 10263 Wharton Road, which

[50:35] has got picked up

[50:36] to roam glasses for their 15.98 acre solar field answered

[50:48] most article

[50:55] 4 section 3 all

[51:01] of article 5 section 4 the County Unified Development Ordnance,

[51:11] relation that

[51:14] explanation

[51:16] sufficient to this board and planning and zoning department for the insulation of six above

[51:24] of ground utility poles on the east side of Wharton Road.

[51:29] I

[51:33] have a second.

[51:35] Yeah, I'll second motion.

[51:41] The problem.

[51:41] Yes.

[51:44] Yes.

[51:53] The majority are in

[51:58] the preliminary.

[52:02] Thank you for your time.

[52:03] Thank you.

[52:27] Next on the agenda.

[52:29] We have the, for the town of Galena, preliminary and final site plan for the personal wireless

[52:38] facility tower.

[52:42] Carla Gerber again, just to get it on the record.

[52:45] The town of Galena is requesting a preliminary final site plan review to construct a 180-foot

[52:50] monopole telecommunications tower on the same parcel where their wastewater treatment

[52:56] plant is located.

[52:57] The town was granted a special exception for the tower at the July Board of Appeals meeting.

[53:04] The applicable law is found in Article 4, Section 1.3, staff comments.

[53:10] The applicant's project promotes known goals that are consistent with the comprehensive plan.

[53:15] There are no known issues with the safety or convenience of vehicular ingress and

[53:20] egress, as in the tower will be located within a secure French area with the wastewater

[53:26] treatment plan.

[53:27] And we'll be unmanned with only one month per visits of one month, once per month.

[53:35] There are no known incompatibilities to the surrounding area, the project site, no

[53:39] vegetation will be removed.

[53:41] The proposed limited disturbance poses no known issues with normal operations at the

[53:46] area, and staff recommends granting a final approval.

[53:51] The

[53:56] applicant sort

[54:08] of tell the truth, the whole truth, and not the truth.

[54:10] I do.

[54:11] I do.

[54:12] I do.

[54:16] Administrator for the town of Galena, 101 South Main Street, Galena Maryland, 21635.

[54:23] Mike Gibson, maintenance coordinator, town of Galena, 101 South Main Street, Galena

[54:27] Maryland.

[54:30] We are here today for requesting our final site approval.

[54:35] Since last time that we sat before you, I believe the only change to the final site plan

[54:41] was the retaining wall and showing of the fencing area that

[54:48] that will be going in as well, right?

[54:51] Yeah, and then the, excuse me.

[54:54] I thought what was brought up was the lot lines?

[55:00] Oh, yes, lot lines, too.

[55:02] We did get a vote from Erin Council

[55:07] after we, I don't remember what meeting it was,

[55:11] but it was after and in between then

[55:13] where they did agree that we will not

[55:16] be selling the parcel next to us and we are also still in the works of getting a lot

[55:26] line adjustment to make that parcel, one whole parcel instead of the separate chunks

[55:31] because they've been, it was the original parcel then we've added separate places in

[55:36] but we are going to be doing a lot line adjustment for that as well.

[55:41] up

[55:47] here.

[55:58] This back in here with a sewer treatment plant is back in there. I

[56:05] got a hundred,

[56:06] two hundred foot tower, sitting back there. Is there any thought to a second, just like

[56:14] earlier tonight? Is there any thought to a second way in and out, you know, if one, if

[56:20] you should have problem with the tower, but also maybe something that happens at the treatment

[56:24] and plan. You know, so that, you know, let's say you had maybe had Verizon on the tower

[56:32] and they have to get a technician in there to work on it or whatever. And you've got

[56:36] a problem with the treatment plan. Is there another way, you know, have you thought of

[56:41] another way in and out?

[56:45] Currently no, however, that is something that we could possibly look into the issue with

[56:53] that being that the the entrance comes behind the parcel where pet

[57:00] pup is located so and then the rest of it I believe is yeah I don't think

[57:06] there's there would be any kind of possible way to go in there as to the

[57:12] drop off to I guess it would be a creek and then it buss up Scott Masons I don't

[57:18] I think it's protected area that other side of PEPUP where you could come in from 2-13.

[57:28] I think it's wetlands area.

[57:34] I'm just curious,

[57:48] everything else, and it's nice to have another way.

[57:52] Right.

[57:53] Yes, currently we have AT&T on one of our water towers and Verizon on another water tower.

[58:00] at those locations, they do have separate locks to the gates with their own keys so they

[58:05] can get in. They do have to let us know when they're coming for safety reasons, obviously.

[58:10] And I believe that's probably the same thing we would do that way. We know who's coming

[58:16] in and out of wastewater and on top of that, there is cameras all around wastewater.

[58:20] I just wanted to make sure that there was a problem.

[58:23] Yeah, and somebody's not called 24 hours.

[58:26] Is there a problem with the tower or like I say the waste waste with you know the treatment plan?

[58:31] Yeah.

[58:32] Right.

[58:32] Luckily our waste water treatment plan operator is on call 24-7 and Mike serves as a backup

[58:40] for his 24-hour on call if he's unavailable serves as a backup.

[58:45] And then the third backup I guess would be me but I'd call somebody probably because I don't know how to fix anything there.

[58:51] But uh,

[58:54] it's almost impossible to have in there, it sits back here in a bottom of the

[59:01] marsh and you know, and it's been there forever, so yeah, but didn't have a tower, that's

[59:08] all right.

[59:09] That's my, you know, my own personal side.

[59:14] There was a way we would, um, I mean-

[59:17] Oh, it sits back there, I'd buy it,

[59:29] you know, if you have an agreement or something like

[59:30] that.

[59:30] But you just need to, I'm just pointing at you, I think you just need to separate.

[59:35] Yeah, I think we can definitely think about that.

[59:37] I want to just think about it somewhere.

[59:38] Yeah.

[59:39] Any

[59:43] questions?

[59:51] Audience?

[59:52] Anybody have a comment?

[59:56] Anyone?

[59:57] We entertain a motion.

[1:00:01] I'll make a motion, the grant preliminary and final, site plan approval. For the town of Galena, for a personal wireless facility tower, being a 180 foot mono pole on their property located at 13265 Augustin, Herman Highway. We find they meet all the relevant issues in Article 4, Section 1.3 of the unified.

[1:00:30] by the development ordinance of Kent County.

[1:00:43] Yes.

[1:00:46] Yes.

[1:00:49] Hope with the majority.

[1:00:53] Go to your channel.

[1:00:54] Yes.

[1:00:55] Thank you.

[1:00:56] Good.

[1:01:10] McPherson.

[1:01:11] A buffer variance.

[1:01:15] 017.

[1:01:16] Hillmont Drive in Rock Hall.

[1:01:18] And what's happening there, probably?

[1:01:21] The McPherson's are requesting a buffer variance

[1:01:24] to construct a replacement dwelling 26 feet from the water.

[1:01:28] The property is in a modified buffer area, but the minimum buffer is still 50 feet.

[1:01:33] So therefore, a variance of 24 feet is needed.

[1:01:36] They just over half acre properties located at 50, 17 hillmont drive in the 5th election district and

[1:01:42] its own critical area residential.

[1:01:44] For the relevant issues, the modified buffer provisions are found in Article 6, Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance,

[1:01:53] which notes that in the case of single-family residential development or redevelopment a 50-foot set back from the water where edge of title wetlands is required.

[1:02:06] So staff notes that the property has a unique shape and is roughly 200 feet deep by 100 feet wide with a bulkhead across most of the front and about half of the southern side which creates the effect of a point jutting out into the water.

[1:02:20] The property currently has a house and several accessory buildings all located on the point

[1:02:26] towards the water.

[1:02:27] However, the footprint of the proposed house can meet the 50-foot buffer setback and

[1:02:32] the 30-foot rear yard setback, which would allow the land towards the water to be established

[1:02:36] as lawn or other vegetation.

[1:02:39] The standards for the variance are found in Article 4, Section 5.6, which has a set of criteria

[1:02:47] that ought to be found for granting a critical area of variance.

[1:02:54] So staff and staff comments, the strict application of the ordinance would not create an un warranted

[1:02:59] hardship.

[1:03:00] The applicant can construct the proposed dwelling without needing a variance.

[1:03:04] The granting of the variance would confer a special privilege without the variance.

[1:03:08] The applicant would not be deprived of a use of land permitted to others.

[1:03:12] The additional disturbance of the property due to moving the house back from the water would

[1:03:17] would be a temporary impact to the environment.

[1:03:20] Authorization of the variants would not be a substantial

[1:03:23] detriment to adjacent property and the character of the area

[1:03:26] would not be changed.

[1:03:28] The application was sent to the Critical Area Commission.

[1:03:31] We did receive that letter which was forwarded to you.

[1:03:35] And essentially the critical area staff do not

[1:03:40] recommend approval of the variants finding

[1:03:44] that it doesn't meet the unwanted hardship

[1:03:46] criteria. It does not deny a structure permitted to others. It would confer a special privilege

[1:03:55] and that it would be inconsistent with the critical area program.

[1:04:02] There was no other

[1:04:03] correspondence.

[1:04:37] I'm John McPherson, the applicant address 517, I'm John McPherson, I'm the applicant,

[1:04:43] I'm the alma mater, 517, but I reside in Montgomery County.

[1:04:48] Marsha Osselton with Lane Engineering, Project Support, we are 354 Pennsylvania Avenue

[1:04:56] in centerville.

[1:04:57] I'm George Coralakis, CCH Builders, Queenstown Rail.

[1:05:03] So thank you for your time, I'm appreciative of the coast of work, I'm a retired coast

[1:05:08] car civil engineer myself and I've done plenty of work including on Verizon towers, actually

[1:05:12] recording our search and rescue systems, but we're asking your support for this variance

[1:05:17] for Carla outlined, the reason not to, but the 50 foot, I think there are a couple things

[1:05:22] I want to emphasize.

[1:05:24] If you talk about the unique shape of the property, the property actually has water on three

[1:05:27] sides.

[1:05:27] It creates a very challenging wet shape, so because there's a tidal inlet on the north side as well, which is not mentioned in the letter, it creates a very challenging wet shaped buffer area, whether it's 25 foot or 50 foot is used, the 50 foot to my knowledge is something that was updated last year.

[1:05:42] We began the planning process, we just didn't get our application in part of that.

[1:05:46] The additional 25 feet actually moves the house back about 60 some odd feet depending on where we finally sighted.

[1:05:54] Crawl is correct that there's a requirement for a unique hardship.

[1:05:58] It's a waterfront property, we still could move it farther back, but that's the reason we

[1:06:03] purchased this house was for the location where the current house was.

[1:06:08] We're simply trying to consolidate, there's like she mentioned, there's an existing structure

[1:06:12] which is pretty dilapidated, we couldn't build a mortgage on it, we're trying to take that

[1:06:16] structure and replace it and include the outbuildings, consolidate those structures with a single

[1:06:21] modern structure on piles, much less impermeable area, just in the existing square footage.

[1:06:26] And we're asking for the variance waiver to recognize that we don't want to disturb the back half the property,

[1:06:32] which has never been developed. We'd rather use the existing already disturbed area,

[1:06:36] consolidate structures into a single structure where the existing structures are.

[1:06:41] It's not strictly on top of the existing footprint, which is one of the requirements.

[1:06:44] It's plus or minus, but that's because we're consolidating multiple buildings.

[1:06:48] I'm happy to answer your questions.

[1:06:49] We're just a family looking to build here in Ken County and proud to be from Maryland.

[1:07:01] Question.

[1:07:02] The.

[1:07:03] Question.

[1:07:04] The.

[1:07:08] The.

[1:07:10] The.

[1:07:11] The.

[1:07:11] building the bigger square of 40th house and this is why you need this I think it's smaller it

[1:07:19] covers less square footage it's a two-story the current house it's like there's

[1:07:23] an out building a current structure or there's a pergola and then there's a

[1:07:26] pump shed that's all getting consolidated it's less square footage less

[1:07:34] square 40th house one other than because there's a big closure to the water why would

[1:07:41] you need this you're going to say in front of building one the exact same

[1:07:45] Yeah, but what's existing then the has we got to push it back to the 50 and the property is is also in the flood zone

[1:07:52] So the current house is not

[1:07:55] In compliance this one would be on stills and I may get you know

[1:08:01] Compliant with the flood zone. So maybe that didn't get your question. There's um there's a current house

[1:08:06] It's bigger than that current house, but if you include the secondary buildings that square footage. It's less than

[1:08:15] bringing us to this, bringing you here to that net?

[1:08:18] Well, we want to take them all down and put one building up.

[1:08:20] But because that one new building is bigger than the exact square footage of the primary house,

[1:08:24] it doesn't need to be the requirements for replace and cut.

[1:08:27] But you can still fill it even if you don't get to this very, and you just...

[1:08:31] We just got to put it up near the road.

[1:08:34] We've just got to disturb a lot more land inside the critter than you would have to.

[1:08:38] You know, we've just completely destroyed the whole lot.

[1:08:40] We're within the critter where we try to disturb the least amount of land it's possible.

[1:08:44] Because we start the demo of the existing structure and we'll just throw that whole area and that way the disturb area behind the two just to build it behind the 50 because there's nothing there but there's a case where you could build back on the same footprint.

[1:08:59] Exactly, but then we have to redesign the whole house.

[1:09:03] What's the set of outcome of the existing building?

[1:09:06] 25 feet.

[1:09:08] And then all the neighbors actually left the thing that 25 feet are even closer.

[1:09:12] Yeah, one look like it was 12 or so there one look like it was like 12 or 14 yeah, the other one's 18

[1:09:18] You're talking about the house of Jason. Yeah, they're even closer. Yeah, we started this process when we purchased house in

[1:09:23] 2024 and I believe the 50 foot requirement came into effect last year with with the code update

[1:09:28] So we just

[1:09:33] have lots of a house for you proposing to build oh goodness

[1:09:37] Okay, how tall?

[1:09:51] Also what's there now with the driveway, I'm going by what we got on the plan here.

[1:09:57] It looks like it's circular and you're going to take up some of that driveway,

[1:10:02] and then turn it back to green or whatever.

[1:10:04] Yeah, that was our plan.

[1:10:05] The net reduction is like, I want to say it was like 30% less.

[1:10:08] Get rid of some of the hardscape.

[1:10:11] Our previous cover was going to be less than what's actually existing.

[1:10:14] You

[1:10:17] know, unfortunately, you come in here and you're preaching to the choir

[1:10:20] You know, we've all had these problems with rules, rules.

[1:10:24] You

[1:10:27] push the house back.

[1:10:28] What's that do to the neighbor on the opposite side of Hillmont dry in their house right over there?

[1:10:36] Yeah, they are.

[1:10:37] John and Judy.

[1:10:38] They're probably as close to the Hillmont as they're allowed to be, so it's probably 25 from the center line.

[1:10:45] Maybe 35.

[1:11:03] They've got to prove the unwarranted hardship, I mean, you know, they say they have one.

[1:11:10] The state says in the county, the zoning office says they don't, like no how they figured

[1:11:16] they've got an unwarranted hardship, I mean they've, if I had my glasses here I could read

[1:11:25] it, but unfortunately, I know you listed something in there because I've read it.

[1:11:30] If it turns your heart, I'll go get some glasses.

[1:11:32] No, that's all right.

[1:11:34] But I mean, would you like to?

[1:11:38] You got to convince us.

[1:11:39] So I mean, you can go right down through that gamut

[1:11:44] of what you need to prove and tell us why.

[1:11:47] That is a particular one.

[1:11:48] I mean, I'll tell you what I told you earlier.

[1:11:51] The unwarranted hardship is an interesting thing

[1:11:53] when you're talking about people who are able to afford

[1:11:54] and build on waterfront property.

[1:11:56] So I don't want to make any illusions that this

[1:11:58] is a first world problem.

[1:11:59] So start with that, right?

[1:12:00] But we did purchase the property for the view, which the current structure afford.

[1:12:04] That's what I visited, that's what I purchased.

[1:12:06] Knowing full well that that structure was fall and part couldn't pull the mortgage and would need to be replaced.

[1:12:10] At the time, 25 foot was a rule.

[1:12:12] It just took taking this this long because that's how long playing often takes to find a good builder.

[1:12:16] We worked with multiple local professionals settling on the folks to my right.

[1:12:21] The hardship is we purchased house for a view that was what the purchase price encountered that updated since I purchased the house.

[1:12:28] of having me move it back is going to incur redesign costs that are an additional hardship, which, you know, I'm not an investment property, this is not a builder, just a family house, so that's the hardship.

[1:12:42] I think there's an environmental aspect that they call it temporary, I'm sure, but I've seen, I would hate to redistribute a section a lot that's never been touched before.

[1:12:50] I'd hate to be closer to the road and tuck back up against the trees rather than the view that we purchase the house for.

[1:12:55] But I don't know, you tell me if you shed his word, it's called hardship.

[1:13:00] Is this going to be your permanent residence after you get to his building?

[1:13:03] I need a few more years to get some kids out of high school, but that's my goal.

[1:13:08] I did 20 years in the Coast Guard, I view the water is something I think I'm drawn to.

[1:13:14] So from a footprint standpoint, what's the difference between the existing structure and the new structure?

[1:13:23] Yeah, so the setbacks no different than the existing structure, but the problem is that it doesn't fit in the same footprint, therefore it's not allowed, so then you're then you're going back to the 50 foot buffer.

[1:13:34] You can,

[1:13:44] is that correct? That change since the purchase of this property?

[1:13:49] I don't have the award in front of me.

[1:13:52] Okay, I'm just trying to confirm that.

[1:13:55] I can confirm that the setbacks change when I do not know if he would have been able

[1:14:06] to build what he wants to build now under your regulations.

[1:14:09] Right.

[1:14:10] That I don't know.

[1:14:13] I feel like that's kind of an important piece of detail.

[1:14:17] In trying to prove a hardship, I mean, okay, all the property this changed.

[1:14:28] And again, my other question, what's the difference in the footprint?

[1:14:31] If it doesn't fit in the existing footprint, is that because it's...

[1:14:34] We're just consolidating all the footprints into one structure that's actually smaller

[1:14:38] than the impervious covered that's already proposed.

[1:14:41] And everything is behind, we're even farther back than the impervious covered that's already

[1:14:45] existing that we're actually taking away.

[1:14:48] So everything will be behind the 35, whereas now we even have structures that are close to

[1:14:52] like, 20 foot from the water that we're going to be moving,

[1:14:55] all

[1:14:59] of a sudden, that will work.

[1:15:06] So, if we do push everything back to the committee, we're still doing what we've done to the House, but we're going to be, you know, we're going to be started with the whole problem. So, I'm trying to push the flag all the way back to the committee. Of course, now we can solidify, do, our LOD right next to where we're demoing or rebuilding the structure. We're not disturbing that much in the House. And it's always within the critical area, that's always what you want to be able to do, at least in my understanding, it's possible.

[1:15:30] Excuse

[1:15:41] me up on something again, if we were, don't they still have to get through the

[1:15:47] critical area that made a favorable recommendation, is that, or this board has, can say it's okay.

[1:15:55] Well, you're making a recommendation to the Board of Appeals.

[1:15:58] Correct.

[1:15:58] Okay.

[1:15:59] Board of Appeals has to make its own set of findings based on the criteria that are outlined

[1:16:06] in your staff report and, you know, if they can find that, you know, that there's the

[1:16:14] unmoroded hardship, that it's not a special privilege.

[1:16:17] Whatever all those things are, then the Board of Appeals could grant the variance.

[1:16:23] We've sent those decisions to the Criticlary Commission, the Criticlary Commission.

[1:16:27] Who's still can weigh in on it?

[1:16:29] What the Criticlary Commission could do would be to appeal the decision.

[1:16:33] if they don't feel that the Board of Appeals actually made the correct set of findings that are substantiated, then the

[1:16:41] Criticlary Commission can appeal that decision.

[1:16:45] Okay, I was just trying to talk about the fact that probably 75% of the houses in that neighborhood are closer than

[1:16:55] the sounds would be, I mean, is that a hardship?

[1:17:02] I mean, if I'm sitting there and I've got my neighbors or 12 feet away and 20 feet away and I know they were rebuilt after Isabelle and apparently nothing mattered then I guess.

[1:17:17] Do we have the number on what the difference of the footprint of the current structure versus the new structure is?

[1:17:23] So she's got her, how do you listen to this?

[1:17:26] Yes, we have a partnership.

[1:17:28] Do you want what is square footage

[1:17:32] of the various pieces?

[1:17:34] No, just to main structure.

[1:17:36] Because that's really what the law is applicable to it.

[1:17:38] So there is a kind of, there's a one and a half story

[1:17:42] Frank Bowling, and on the plan, she is 893 square feet.

[1:17:48] And as it's noted, there are some sheds and pergolas.

[1:17:55] The lot coverage for the footprint for the one-and-a-half story, frame-dwelling, that's

[1:18:00] probably, that's existing, a lot to be removed, sorry, is a one-and-a-half story frame-dwelling

[1:18:09] that's 893 square feet, the proposed two-story dwelling is 1,543 square feet.

[1:18:15] It's

[1:18:21] not a big house.

[1:18:24] And we'll put it in one pile if you get out of the point.

[1:18:27] We're doing it with all the neighboring houses.

[1:18:30] We don't bring all the houses up.

[1:18:31] We just think it's the water.

[1:18:32] We don't give us your own water.

[1:18:35] You know what happens.

[1:18:41] I already went to the point.

[1:18:42] At least I'm not disturbed.

[1:18:43] I don't think we know what happens.

[1:18:45] It's the water.

[1:18:45] It's the whole property.

[1:18:46] I don't have to do that.

[1:18:48] The laborious service goes down.

[1:18:52] But that includes everything.

[1:18:53] To your point, I think Sean, you made a good point with it.

[1:18:54] It's the primary dwelling is close to 900, the new primary dwelling is about 1500.

[1:19:01] But it's the net, it's all the other impervious areas, the percolate, the outbuildings,

[1:19:05] and then driveways, which we are going to reduce.

[1:19:07] The shed's another 380 feet.

[1:19:10] There's a bunch of paper that has it.

[1:19:12] And for the point of the fact that, you know, what's the hardship?

[1:19:17] I mean, if currently he bought the property and this law changed afterwards, I mean, that was.

[1:19:23] But we don't know the answer to that question.

[1:19:26] I

[1:19:32] don't believe it can create a hardship though.

[1:19:33] That's correct.

[1:19:35] Would it help for me to give you the definition of a fee unwarranted hardship?

[1:19:39] Sure.

[1:19:39] It might not hurt.

[1:19:41] Within the query, I'm trying to think, you know, it seems relatively logical, but I'm trying to figure out

[1:19:46] it fits into the little applicable law and I'm struggling with that.

[1:19:51] Without the variance, an applicant would be denied reasonable and significant use of the entire parcel,

[1:19:57] or a lot for which the variance is requested, so I would suggest the word reasonable is probably

[1:20:03] more applicable than significant use because you can move the house, you still have significant

[1:20:07] use, but whether that location is reasonable is a finding for you to make.

[1:20:27] This is a weird and difficult situation, but sometimes I think about what you and I have to

[1:20:41] They're critical.

[1:20:42] Right.

[1:20:42] You know, we get from,

[1:20:46] if we go into the wrong area, at Jets, I'll just say right up, I'm

[1:20:54] fine with whatever decision you make.

[1:20:55] If we have to move it back, I totally get it.

[1:20:57] That's my point about the first world problems.

[1:20:59] Like, it's still a beautiful property.

[1:21:01] I'll build a house farther back.

[1:21:02] It's just, I think it gets tight up against that back road.

[1:21:05] We don't get to use the view shed that, which is why I bought the house, but I totally understand

[1:21:09] it.

[1:21:09] I'm not, I'm just wanting to move forward with the project but I appreciate how

[1:21:14] local government works and I think I take a shot and figure that ask.

[1:21:17] I think the views what sells it because I mean it's been sold a couple times

[1:21:22] and everybody's got wet feet living in there.

[1:21:26] Yeah.

[1:21:28] You saying I got suckered?

[1:21:30] No, but I would think the water stayed on the wall which would have been give away.

[1:21:52] We deal with a storm drainage yet, is that down-rooted?

[1:21:58] Storm drainage?

[1:22:00] No, I guess that's part of the building permit.

[1:22:02] Yeah, we have the storm water.

[1:22:04] We do have the storm water.

[1:22:06] And plan.

[1:22:08] I lit a 501-6 and I had the empty lot adjacent to him.

[1:22:12] Yeah, and the previous one is the one Rick Sheldon built the dock and the whole kid and

[1:22:22] he did the landscaping, and when he did that, he came up with top soil and to deal with that

[1:22:30] to keep all from pushing it onto my property or what it was on my property, because we're the

[1:22:42] between the two properties, half on my, and half on his.

[1:22:45] And there's also a storm drain,

[1:22:47] and they're the drains from the ditch

[1:22:48] across the street, part of my driveway, down to the creek.

[1:22:52] So as long as that swell stays there,

[1:22:55] it's maintained, you know, I'm fine with it,

[1:22:59] because, excuse me, that's just a

[1:23:06] one-six full-mile drive

[1:23:07] from Paul Maryland.

[1:23:16] Those anglic, like, if the building is moved back,

[1:23:18] is that gonna affect that swell of the drainage

[1:23:20] or anything to the other property?

[1:23:23] We haven't done stormwater for if we have to move it back.

[1:23:26] We have a complete stormwater report and plan if we build it where it's proposed.

[1:23:33] Okay.

[1:23:33] That's all.

[1:23:48] These are the tough ones all the time.

[1:24:00] Where the house back?

[1:24:08] Again, we have to make a recommendation to the board of appeals to improve the variance.

[1:24:13] So, it's

[1:24:19] not how far back or new we move the house back, so.

[1:24:21] Yeah, we don't really need to do that, but it would be nice to see an alternative, possibly.

[1:24:30] We're going to be able to turn to 50 foot.

[1:24:32] It is.

[1:24:33] That's what the critical area commission did include a proposed footprint, setback footprint for the 50 feet.

[1:24:40] That is in the pack.

[1:24:41] Right.

[1:24:42] It's the 50 foot.

[1:24:44] Correct.

[1:24:45] Correct.

[1:24:45] I thought that was the question was whether I can see.

[1:24:48] You're talking about something in the middle.

[1:24:55] here this is uh is this what you're looking for? I'm just showing it to you. I got a little

[1:25:02] floor plan, a little cut out of my house that I was tinkering with just you over. I'll

[1:25:06] sit up at the library messing with it so I'm with you. I don't have to want to play with this but that's

[1:25:09] what it is. You guys, you could go to the house that fans would. Yeah. That's his problem.

[1:25:15] Yeah. The

[1:25:23] gentlemen can

[1:25:29] do it for the people. Right now if you don't do anything you got all the

[1:25:36] in Purveys area and you got no storm water management right now other than the

[1:25:41] swale that to previous owners agreed to put in you if they build a house where

[1:25:48] they want to build it they'll have to do storm water management and going to

[1:25:52] reduce a lot coverage whether

[1:25:57] they move it in the back they're going to have to do

[1:25:59] storm water management at a house so I don't know yeah I'm

[1:26:09] fortunate I think you

[1:26:10] has too many options and you know it's the 54th is the critical area and we got the critical area

[1:26:17] commission's lobby to come back and say no anyway they made their recommendation so I'm of the

[1:26:22] opinion that we should send an unfavorable recommendation to the board of appeals because it

[1:26:30] doesn't show that it's a new hardship I mean he can move that around and put it at the 50 foot I mean

[1:26:37] And that's what it is.

[1:26:41] And so I would entertain a, I would make a motion that we send an unfavorable recommendation

[1:26:47] for the variance based on the fact that it's not proven to be an undue or unreasonable

[1:26:54] hardship.

[1:26:55] And that building there would be required to follow within the 50 foot standard.

[1:27:03] here.

[1:27:18] The Board

[1:27:34] of Appeals.

[1:27:35] Yeah.

[1:27:35] You get another shot.

[1:27:37] And never agree with us anyhow.

[1:27:39] No, your opinion mattered a lot to me.

[1:27:42] I mean, we might start replaning, but we appreciate your thoughtful consideration of

[1:27:47] this.

[1:27:47] And we understand your situation.

[1:27:50] Unfortunately, the justifications.

[1:27:55] No, I understand.

[1:27:56] Appreciate you all.

[1:27:57] Thank you.

[1:27:58] Thank you.

[1:28:21] One more thing here.

[1:28:26] Thomas Parks is asking for a special exception cottage industry for automobile and marine

[1:28:33] repair.

[1:28:34] Also

[1:28:42] back again to present this.

[1:28:46] So, Thomas Parks is requesting a special exception to operate an automobile and marine repair

[1:28:52] business as a cottage industry using an existing poll building that's on its property.

[1:28:58] So, the applicant would like to use 2,300 fit building as marine non-bibular pair facility.

[1:29:07] This business would be contained entirely within the existing accessory structure, and

[1:29:13] this is in alignment with the Kent County Comprehensive Plan.

[1:29:16] It means all requirements to establish under the cottage industry.

[1:29:23] So the site is located at 1291, Ireland's corner road in Galena, in the first election

[1:29:28] district, its own community residential. The three and almost a half acre property is currently

[1:29:34] used as the primary residence for Mr. Parks. The proposal utilizes an existing accessory structure

[1:29:42] for the cottage industry. All activities associated with the industry will remain inside the structure

[1:29:48] as required by the ordinance. No existing landscape will be removed. No additional structures will

[1:29:55] be created. The app can also be created. Here it's so so we are.

[1:30:00] Create the business during standard daytime hours, and we'll hire no more than two additional staff members to operate the business. Traffic is expected to be minimal to the site, primarily for the pickup and drop off of automobiles or marine craft, which are also, they're going to be removed inside the structure immediately upon arrival. So, the applicable laws in this case are Article 3, Section 258, which identifies cottage industries for tradesmen and arts and shoppers.

[1:30:29] In terms of staff comments,

[1:30:39] the proposal fits within the requirements for cottage industry is defined.

[1:30:44] The act is made clear, the work will occur inside the structure.

[1:30:50] The proposal is aligned with the comprehensive plan.

[1:30:52] The growth of cottage industry is one of the core strategies highlighted in the plan as a way to expand and diversify the businesses operating in the county.

[1:30:59] The comprehensive plan argues that is the responsibility of the planning department to assist these proposals through the permitting process.

[1:31:04] We see this proposal is not imposing any significant new demand on the existing infrastructure.

[1:31:10] It meets all requirements associated with the college industry or cottage industry use in the existing zoning.

[1:31:17] So staff recommends forwarding a favorable recommendation to the Board of Appeals for approval of the special exception to operate a cottage industry.

[1:31:24] Raise

[1:31:41] your right hand, so we're going to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

[1:31:46] And state your name and address to the record please.

[1:31:49] Tom Parks, 1-3901, Ireland's corner row, Galena.

[1:31:54] Cheryl Leonard, 1-2901, Ireland's corner row, Galena.

[1:32:03] I want to restore cars.

[1:32:06] It was my hobby, and I've worked at a severally dealership for 31 years.

[1:32:11] and I'd like to do like sort of slow down and do it at home and just do

[1:32:18] meticulous restoration on cars and you know I don't want to disrupt the

[1:32:25] community in any way I just you know keep everything inside and quiet and

[1:32:38] let's

[1:32:46] custom fabrication bodywork yes yes yes not mechanical just body

[1:32:55] Would you have a lift back there?

[1:32:57] I have a lift back there, yes.

[1:32:58] You have one now?

[1:32:59] I do.

[1:33:00] Yes.

[1:33:05] Same with both.

[1:33:09] I won't do marine work, but it falls in with a cottage.

[1:33:14] I had to file that way, because it was part of the...

[1:33:19] It's part of the...

[1:33:20] Yeah.

[1:33:20] I don't work on marine stuff.

[1:33:23] So it's basically cars.

[1:33:24] Yes.

[1:33:25] Body work.

[1:33:27] Do

[1:33:31] you need a state license for that?

[1:33:34] No.

[1:33:34] I'm

[1:33:38] certified. I come from a somewhat of a background.

[1:33:46] I'm certified for you know.

[1:33:49] You're certified in the camp. I'm certified welder and certified in with all the

[1:33:53] auto body.

[1:33:56] Keep every well with the body work. Yes, you would be inside.

[1:34:03] It's

[1:34:04] insulated in air condition.

[1:34:13] I'm sorry. It seems pretty straightforward to me. Yeah I'm

[1:34:18] I'm just trying to get a feel because if, to say you know, I look at it like it is

[1:34:30] a residential area that's why I'm kind of asking some questions.

[1:34:36] I've restored my own vehicles there on weekends and stuff and I've never had any complaints on noise or anything like that.

[1:34:46] I'm always courteous and try to keep the doors closed and you know I've

[1:34:54] never had any problems so yeah.

[1:34:56] There's no cars in all the vehicles, I won't be left out at night or anything.

[1:35:00] Neighbors can see a bunch of cars parked out there.

[1:35:02] Never anything outside.

[1:35:04] If you're going to be a classic car restoration, you're going to be keeping it inside.

[1:35:10] It's not going to be a lot of slow tedious process.

[1:35:14] It is, it's not like everybody in and out here, but right, exactly.

[1:35:23] Make a motion to send the favorable recommendation to the Board of Appeals for Thomas Park's request for a special exception to operate an automobile and marine repair business as a cottage industry.

[1:35:39] The address is on there.

[1:35:43] one, two, nine, oh, one, Ireland's corner road, Galena, the applicant meets Article 4, Section

[1:35:53] 3 of Unified Ordinance, and therefore, recommend a favourable.

[1:36:00] Seconded.

[1:36:06] Just get that.

[1:36:19] I've got a motion in a second.

[1:36:27] I'll be able to see my car's on classic enough.

[1:37:00] No, I can't actually think of anything, but I know it's quit.

[1:37:05] Nobody is quit a whole month now.

[1:37:11] We're still waiting to get repairs to the front office scheduled, so things have been a little

[1:37:18] chaotic.

[1:37:25] The back part of the office is, yes, so

[1:37:32] no, I don't really think I have anything to report out or to discuss.

[1:37:36] I don't know if Mr. Maldives.

[1:37:38] You

[1:37:42] see the motion towards Erwin?

[1:37:45] All

[1:37:48] right.

[1:37:50] All right.

Planning Commission Meeting

Transcript