[0:05] of allegiance. Please rise.
[0:08] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
[0:11] United States of America and to the
[0:14] republic for which it stands, one nation
[0:17] under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[0:20] justice for all.
[0:24] As always, thank you for the citizens
[0:27] joining us here in the uh town chambers
[0:30] tonight and also to those that are
[0:33] following this meeting uh through the
[0:35] live stream. Uh our first order of
[0:39] business after the pledge is the
[0:41] approval of the minutes and I ask each
[0:43] commissioner to look over the minutes
[0:45] and any notes you may have made.
[0:51] We'll have a motion, a second, and then
[0:53] discussion. If you have any edits or
[0:55] amendments suggested, we'll do that
[0:57] during the uh discussion, please. So, at
[1:01] this point, is there a motion to approve
[1:03] or disapprove the August minutes?
[1:07] >> A motion to approve.
[1:09] >> Is there a second?
[1:10] >> Second.
[1:11] >> Commissioner Buts. Is there any
[1:13] discussion on amendments or edits or
[1:15] corrections to the minutes?
[1:19] Hearing
[1:23] none. All those in favor of the motion
[1:25] to approve the August 31 minutes of the
[1:27] planning commission say I. I.
[1:30] >> Those opposed.
[1:32] >> Those who abstain due to absence.
[1:36] The motion has carried. The minutes are
[1:38] approved. The next order of business
[1:41] tonight is the public comments, citizen
[1:43] comments. Um and the um criteria I wish
[1:47] to um impose is that you'll be given
[1:50] three minutes if you wish to speak and
[1:53] the topic can be anything uh on the
[1:55] agenda off the agenda anything with
[1:58] regard to the town. I ask when you
[2:00] approach the microphone and Barney could
[2:02] you just make sure it's turned on for
[2:04] us. Uh thank you sir. Um, as you
[2:07] approach the podium in the microphone, I
[2:09] just simply ask for your full name and
[2:12] whether you are a resident of the town
[2:14] or not. I do not need your address. Uh,
[2:17] just whether you are a resident or not.
[2:19] So, with that, may I see a show of hands
[2:21] of those interested in making a citizen
[2:23] comment tonight?
[2:26] Second request for any citizens
[2:28] interested in citizen comment.
[2:33] » Okay, there's one. I see you may come
[2:36] forward.
[2:44] All right. Good evening. Uh Steven
[2:45] Demoter, town of Mount Ary. This is kind
[2:48] of a stream of consciousness comment
[2:50] because I don't really have it all
[2:51] weaved together, but just um you know,
[2:55] you've all and we've all worked very
[2:57] hard on the Mount Air master plan and
[3:01] there's a series of I didn't count them
[3:03] all up, but there's there's got to be a
[3:05] good 30
[3:07] implementation strategies in here about
[3:10] the way forward, things that need to be
[3:12] done over the next 10 years to implement
[3:16] this plan
[3:17] >> and I know that especially Commissioner
[3:20] Buts is always harping on it's not just
[3:23] a plan for the shelf, we're supposed to
[3:25] be using it, implementing it. And so,
[3:30] um, I hope you appreciate when we took
[3:32] the vote on the Warfield property
[3:34] annexation, I heavily referenced the
[3:38] master plan and my argument was based on
[3:42] what the master plan said. And so what I
[3:45] ask is
[3:47] it's been like a year and a half since
[3:50] we all signed this document. I think
[3:52] it's time to take stock of
[3:55] the implementation strategies.
[3:58] Where are we at? What's the progress on
[4:00] them and to understand that and then the
[4:04] public can understand that. So I'm
[4:06] really suggesting that the town move
[4:09] forward on that. It can be a simple I
[4:13] would call it a dashboard. You can do
[4:14] like a stop sign of red, yellow, green,
[4:18] couple sentences for each implementation
[4:21] strategy. Sounds to me like that's more
[4:23] of a town planner function. Perhaps rely
[4:27] on the town planning staff, but I think
[4:30] that needs to be done. So, I just wanted
[4:32] to encourage you to do that. Thank you.
[4:35] >> Thank you.
[4:38] >> Any other interest in a public or
[4:40] citizen comment?
[4:42] Uh I wish to make a public comment
[4:45] actually two. First off um the comments
[4:48] just made actually echo some discussions
[4:50] we've had on the planning commission um
[4:53] in side meetings uh preparing for these
[4:56] meetings and so forth with regard to um
[4:59] we need to saddle up and start riding
[5:01] that horse that's going to complete the
[5:04] objectives in the master plan. Um the
[5:08] motivation for that is just as was
[5:10] mentioned that we shouldn't just have
[5:12] done this job for it to become shelfware
[5:15] uh that it should be um an active plan
[5:19] um aiming at what the town should be at
[5:22] 2033.
[5:23] The second motivation uh is that the
[5:26] state requires in the Maryland
[5:28] Department of Planning that at the
[5:30] midpoint of your 10-year plan, the town
[5:33] has to provide the Maryland Department
[5:35] of Planning a report as to their
[5:38] progress in achieving the comprehensive
[5:41] master plan and that goes for any
[5:43] municipality.
[5:44] >> So, um our plan is 23 to 33. So roughly
[5:49] in 28 uh we need to be prepared to say
[5:53] what we've done to get along that road
[5:55] on all the objectives in the
[5:58] implementing strategies and so forth.
[6:00] And I for one will say before you blink
[6:04] twice 28 will be right on our doorstep.
[6:06] It's just the way it is with our busy
[6:08] lives. And so um so I endorse the
[6:12] comment about that as to the best body
[6:16] within the town to initiate that
[6:18] discussion, set a conference together,
[6:20] pull the objective owners together, get
[6:23] a status, help them get started. Um I
[6:26] think we've had that discussion as to
[6:28] who is best suited for that. Um and and as the as the comment was made, I'm
[6:35] sure that person understands, you know,
[6:37] we're a volunteer organization and uh
[6:40] the planning commission is. So it's very
[6:42] difficult for us to say here's a date we
[6:45] all need to be there. And so in a
[6:47] tasking or supervisory role that's a bit
[6:49] tenuous, I'll admit myself. Um and so we
[6:53] need kind of the partnership of the
[6:55] council for a g general agreement to say
[6:58] let's set a date. Let's all convene.
[7:01] Let's work it out, but let's get the
[7:03] engine started and and start getting
[7:05] down the road.
[7:07] >> Sure. Sure.
[7:08] >> Um
[7:11] because I was around in 2012,
[7:15] we actually on an annual basis, we
[7:17] convened representation of all the
[7:20] commissions.
[7:21] Okay. On an annual basis. And what we
[7:24] did was challenge ourselves. All right.
[7:27] What progress have you made? What about
[7:29] the goals that your department set?
[7:32] Where are you in terms of meeting those
[7:34] goals? It was very productive and it was
[7:37] a team effort. So, I would recommend
[7:41] that we seriously consider taking that
[7:44] same approach going forward with the
[7:46] current master plan.
[7:49] >> So, we have a model.
[7:50] >> Yes. Yep. My my second public comment
[7:53] has to do with being open and
[7:55] transparent with my fellow commissioners
[7:57] with regard to a public comment I made
[7:59] at the last council meeting. And that
[8:02] public comment was generated by uh the
[8:05] beginning of the meeting the council was
[8:07] afforded an update by the architect for
[8:10] the town's police station. And uh in
[8:14] that discussion in that update there was
[8:15] a lot of good discussion and information
[8:17] with respect to the planned elevations.
[8:20] I shouldn't say plan, let me say the
[8:22] proposed the the offerings with regard
[8:26] to building design, building materials,
[8:29] building colors, etc. And so, uh, I rose
[8:33] after that update to simply, uh, make
[8:36] the point that that building will be
[8:38] adjacent to the development that we know
[8:41] and have worked through here known as
[8:43] Green Tree, uh, which is 60 dwellings.
[8:47] uh five of those dwellings will be
[8:49] similar single family detached homes
[8:51] facing North Main Street in keeping with
[8:54] the harmony of that end of North Main
[8:57] Street and the community down there. And
[8:59] so my my thoughts were and the
[9:02] suggestions in the public comment was
[9:05] take up and let the uh take up the
[9:08] pattern book for Green Tree that was
[9:10] worked very hard by these commissioners
[9:12] to make sure that the feel look
[9:15] elevations and designs of those 60
[9:17] dwellings um because that can inform now
[9:21] how you may want the police station to
[9:23] look color-wise
[9:26] etc. So, there's some information there
[9:28] of where the uh building is going to go.
[9:32] Um, and so I'm just proposing use some
[9:34] of that information in reaching final
[9:36] decisions with regard to materials,
[9:39] colors, etc. Okay. And I've gone over
[9:42] six minutes. Commissioner Wallace,
[9:44] >> just um can I ask a question about that?
[9:46] >> Sure.
[9:47] >> So, is the police station property still
[9:49] part of the mixeduse development or is
[9:51] it separate? It is the non it is the
[9:54] nonresidential portion of the MXUC.
[9:58] >> So I know we looked at a pattern book
[10:00] for what was the totality of that
[10:02] development which included the
[10:04] commercial space and now that there's
[10:06] going to be a police station there. Is
[10:08] there would that not come back before
[10:10] the commission to review the the
[10:13] building and some sort of you know the
[10:16] landscaping and things like that? So, so
[10:18] once again,
[10:20] um, like minds here, um, is it fair to
[10:23] say, John, we've had that same
[10:25] discussion and and I think to some
[10:27] extent extent, I'm not sure, council
[10:29] member Kelly, have we talked about where
[10:31] does the commission fit in in your
[10:33] progress on the council with Mosley and
[10:35] the architect? Um, let me let me just
[10:39] say I don't have a good answer right
[10:41] now, but but it's a valid question uh as
[10:44] to what will be our role when it comes
[10:46] to that large building at the end of
[10:48] North Main Street. Um, would it be fair
[10:51] to you, John, to say let's park that
[10:54] question, but indeed let's get an answer
[10:56] to it?
[10:57] >> Yeah. Again, I mean, my hopes are that
[10:59] it will be in front of the commission
[11:01] for recommendations.
[11:03] >> Okay. uh not an approval but
[11:05] recommendations for um maybe brick
[11:09] tones, those type of things, native
[11:11] plants, etc. But yeah, it'll it'll be
[11:14] back in front of the commission, but
[11:16] it'll be for recommendations
[11:18] >> and suggestions
[11:20] >> and and I think it's fair to say,
[11:23] >> you know, Mr. McCarron's going to have
[11:24] to possibly weigh in on, you know, where the role is of the volunteer
[11:29] planning commission with regard to a
[11:31] municipal project, a a townowned
[11:34] building and our role when it comes to
[11:38] reviewing the design, colors, etc. And we don't have to have that here. Um,
[11:44] but
[11:44] >> provide you.
[11:46] >> He was about ready to, I think, if
[11:48] you're comfortable. I didn't want to
[11:49] blindside you. So, uh, this is not so
[11:52] much by law, but, uh, for instance, this
[11:54] building, I believe, and folks who are
[11:56] here before me can correct me if I'm
[11:58] wrong, was approved by site plan, uh,
[12:02] through the planning commission. Now,
[12:04] you know, did that have to happen? No.
[12:07] But it's my understanding that the plan
[12:09] was that uh essentially the
[12:13] property the I'll call the police
[12:15] department property
[12:18] would come back to this body by means of
[12:20] site plan review and approval. Now
[12:24] obviously there are budgetary issues
[12:26] that come into play that you know I'll
[12:29] let you all contend with. Um I would
[12:32] also remind everybody that by contract
[12:34] the developer has stipulated in our
[12:37] purchase agreement that the developer
[12:40] um yeah it doesn't have a right of veto
[12:42] but uh the the building's supposed to
[12:47] conform with that which is intended to
[12:50] be built around it. Uh sort of suitable
[12:53] for a neighborhood type of um police
[12:57] station. Um so that you know that that's
[13:00] in the contract and uh so along the
[13:05] lines that you were speaking of Mr. Mr.
[13:07] chairman. Um, you know, it's it's not
[13:10] only uh suitable for this body to
[13:13] review, but it I remind everybody that
[13:16] by contract developer has a say, some
[13:19] say in that, not final say, not veto,
[13:21] but
[13:24] okay. Um so I think it's fair to say um
[13:29] there's some navigation that we just
[13:31] need to get kind of agreed to here as to
[13:36] um and and I think I speak to the
[13:38] question and I'm confident I speak to
[13:40] the question being in that we bring a
[13:42] lot of value to such discussion and
[13:46] we're experienced in it. We were just
[13:48] having a sidebar a moment ago before we
[13:50] opened the meeting with regard to the
[13:53] town of Mount Ary under many of us here
[13:56] now have five homes being built in
[13:59] Chevrolet Court. Uh eight homes being
[14:01] proposed down on Buffalo Road. Uh 60
[14:04] homes now at the other end on North Main
[14:07] Street. Um and and so the point being
[14:11] that we understand the process, we
[14:14] understand the choices that can be made.
[14:17] good and bad when it comes to the
[14:19] appearance of of new dwellings and
[14:23] buildings. So, um so I think it's in
[14:25] that spirit that Commissioner Wallace
[14:28] raises a great question. So, we need to
[14:30] find out, I guess, what that journey can
[14:32] be. Um and of course, the council weighs
[14:34] heavily on giving us that leash. Is it
[14:38] short or is it long and how involved can
[14:40] it be? So, if if that's a fair
[14:43] conclusion.
[14:44] Okay, with that, um, I'm going to close
[14:47] citizen comments. Apologies for going
[14:50] well over my six minutes for two topics.
[14:53] And I'm going to move now to the Carol
[14:54] and Frederick County planners. I
[14:55] understand from John that uh Tiffany
[14:58] Faucet from Carol County is not able to
[15:00] make it this evening. Um, and so we will
[15:03] go directly to our new Frederick County
[15:06] planner. Um, it's it's my great pleasure
[15:09] because we've had that position absent
[15:11] for some time uh to introduce uh
[15:13] Matthew. Matt, come on up here. And uh
[15:19] >> uh No, no, right here at the table.
[15:20] >> Yep.
[15:23] » It's Matthew. I'm the county.
[15:29] It's a pleasure to be here.
[15:30] >> Fantastic.
[15:34] Hello.
[15:36] >> Oh, now it's on. Hello, I'm Matthew
[15:39] Tomeitz. I am a planner for Frederick
[15:41] County and I will be the liazison for
[15:43] Mount Area and it is a pleasure to be
[15:45] here. I look forward to working with
[15:47] you.
[15:48] >> Okay. And Matt, um we we had suggested
[15:52] some focus. Uh if you have any news to
[15:54] bring us with regard to our nearest
[15:56] Frederick County community, New Market
[15:58] and any developments there, uh Cherry
[16:01] Run, etc. Uh
[16:04] >> do you want an update on the number of
[16:08] residences that they each have proposed
[16:10] and developed or do you just want a
[16:12] quick rundown?
[16:13] >> Um so just a quick rundown. Cherry Run
[16:17] we understand to be I believe the last
[16:19] county in your pipeline was 1,0
[16:22] dwellings. Is that still accurate?
[16:24] >> Cherry Run sits at 800. Now all of them
[16:26] have proposed numbers and zero in
[16:29] development. And I can tell you that New
[16:31] Market has just provided a comprehensive
[16:33] plan to Frederick County for review and
[16:36] comment and that will just be starting
[16:39] soon. We have no comments yet from New
[16:41] Market.
[16:42] >> Okay.
[16:44] Um
[16:46] any other general Frederick County
[16:48] information that could impact uh the
[16:50] town?
[16:53] >> Nothing truly comes to mind. I can tell
[16:55] you that data centers have been a hot
[16:57] commodity and they will not affect Mount
[17:00] Ary just because the overlay zone is a
[17:03] little closer to Frederick City itself
[17:05] and will not impact mount area at all.
[17:08] >> Right. We're talking about the former
[17:10] East Alco property.
[17:11] >> Exactly. The Quantum or Right.
[17:14] >> I could tell it has another name too.
[17:16] They have a lot of names.
[17:18] >> I turn to the commissioners then. Do the
[17:20] commissioners have any questions for
[17:21] Frederick County uh business or matters?
[17:30] Go ahead, Steve.
[17:32] >> We had discussed at some point in the
[17:34] past about a substation
[17:37] right off of Mount Ary's property. Um,
[17:41] and that I believe was Frederick County.
[17:43] Did they have Were they supposed to give
[17:44] us an update on that or let us know
[17:46] where that is? Uh, John, I think he's
[17:48] referring to Frederick County offered us
[17:50] uh an opportunity to comment on I
[17:53] believe it was was it an annexation to
[17:55] allow a
[17:58] >> reasoning reszoning? That's right.
[18:00] >> Consolidation and a reszoning of a
[18:02] parcel. I don't think that that moved
[18:04] forward with a positive approval.
[18:06] >> Okay.
[18:06] >> It was the last thing I remember. It did
[18:09] not get approved.
[18:10] >> Okay.
[18:10] >> At the county level,
[18:11] >> was that taken a portion of the regular
[18:13] farm or am I mistaken?
[18:14] >> I don't think so.
[18:15] >> Okay. Okay.
[18:20] » Right.
[18:21] >> Oh, that's right.
[18:22] >> Right. They were trying to
[18:23] >> They were non-conforming use.
[18:25] >> That's right. It was a non-conforming
[18:27] use and they were trying to just make it
[18:29] all correct.
[18:30] >> I gota
[18:31] >> which would allow them to expand
[18:33] without, you know, with the
[18:34] non-conforming use, they really can't
[18:36] expand it.
[18:36] >> Gotcha. Could could could you refresh
[18:40] Matt on that and maybe uh send the
[18:42] commissioners a quick question because I like the question from Commissioner
[18:46] Simsberger if you don't mind.
[18:48] >> The last time I remember it was had died
[18:50] >> had died commission level.
[18:53] >> All right. Any other uh possible
[18:56] questions? Matt, thank you very much.
[18:58] Welcome to the town of Mount Ary.
[19:00] >> Thank you guys so much.
[19:02] >> Thank you.
[19:04] Uh we're going to move now to item five
[19:06] on our agenda. This is discussion and
[19:08] approval of the Twin Arch Business Park
[19:10] Lot 15C section 4. Um, as background,
[19:14] this agenda item was tabled at the prior
[19:16] commission meeting for the reason that
[19:18] the commissioners ruled that there was a
[19:20] need for additional information or
[19:22] clarity on the final site plan when it
[19:25] was compared to the concept plan that
[19:28] was approved back on May 19th of 2025.
[19:33] Um, for the commissioners, there's no
[19:35] staff report uh other than the one that
[19:38] was presented on August 31st at the
[19:40] previous meeting. Um, so for this item,
[19:44] we're just going to um first pause and
[19:47] ask John if he wants to provide any
[19:49] update because I propose that we move
[19:51] right into the four areas that we asked
[19:53] for additional information.
[19:55] >> I have nothing to add to that.
[19:56] >> Fantastic. Uh, Mr. Patel, if you'll
[20:00] please come. and um Miss King or very
[20:05] good
[20:07] um
[20:09] and because I believe this is the first
[20:12] time Mr. Patel um
[20:15] >> you're certainly welcome to introduce
[20:16] yourself representing the engineering
[20:18] for the property.
[20:20] >> Good evening everyone. My name is Tal
[20:22] Kumar Patel, a professional civil
[20:24] engineer from Wenmar Associate and I'm
[20:26] here representing Kingsport Construction
[20:28] L 15C for final site plan.
[20:31] >> Very good. Thank you very much. Uh so
[20:34] let's proceed. The first item that we
[20:36] had uh asked for additional information
[20:39] was to understand what was going to be
[20:41] the true water and sewer allocation for
[20:45] the final site plan because uh there was
[20:49] seen some building changes and so forth
[20:52] and some water connections, some water
[20:54] connections from the previous plan that
[20:56] were no longer going to be connected,
[20:59] etc. And so again, we had a rich debate
[21:02] as to what was the real number with
[21:04] regard to the water allocation.
[21:06] So um as a start back on May 19th of
[21:10] 2025,
[21:12] uh we understood at the concept plan
[21:14] approval that this property in that
[21:16] concept plan design was going to require
[21:18] 2,314
[21:21] gallons per day at that time. And then in the interim of course there was
[21:26] a redesign that was now offered as the
[21:28] final plan and again some changes with
[21:31] regard to the buildings uh and so forth.
[21:34] And it's my understanding that the town
[21:37] engineer in concert with you Mr. Patel
[21:40] you've now assessed that the different
[21:42] site plan has uh an agreed new water
[21:46] allocation of 1,727
[21:49] gallons per day. And I'll stop there. Is
[21:52] that correct?
[21:52] >> That is correct. Yes. And Barney, is
[21:54] that correct?
[21:56] >> Yes, that is correct.
[21:57] >> Okay. Um, so then with that being agreed
[22:02] between the town engineer and the
[22:04] engineer for the property, I turn to the
[22:07] commissioners. Do you have any questions
[22:08] with regard to that water allocation of
[22:12] 1,727?
[22:13] Commissioner Walls,
[22:15] >> it's not so much a question, but just
[22:17] for the sake of documentation,
[22:19] um, you know, in this memorandum, uh,
[22:22] dated 921 2026,
[22:25] in the number one, it talks about, you
[22:28] know, the final site plan has an
[22:29] allocation of 1,027. I'm assuming that's
[22:32] because the 700 gallons per day that
[22:34] were already allocated. Yeah,
[22:36] >> but it's saying that that was an
[22:37] approximate 46% reduction in the
[22:40] allocation. And that's not really that's
[22:42] not really accurate because we already
[22:43] said it's 1727.
[22:45] >> So it's really just a 25% reduction from
[22:47] what was there before. So it's not
[22:49] really a you know I think everybody
[22:50] knows what's going on but to have to
[22:52] like reverse engineer the documents uh
[22:56] and I think for the sake of
[22:57] documentation that should be accurate in
[22:59] the staff report or in the memorandum or
[23:02] whatever. So, so if I may, Commissioner
[23:04] Walls, let me trail on that because it
[23:05] raises a good question. For the project
[23:08] file and for the recordation of that
[23:11] water allocation, which in our code is
[23:14] an enormously important number for
[23:16] everybody to agree to. Um, and perhaps a
[23:20] question to Mr. McCarron here. Should we
[23:22] ask that there be a correction to the
[23:24] engineers's letter or is this minutes uh
[23:29] are these minutes acknowledging
[23:30] everyone's agreement on 1,727
[23:33] gallons per day sufficient?
[23:37] >> Um I would I would ask for a correction
[23:41] to the submission from the engineer.
[23:43] >> Okay. Okay. Mr. Patel, is that
[23:46] agreeable?
[23:47] >> Uh yes.
[23:48] >> Okay. But this memorandum is just for
[23:50] giving a clarification on all those four
[23:53] questions. I guess we have corrected on
[23:55] a plan. So is there memorandum? Is this
[23:59] something you ask me to correct or
[24:01] >> so the so the 1727 is reflected on the
[24:04] final plan sheets?
[24:06] >> That's correct.
[24:06] >> Could you direct us to which sheet shows
[24:08] that, sir?
[24:12] >> Cover sheet.
[24:15] should have a whole plan there
[24:17] >> in the right margin.
[24:24] » So I see number 12 in the right margin
[24:27] it says estimated water flow is 1,027
[24:31] gallons per day
[24:33] >> which is correct because the existing is
[24:35] 700.
[24:36] So I think what they're looking for and
[24:38] what Commissioner Wallace is looking for
[24:41] is this memorandum which will go in the
[24:43] permit record that we do a revision and
[24:45] I'm thinking that in parentheses we
[24:47] should possibly put in there the 700
[24:49] gallons that exist for the total lot not
[24:52] this project.
[24:53] >> Okay. So memorandum not
[24:55] >> and we'll change it to the 25%.
[24:57] >> So just to be clear so the the 700
[24:59] gallons per day they were for the two
[25:01] residential existing
[25:03] >> properties. Is that right? Correct.
[25:04] Because they were initially 350
[25:05] a piece,
[25:06] >> right? 350 per,
[25:07] >> right? And then that particular parcel
[25:10] got chopped up and then that part got
[25:12] put into 15C. That allocation got put
[25:14] into 15C.
[25:16] >> Well, I would defer to engineering on
[25:17] that because that's his avenue.
[25:20] >> That's correct. Um, so when we look at a
[25:22] site plan and we're looking at from APFO
[25:24] standpoint, we're looking at what
[25:26] additional water is being required. So
[25:28] when they say in the memo that the final
[25:32] site plan will have 1027 additional
[25:36] gallons per day, that is a correct
[25:38] statement. Um it could be clarified to
[25:41] say in addition to the 700 that would
[25:43] give a total site allocation of 1727.
[25:47] >> That's I think that's necessary.
[25:48] >> Yeah, if we could do that um I I think
[25:51] just put that into the memo.
[25:54] >> I think that's enough. But I don't think
[25:56] we need to update drawings because that
[25:58] is correct
[26:00] um allocation for that 15C
[26:03] drawing.
[26:05] >> Meaning we already have an existing 700.
[26:07] What we're add what we're adding is
[26:09] 1027.
[26:10] >> Okay.
[26:11] Um, and so I guess the final
[26:14] documentation of the agreed 1727 would
[26:18] be that is that is the number that
[26:21] you're going to record for 15C in your
[26:24] water management spreadsheet.
[26:27] >> Correct.
[26:27] >> So that that would capture the correct
[26:30] number or the total number there.
[26:32] >> Yeah.
[26:33] >> Okay.
[26:33] >> Because there's an existing line that
[26:35] already has 700 gallons a day. There's a
[26:37] new line that will have well several new
[26:40] lines because it's per building.
[26:42] >> Okay.
[26:42] >> That'll have the various ones that add
[26:44] up to 27.
[26:46] >> Okay. So, um with apologies that I'm
[26:49] kind of taking the mic here. I think
[26:51] what I am hearing is that we would like
[26:53] the memorandum to be corrected, Mr.
[26:55] Patel. And with the assurance that the
[26:58] town engineer is going to record that
[27:00] lot as 1727,
[27:02] the engineer is recommending no need to
[27:04] cover the to change the cover sheet for
[27:07] the drawings. Is all three all three
[27:10] correct, John?
[27:13] >> Yeah, I think we're okay. I was just
[27:14] wondering to to to satisfy Heather is,
[27:17] you know, maybe we removed that section
[27:19] of the 4625. Is it necessary to show the
[27:23] reduction from what it was? We can
[27:25] clearly see there was a reduction in
[27:27] gallons per day. You know, is it we're
[27:29] striking that line or do you want to
[27:31] have that line on
[27:32] >> wherever? It needs to just be recorded
[27:34] somewhere where it's obvious. I mean, if
[27:36] you go into this this spreadsheet
[27:39] >> like on here,
[27:42] you know, it's 8,000 times. 07 and it
[27:44] says 210.
[27:46] >> That's not correct.
[27:48] >> If you look in the comments, it tells
[27:50] you there's an existing 350. So,
[27:53] >> it doesn't say 350. 560. It says one
[27:56] commercial unit, right?
[27:57] >> It doesn't say 350 on here, Bernie. All
[28:00] I'm saying is like there's the math
[28:02] isn't mapping and
[28:03] >> I have an updated information.
[28:06] >> I have an updated sheet that apparently
[28:07] didn't make it make it in your packets
[28:09] that show the existing 700. Um, and it
[28:11] gives you a total of 1727 for the for
[28:14] the site.
[28:15] >> Right. And and I and I believe the
[28:17] point's being made that if you take the 8,000 times the 7 for
[28:24] those two former residences,
[28:28] right, who that are now flex warehouse
[28:31] or the two former residential buildings.
[28:36] >> If you take the 7* 8, you get 560. But
[28:40] what that chart is showing is 210. And
[28:43] that 210 is because you subtracted 350
[28:47] from
[28:49] >> from the 560.
[28:51] 560US 350 is 210. So I think I I
[28:57] understand what she's asking for. Why
[28:58] don't we just put 560 in both of those
[29:01] squares? And that way we get 1727.
[29:04] >> You know, that's just an estimate sheet.
[29:06] But the point is that,
[29:08] you know, I'm not trying to throw anyone
[29:09] under the bus here, but the point is
[29:11] that we're we're here reviewing this
[29:12] packet right at home with no other
[29:15] information. And I have to reverse
[29:17] engineer the numbers and try to figure
[29:19] out why the math is wrong and why it
[29:22] says one, you know, 1,027 instead of
[29:24] 1727. And so all I'm saying is it needs
[29:27] to be documented appropriately that it's
[29:30] a total of 1727. Where that happens, I
[29:33] don't care. I just think it needs to be
[29:35] on the record.
[29:36] >> Gotcha. Okay.
[29:39] >> Go ahead, Barney.
[29:40] >> Clarification.
[29:40] >> Sure.
[29:41] >> This this document I don't normally
[29:43] share. These are are calculations that
[29:45] we use internally. In the calculation,
[29:47] it shows you it subtracts 350. So it
[29:50] gives the of what you don't see in the
[29:53] spreadsheet. The formula shows 8,000*
[29:56] 007 gives you 560 minus 350 is 210. in
[30:00] the comment in the comments in the
[30:02] comments it says
[30:04] >> connected and paid one commercial unit
[30:06] 723 that's 350 gallons. So that tells
[30:10] you right there there was already a 350
[30:12] applied to that to that site or that
[30:15] building.
[30:16] >> So that's the difference. I know it's
[30:19] not clear to you but that's why I sent a
[30:21] updated sheet. It did not make it in
[30:23] your packets.
[30:24] >> Okay.
[30:25] >> Sorry.
[30:26] >> So So let me offer again. I'm trying to
[30:28] wrap up. How are we going to be
[30:30] agreeable on closing out this this water
[30:32] allocation thing? I believe we have an
[30:34] agreement that we need to get a
[30:36] resubmission of that letter with the
[30:39] corrected number.
[30:40] >> Okay. Uh and that John I'm going to
[30:43] surmise is going to be a document that
[30:45] goes in the project file.
[30:46] >> Correct.
[30:47] >> And so we'll have that record of the
[30:49] corrected number 1727.
[30:53] Barney's indicated that he is tracking
[30:56] 1727 for lot 15C in his water management
[30:59] spreadsheet.
[31:01] Um,
[31:02] and the town engineer and the zoning
[31:05] administrator both those two actions are
[31:08] sufficient in their minds to record this
[31:10] accurately. Is that is that what I'm
[31:12] hearing?
[31:12] >> Yes.
[31:13] >> Okay. Any commissioner issue or
[31:15] additional requirement for recording
[31:18] 1727 for this as the water allocation?
[31:22] Then is it agreeable that this item has
[31:24] been addressed and is agreeable for that
[31:27] number? Okay, then
[31:31] let's close this area
[31:34] and um
[31:36] and again for the public I want to
[31:38] emphasize why this is an important thing
[31:40] because
[31:42] in 98-30
[31:44] uh excuse me 9830J
[31:47] um it states the town planning
[31:49] commission shall determine at the final
[31:51] site plan review stage whether the final
[31:53] site plan proposal or any phase thereof
[31:56] increases the demand for water and/or
[31:59] sewer from that proposed in the approved
[32:03] concept plan. If the planning commission
[32:06] determines that the final site plan
[32:08] proposal
[32:10] does not increase the demand for water
[32:13] or sewer allocation, the final site plan
[32:15] review and approval process shall
[32:18] proceed. So, I know I dwelled on this a
[32:21] while, but it was key that we hit this
[32:23] first because I believe now we may
[32:25] proceed with the other areas and then
[32:28] ultimately the final site plan review
[32:30] and decision. Uh so it it did not
[32:34] increase. Uh the original was 2314.
[32:38] We're now at 1727.
[32:40] So I believe uh we're good on that area.
[32:43] The second area is clarity regarding the
[32:45] streets and roads aspect of the final
[32:47] site plan compared to the concept plan.
[32:51] Um once again the town engineer in
[32:53] concert with the uh applicants engineer
[32:57] uh they've applied the manual for the
[32:59] institute of transportation engineers
[33:02] and have calculated the peak hour trips
[33:04] that are going to be required from the
[33:07] activity depicted in the final site
[33:09] plan. And in comparing that latest set
[33:13] of calculations to those done previously
[33:15] at the concept plan stage, um it is my
[33:19] view, and I'm eager to hear what the
[33:21] commissioner say. It is my view that the
[33:24] new peak hour trip calculations for the
[33:26] final site plan are lower than the
[33:28] concept plan peak hour trips. Um and so
[33:33] I'll pause again and ask Barney, do you
[33:35] want to add anything to that statement?
[33:37] Is it is it accurate? That is correct.
[33:41] >> Okay, Mr. Patel,
[33:42] >> it is correct.
[33:43] >> It's correct, John.
[33:45] >> Okay. Uh, commissioners, do you have any
[33:48] questions with regard to the new
[33:50] calculations for trip frequency at peak
[33:53] hour?
[33:56] Seeing none, I'm going to close this
[33:58] second area uh by concluding that the
[34:00] streets and roads portion of the APFO
[34:02] certifications are still certified as
[34:04] adequate given the fact that there is
[34:07] actually a reduction of the peak hour
[34:09] traffic associated with the final site
[34:12] plan. The third area is clarity that we
[34:15] asked for with regard to the landscaping
[34:17] plan. And our particular focus in the
[34:20] last meeting was the landscaping plan
[34:23] relative to the sightelines toward
[34:26] Britney Manor. And the uh already
[34:30] referred to separate uh September 21
[34:32] memo from Van Maher on this topic reads,
[34:34] quote, "To address this question,
[34:37] instead of the relocation of existing
[34:40] trees, the final site plan has been
[34:42] updated to include 10 new trees,
[34:45] including three new street trees along
[34:49] back acre circle. Also, there is an 8-
[34:53] foot high black chain link fence with
[34:56] insert flats to provide a solid
[34:59] screening along back circle and a
[35:02] screening of the site from the direction
[35:06] of Britney Manor. And so, are those
[35:09] statements all correct, Mr.
[35:10] >> Correct? Gotcha. Um, and so, uh, I turn
[35:14] to sheet 11 of the design drawings,
[35:18] which is the specific landscaping plan
[35:21] for the final site plan. And a simple
[35:25] straightforward question is the
[35:27] information you provided us in the
[35:29] letter I just quoted also depicted in
[35:32] sheet 11 for the landscaping.
[35:33] >> That's correct. Yes.
[35:34] >> Fantastic. Um, any questions,
[35:38] commissioners?
[35:40] Commissioner Walls? Has there been any
[35:42] other changes to the landscape plan
[35:44] since the original one that we saw?
[35:46] >> No, we just added uh 10 new trees
[35:48] instead of relocating it because of I
[35:51] think we noticed that some trees are
[35:53] dead. So instead
[35:55] >> they're dead. Yeah.
[35:56] >> So instead of relocating, we are putting
[35:58] the 10 new trees.
[35:59] >> Okay.
[36:01] Any other questions,
[36:03] commissioners, on the landscaping
[36:06] um information?
[36:09] And uh again Barney I didn't ask you
[36:11] point blank but uh is that landscaping
[36:12] plan acceptable to you and John also is
[36:15] it okay then I believe we are agreed on
[36:19] this third topic with regard to the
[36:21] landscaping plan. It is acceptable and
[36:24] it adequately screens the land use on
[36:27] lot 15C particularly from the sidelines
[36:31] of uh Britany Manor.
[36:34] The fourth and final area we requested
[36:37] clarity on has to do with our concern
[36:39] whether the final plan was submitted
[36:41] within the code required time of six
[36:43] months after the May 19th concept plan
[36:47] approval. I raised this issue and I
[36:50] simply asked could we get uh
[36:52] documentation as to the communications
[36:56] postconcept plan between uh the
[36:59] engineering firm and the town as to
[37:02] whether we can conclude they did indeed
[37:04] submit the material for the final plan
[37:06] within that six-month period. Um, in
[37:09] response to that, I believe Vanmar
[37:11] submitted several pages of memorandums
[37:13] which document those communications. And
[37:16] I see on the very first of those memos
[37:18] that were in the uh stack that was
[37:20] provided for us, uh there's a record of
[37:23] the first submitt of the final site plan
[37:26] dated October 17,
[37:29] 2025.
[37:30] And so from May 19th to October 17th,
[37:34] that's roughly five months.
[37:36] >> Five months. And so five months against
[37:39] the code required, six months um I see
[37:43] that in fact uh the plan was submitted
[37:46] within the code requirement. Is is that
[37:49] your view also Mr. Patel?
[37:50] >> That is correct.
[37:51] >> Okay, Barney John?
[37:54] >> Yep, that's correct.
[37:55] >> Okay, commissioners, any questions on
[37:57] the timeline of communications to meet
[38:00] the code requirements?
[38:05] Seeing none, I believe we're all agreed
[38:07] now that we can close this fourth and
[38:09] last area of clarity that we asked for
[38:11] at the last meeting. And with that
[38:13] agreement, I believe we can now move to
[38:16] proceed into deliberation of the final
[38:20] site plan itself. Um
[38:23] I want to I want to give a little
[38:26] guidance here. Um the code gives us some
[38:29] information with regard to final site
[38:31] plan approval from the planning
[38:33] commission. And the choices that we have
[38:36] with regard to the final site plan are
[38:38] number one, we may unconditionally
[38:40] approve the u new water and sewer
[38:44] allocation and the final site plan as
[38:46] submitted.
[38:48] The second option we have is of course
[38:51] we may conditionally approve the final
[38:53] site plan and water allocation.
[38:56] And if a conditional approving uh uh
[38:59] conditional approval is motioned and
[39:01] approved, then the code requires that we
[39:04] identify which of those conditions in
[39:06] that approval are deemed minor and which
[39:09] ones are deemed major. Those that are
[39:12] deemed minor by this commission are
[39:14] those then that are monitored and
[39:17] checked off by the town staff,
[39:19] specifically the town zoning
[39:20] administrator for satisfaction. And then
[39:23] once those are done to his satisfaction,
[39:26] he then renders final approval of the
[39:29] final plan. Those that are deemed major
[39:32] if we have a conditional approval are
[39:34] those conditions which have to circle
[39:37] back to this commission to review what
[39:40] was done to satisfy that condition and
[39:43] then we render that satisfaction and
[39:46] final approval. So I'm just offering
[39:48] some care as to whether a motion is made
[39:51] for a conditional approval.
[39:54] Lastly, of course, we all know the
[39:57] commission may disapprove the plan as
[39:59] presented tonight along with its water
[40:01] allocation.
[40:03] If the final site plan is disapproved
[40:05] according to the code, the water and
[40:07] sewer allocation, SA continue to be
[40:10] reserved for the application pending
[40:13] approval of the final site plan and the
[40:16] applicant may revise the plan to address
[40:20] any reasons for the disapproval and then
[40:23] reapply. So in the case of disapproval,
[40:25] we hold the water allocation until we
[40:27] see whether the applicant comes forward
[40:29] again with a revised plan. So with that
[40:33] guidance straight from the code, I ask
[40:35] that John put up his staff report and
[40:38] recommendation from August 31st on this
[40:40] topic. I believe he also provided each
[40:43] of you a hard copy of that in case our
[40:46] screen doesn't work.
[40:48] >> It should work
[40:49] >> again. Thank you.
[40:51] >> It should work. Is it warming up?
[40:54] >> Take a millisecond here.
[40:56] >> I think we had a warm-up issue last
[40:58] time. There we go.
[40:59] >> All right. Good. I don't know if you can
[41:01] blow that up because um I'm I'm 42 and I
[41:05] sometimes have heart um I'm just joking.
[41:09] There we go. Beautiful. Thank you so
[41:11] much, John. So, commissioners, I'm
[41:13] guiding us along here to the final site
[41:16] plan deliberation. This was the staff
[41:19] recommendation last time. We tabled it
[41:22] because we needed more information and
[41:24] we have gotten through those four areas.
[41:26] So, we're at this point now and that is
[41:28] what John recommends. John, I now turn
[41:31] to you. Do you wish to amend, edit, or
[41:33] correct any of what you gave us last
[41:36] month?
[41:37] >> The only thing I would potentially think
[41:39] about removing is the last line. Again,
[41:42] when I was out at the site a month ago,
[41:44] I didn't see any of the uh materials for
[41:46] the turf fields being stored outside as
[41:49] they were previously. I think they're
[41:51] all inside their storage buildings. I
[41:53] didn't see any out on tractor trailers
[41:56] or any open bags anywhere. So, that's
[41:58] potentially the only thing I could see
[42:00] is being removed.
[42:02] >> Um
[42:05] >> bless you. Bless Um, so, um,
[42:10] >> because again this
[42:11] >> No, I I I got you. I'm just asking it.
[42:13] sounded as if you were leaving the
[42:16] removal to us. Are are
[42:18] >> are you striking it?
[42:20] >> Yeah, I'm saying it could be strike
[42:22] because again, that's really not part of
[42:23] this site plan. It's own separate
[42:25] operation.
[42:26] >> Okay. Um, any other edits or amendments
[42:30] that you
[42:31] >> No, that's the only one.
[42:32] >> Okay. Um, I'm going to ask town engineer
[42:34] to weigh in on this, too. Uh, because
[42:37] there are sprinkler systems and such.
[42:39] Um, do you have any proposed
[42:42] improvements, changes to this
[42:44] conditional approval?
[42:45] >> No, I agree with it as is.
[42:51] » You agree? Okay. Um, commissioners, do
[42:54] you have any uh questions on these? Um,
[42:57] so we're going to strike the very last
[42:59] one with regard to the storage of that
[43:01] material. Uh, the other conditions, I
[43:05] see three other conditions underneath
[43:07] the
[43:08] uh, approval. Uh, Commissioner Hadley,
[43:11] >> I was just going to say we need to put
[43:13] in a sentence about the memo being
[43:14] corrected.
[43:16] >> Uh, we can do that.
[43:18] >> Sure. Sure.
[43:19] >> We can do uh to correct the water
[43:21] allocation statement of earlier. Yes.
[43:24] Commissioner Wallace,
[43:25] >> can you explain why you wanted to remove
[43:27] the last one? Because I was actually
[43:28] thinking the last line should stay, but
[43:30] it should be updated to will instead of
[43:31] should.
[43:35] » That's okay, too. I mean, that's again,
[43:37] it's it's just that it's not relative to
[43:40] what's being presented here. Again, it's
[43:42] already an existing use on the parcel.
[43:44] >> I know we had talked about it before.
[43:46] Was it when the first concept plan came
[43:48] through?
[43:48] >> Well, no, it was when it a concept and
[43:50] final came through years ago. a couple
[43:53] years ago.
[43:55] >> I'm I'm I'm comfortable with changing
[43:58] should to will.
[43:59] >> That would be okay.
[44:01] >> Any any commissioner comment on that
[44:02] suggestion? We're we're pulling the last
[44:05] bullet back in, but we're changing
[44:07] should to will.
[44:08] >> Will be stored.
[44:09] >> I think the as I recall the there was
[44:11] like concern about PAS and correct
[44:14] leeching into the ground
[44:15] >> and the rain and right and such. Yeah.
[44:18] >> Yeah.
[44:19] >> So
[44:19] >> yeah. And I believe at that initial time
[44:21] the bags were being stored in the
[44:23] bunkers.
[44:24] >> Uh no, two years ago when I was out
[44:26] there I noticed that there were um some
[44:29] of the turf fields were just sitting on
[44:30] a tractor trailer out in just in the
[44:32] yard. Okay.
[44:34] >> And some of the PAS bags of beads were
[44:36] just sitting out exposed. I think the
[44:38] tops were open.
[44:39] >> Okay.
[44:40] >> So, and I think they they corrected
[44:42] those issues.
[44:43] >> Okay.
[44:44] >> I could tell.
[44:45] >> Okay. Um, so good comment on that. Um,
[44:52] any other commissioner input? Once
[44:53] again, no. Uh, I turn to Mr. Patel and
[44:57] the applicant. Do you see any of these
[44:59] conditions ownorous or unachievable?
[45:07] And we will include the uh, resubmission
[45:10] of the memorandum.
[45:12] uh whoever makes the motion will include
[45:14] that as a uh as a condition for toward
[45:19] final approval.
[45:20] >> Okay. I just want to make a comment just
[45:22] for the clarification for the last one.
[45:25] Isn't that the existing views of the
[45:27] site is it separate from what we are
[45:30] representing the site plan for or
[45:35] » Exactly. That's why I was saying to
[45:36] remove it
[45:38] >> but again the use
[45:40] >> is different than what is the use of the
[45:42] site is already been there and it's
[45:45] existing so it has I'm not sure whether
[45:49] it's a connection with this site plan.
[45:51] >> Okay. So again I turn to u possibly Mr.
[45:55] McCarron but I certainly turned to John.
[45:58] This was your recommendation. So, uh,
[46:01] we're now back to, uh, a proposal to
[46:04] strike it.
[46:06] >> I'm I'm indifferent, like you're saying.
[46:08] I mean, I can see where
[46:09] >> Heather could still be concerned about
[46:11] this. Again, the, um,
[46:12] >> let me, uh, let me see if I can resolve
[46:14] it this way. Do you see the requirement
[46:16] or the condition here as one you can't
[46:19] attain or is it something you're going
[46:20] to do as a matter of business?
[46:22] >> I think that's what I I just don't want
[46:24] to have a string connected to this side
[46:26] plan. I mean, I'm sure they will be able
[46:28] to resolve and I think they already have
[46:30] resolved.
[46:31] >> Okay.
[46:32] >> But I just want to make sure for the
[46:34] clarification.
[46:34] >> No, I understand.
[46:36] I'm not saying that they won't be able
[46:38] to do it, but it's just
[46:40] >> got you. Um, Commissioner Walls,
[46:42] >> if we could just get some clarification
[46:44] on I know that we've talked about this
[46:45] before and I know that we changed that
[46:47] language from should to will or
[46:49] something like that before and I just
[46:52] don't recall what that what that was.
[46:56] Um, was it I was wondering if it was
[46:58] like an earlier, you know, the initial
[47:00] concept plan coming in.
[47:02] >> Well, it was probably 15B when it was
[47:05] initially just the over overall larger
[47:08] parcel before they came in and
[47:10] subdivided off the portion they're
[47:13] deeding to the town.
[47:14] >> Okay.
[47:14] >> Um, again, so that's why the use is
[47:18] already on here. The that recycling
[47:21] won't be in the buildings that are being
[47:22] the new proposed buildings. They'll be
[47:24] in some of the existing buildings that
[47:26] they're enclosing. Um,
[47:28] >> but that that's one of the proposed
[47:29] warehouses on 15C, right?
[47:31] >> Well, again, it'll be one of the um
[47:34] other buildings in the rear, but yeah,
[47:35] it's one of the it'll be an existing
[47:37] warehouse that they're utilizing
[47:39] already.
[47:39] >> I thought it was currently in the pole
[47:41] shed. Didn't we talk about before it was
[47:43] currently being stored in the pole shed
[47:45] building,
[47:45] >> right? Building number six on
[47:48] >> open on one side and closed on.
[47:49] >> I think that's been enclosed if I'm not
[47:52] mistaken. And that's all been enclosed
[47:53] where they're recycle recycling the um
[47:56] materials are all being enclosed.
[48:00] » We are um one building has been enclosed
[48:04] and one is being enclosed. So there
[48:08] >> which building are you currently doing
[48:10] the recycling of the turf material in?
[48:13] Do you know?
[48:14] >> One all the way in the back.
[48:15] >> Right. So that would be building not
[48:16] building seven which is an existing pole
[48:19] shed. It's building six, the existing
[48:21] post shed building.
[48:24] One is 6,2445
[48:27] square feet. The larger of the two
[48:29] buildings back there is where you're
[48:30] doing the recycling and and the storage
[48:33] of the the um turf and the beads, where
[48:37] are they being stored after?
[48:40] >> Yeah.
[48:40] >> Inside that building. again.
[48:43] >> So, that building with its current
[48:48] operations has a permitted use.
[48:51] >> Correct.
[48:52] >> You have given them a permit for them to
[48:54] operate
[48:55] >> that business in that structure.
[48:59] >> The structures exactly stipulation.
[49:02] >> Right. That was a tad that was part of
[49:04] their stipulation. That's what you plan.
[49:07] >> That's what I was.
[49:07] >> That's why I'm sort of saying to remove
[49:09] it from here because it's really not
[49:11] pertinent to this design,
[49:13] >> which is Mr. Patel's point, right?
[49:15] >> Yeah.
[49:16] >> So, I think we're back to striking it.
[49:18] If you've already permitted the
[49:20] recycling operation and the handling of
[49:23] the beads per that caution,
[49:26] then
[49:28] it's it's already been it's already been
[49:31] required as a part of your permit
[49:34] >> the original.
[49:34] >> Is that accurate?
[49:35] >> Of the original site plan. Exactly.
[49:37] >> Of the original. Okay. Does does that
[49:40] satisfy?
[49:41] >> I don't know.
[49:42] >> No.
[49:43] >> Okay. I think what what Heather's
[49:46] saying, I'm trying to remember too that
[49:48] when this came forward in the the
[49:49] concept that this was an issue and that
[49:52] we brought it up and we talked about it,
[49:55] but there's been changes and I think if
[49:59] those buildings are part of this site
[50:02] plan, then it's still pertinent,
[50:04] >> okay,
[50:04] >> to it. And because we we we had it the
[50:08] way it was supposed to be according when
[50:10] we all agreed upon it and then there was
[50:11] a bunch of changes and now we're at a
[50:14] different point. Now we're saying we
[50:15] don't need it. So
[50:16] >> So so let's try this. I'm trying to
[50:17] weave in between all of these
[50:19] statements. So, how about we leave it
[50:20] in, but we change the wording to
[50:23] recycling of turf fields shall continue
[50:26] to be stored because that recognizes
[50:30] that it's already underway as a
[50:32] permitted use and we're simply
[50:34] emphasizing it again here.
[50:36] >> Right.
[50:37] >> Is that fair to all?
[50:38] >> I'm okay with that.
[50:39] >> Is that is that good? Shall continue to
[50:43] be etc. Okay. Mr. Patel comment.
[50:48] Yeah, we are we are happy with that.
[50:49] That's
[50:50] >> you're acceptable.
[50:51] >> Okay, good. All right. Uh so with the
[50:57] added bullet with regard to the
[50:59] memorandum regarding the water
[51:01] allocation correction
[51:03] um then I would propose the conversation
[51:07] among the commissioners only as to
[51:09] regarding all of those there'll be five
[51:13] with the memorandum correction. All five
[51:16] are deemed minor conditions in such a
[51:21] proposed conditional approvement.
[51:23] Meaning again that those conditions
[51:25] would be monitored by the town staff and
[51:29] their determination as to the
[51:31] satisfaction and then once all those
[51:34] conditions have been met satisfactoryy
[51:37] to the town staff's
[51:40] uh assessment then the final site plan
[51:43] approval is issued. Uh, does any
[51:46] commissioner see any difference in those
[51:48] being minor
[51:51] or do you want any of these to circle
[51:53] back to this body for that assessment?
[51:58] Commissioner Simmelsberger, you're
[52:00] itching to talk.
[52:01] >> Which buildings are going to be required
[52:03] to have the sprinklers?
[52:06] The ones that have water connections and
[52:08] the ones that don't will not have
[52:10] sprinklers,
[52:11] >> or do they all require sprinklers?
[52:14] I believe it's just buildings nine and
[52:16] 10. Am I right?
[52:17] >> That's that's correct. And that'll be
[52:18] determined from Carol County when they
[52:20] go to get a building permit uh based on
[52:23] their requirements. Again, we're not a fire protection engineer.
[52:27] >> Okay.
[52:27] >> Um so that would defer to Carol County
[52:30] when they go through to get their
[52:31] building permits. um if it's required
[52:34] for their use um for flex industrial and
[52:38] warehouse then that's when they'll have
[52:40] to comply with that code and that code
[52:43] section through Carol County.
[52:45] >> Okay.
[52:45] >> As it says per building permit
[52:47] requirements.
[52:50] >> So rather than get specific, I I would
[52:52] think maybe just leave it general like
[52:54] it's stated because we leave it to the
[52:57] Carol County folks to decide the
[52:59] specific buildings. Uh this statement
[53:01] says if they're required wherever in the
[53:04] final plan then they have to comply with
[53:07] that. Is that a fair
[53:08] >> That's correct. And we actually have a
[53:10] much stronger requirement on max square
[53:12] footage for warehouse buildings in Mount
[53:15] Air compared to Carol County.
[53:16] >> I understand.
[53:18] >> Okay. But good question.
[53:20] >> Yeah. My only qu the only concern was in
[53:22] the warehouses where they actually do
[53:24] the recycling or or whatever. Um, a lot
[53:28] of times they'll require them to have
[53:30] sprinklers
[53:31] more so than just the flex warehouses. I
[53:33] understand the flex warehouses, but if
[53:35] they're doing an actual um some type of work in there a lot of time and
[53:40] you're having flammables inside the
[53:42] building. I know a lot of times they'll
[53:44] require the sprinklers, but Carol County
[53:46] will figure that out. I just didn't want
[53:47] wanted to make sure it didn't change any
[53:50] of the water allocations or the
[53:52] buildings that it's going to go to in
[53:54] the future.
[53:58] Okay.
[54:00] Um, is that is that a question or just Okay.
[54:05] >> Understood. Good. Um,
[54:08] okay. Uh, then I see five conditions and
[54:12] again I propose that they all would be
[54:14] regarded as minor according to the code
[54:16] giving the town staff the ability to
[54:19] monitor, assess, and render whether they
[54:22] are met satisfactorily. Any debate on
[54:26] that hearing? None. I believe we've
[54:29] exhausted uh our review of the final
[54:31] plan and the analysis of
[54:38] and the um and the staff's
[54:40] recommendation with the changes we've
[54:42] discussed. Uh so therefore, I'm going to
[54:45] make the motion that the planning
[54:48] commission grant conditional approval
[54:53] Ju just made my job harder.
[54:57] >> I'm sorry.
[54:59] My bad.
[55:00] >> That's okay, John.
[55:04] » My bad. Sorry, Ralph.
[55:06] >> That's all right, buddy.
[55:07] >> No, I probably won't power back.
[55:09] >> You got it.
[55:10] >> Yeah, you just have to scribble.
[55:12] >> I got it. We got her.
[55:13] >> I got it. So, uh,
[55:17] scribble notwithstanding. I think I've
[55:18] got
[55:20] >> We're back up.
[55:21] Okay. All right. So, um, once again, so
[55:25] I make the motion that the planning
[55:27] commission grant conditional approval of
[55:28] the final site development plan for
[55:30] light 15C section 4 Twin Arch Business
[55:33] Park for King Sports Construction with
[55:36] the following conditions of approval.
[55:38] First condition is to revise the
[55:41] September 21st memorandum from the
[55:44] engineering firm to reflect the correct
[55:46] water allocation of 1,727
[55:51] gallons per day.
[55:54] Number two, all town and county comments
[55:57] must be addressed before any grading
[55:59] permit is approved or issued by the town
[56:01] of Mount Ary staff. Number three,
[56:05] provide all legal documents, easements,
[56:07] public works agreements, and bonding
[56:09] before any grading permit or building
[56:13] permit is approved or signed off by the
[56:15] town of Mount Airy staff.
[56:20] Number four is the sprinkler systems are
[56:23] required per NFPA13
[56:25] as per code section 60-7B1
[56:29] as per building permit requirements.
[56:33] And lastly, that all related materials
[56:36] for the recycling of turf fields shall
[56:40] continue to be stored in waterproof bags
[56:44] or undercover from exposure to the
[56:48] weather. Do I have a second for that
[56:50] motion?
[56:52] >> I'll second.
[56:53] >> The motion is seconded by Commissioner
[56:55] Hatley. Is there any further discussion
[56:57] on the motion and conditions made?
[57:01] Hearing
[57:04] none. All those in favor of the mo of
[57:06] the motion for a conditional approval of
[57:09] the final site plan for lot 15 C section
[57:12] 4, please say I.
[57:15] >> I.
[57:16] >> Those opposed?
[57:17] >> Nay.
[57:18] >> Those who wish to abstain
[57:21] the motion passes.
[57:24] >> Thank you Mr. Patel. Miss King,
[57:31] » sorry.
[57:32] >> Oh, no, no, thank you. Thank you. Our
[57:35] next agenda item is uh the Buffalo Road
[57:38] subdivision and open space waiver
[57:41] supporting documentation.
[57:43] Um again, a bit of history on this from
[57:45] our previous August 31st meeting. Uh the
[57:49] question was raised as to the
[57:50] commission's completion of the required
[57:52] open space waiver worksheet
[57:55] as a part of the concept plan stage for
[58:00] this development. Uh the concept plan
[58:03] stage was held
[58:06] July 28th, 2025.
[58:11] >> Turn that off now.
[58:12] >> You certainly
[58:14] >> I'm good. Thank you though. that that
[58:17] made it easier, John, honestly. Um so again, on Buffalo Roads worksheet
[58:25] for the open space waiver, we completed
[58:27] the concept plan efforts on July 28th of
[58:31] 2025. Uh at our last meeting, there was
[58:34] a a rich debate as to whether that
[58:36] worksheet had been completed, signed,
[58:39] and recorded uh within the project file.
[58:44] Um, I I wish to advise all the
[58:48] commissioners that I met with the town
[58:50] staff uh on uh this past Friday, the
[58:54] 25th. Uh we pulled out the quote the
[58:59] code with regard to APFO certification
[59:02] of which open space and recreation is
[59:04] one of the seven areas uh 25-5. We also
[59:07] pulled out uh 98-23
[59:11] which is the code specifically for
[59:13] allocating uh open space as a part of
[59:16] any project or the developer providing
[59:18] open space as a part of any project. Uh
[59:21] in that discussion uh and I will add
[59:25] that prior to that discussion we
[59:27] reviewed the July 28th video from uh
[59:31] Carol Media Center. Uh we did complete
[59:34] that worksheet according to that video
[59:36] record. We completed it with two
[59:39] corrections to be made and um in the
[59:44] meeting on Friday, we ascertained that
[59:46] it was an administrative error that um
[59:50] the document simply needed to come
[59:52] forward that it had been approved by
[59:55] this commission uh and that the
[59:58] corrected version which was included in
[1:00:00] all of the commissioners read ahead for
[1:00:02] this evening uh simply needed to be
[1:00:04] signed by me as the recordation. of that
[1:00:08] waiver completion and entered into the
[1:00:11] project file. Um, and if I can use the
[1:00:16] phrase put to bed, so to speak. So, I
[1:00:20] went ahead and signed it. You'll see the
[1:00:22] one that was provided by John tonight on
[1:00:25] your on your seat. That's dated this
[1:00:27] Friday, the 25th. Um, but I'm a
[1:00:31] transparent kind of guy or try to be.
[1:00:33] And so, I will now I consider the matter
[1:00:36] closed. I'm I'm not looking for a motion
[1:00:38] or a vote on that because we had already
[1:00:40] done that on July 28th. Um, let me pause
[1:00:44] before I turn to the commissioners.
[1:00:45] John, do you wish to add anything? Did I misspeak on any matter?
[1:00:49] >> No, but I appreciate your time coming in
[1:00:51] and resolving that on Friday.
[1:00:52] >> Fantastic. Barney, I know you joined us
[1:00:54] also because you manage open space. Um,
[1:00:57] anything incorrect or you wish to add?
[1:00:59] >> No.
[1:01:00] >> Okay. All right then. Um are there any
[1:01:04] questions then with regard to the signed
[1:01:06] uh workspace
[1:01:08] uh worksheet open space worksheet? Thank
[1:01:11] you. Any questions? Okay. So John, this
[1:01:15] will go in the project file.
[1:01:18] >> That's correct.
[1:01:18] >> Along with the other six APFO
[1:01:21] certifications that we completed back in
[1:01:24] July. Okay.
[1:01:25] >> Yes.
[1:01:27] Um with that then um we now turn to the
[1:01:32] council's uh request that this body uh
[1:01:36] deliberate on and offer a recommendation
[1:01:39] regarding draft ordinance 2026-25
[1:01:43] on accessory dwelling units or ADUs.
[1:01:48] Um, as background on this and as most of
[1:01:50] you read in your read ahead package, um,
[1:01:54] this necessary amendment to our code was
[1:01:57] driven by the state legislature in House
[1:02:00] Bill 1466.
[1:02:03] And, uh, that was enacted on 1 October
[1:02:06] 2025.
[1:02:08] And in that legislation, it asks that
[1:02:11] all municipalities
[1:02:13] um adjust their code accordingly to that
[1:02:16] legislation by 1 October 2026.
[1:02:21] I'm going to go into a timeline question
[1:02:23] here in a dialogue with both John and
[1:02:26] Tom McCarron. Um Mr. McCarron, I know
[1:02:29] that the state doesn't have a uh uh an
[1:02:33] enforcement, so to speak, upon the
[1:02:35] municipalities that failed to meet one
[1:02:37] October. Uh that's my that's my simple
[1:02:40] view. Maybe there are a bunch of folks
[1:02:42] that'll run out there and bang on doors,
[1:02:44] but I don't believe there is. Um and so
[1:02:47] the question is asked simply or the
[1:02:50] discussion is open as to how fast we
[1:02:52] need to provide our recommendation. Um,
[1:02:56] this commission wants to be thorough.
[1:02:58] Um, I never like to, you know,
[1:03:02] chase people along to get to a good
[1:03:05] piece of advice for the council's
[1:03:07] deliberation on this. Uh, so is it fair
[1:03:09] to say, uh, the code allows us 90 days?
[1:03:12] I don't anticipate taking 90 days to do
[1:03:15] this. Um, but, uh, your comment, sir, as
[1:03:18] to we got to get this done before the,
[1:03:20] let's say, the October uh, council
[1:03:23] meeting. I mean the the statute says
[1:03:26] October 1st, 2026,
[1:03:29] but you know uh I cannot imagine uh
[1:03:34] great turmoil
[1:03:36] should this pass go beyond that because
[1:03:39] you want more time to uh deliberate on
[1:03:43] this and
[1:03:44] >> Okay.
[1:03:45] >> My best advice would be to deliberate on
[1:03:47] it.
[1:03:48] >> Good. Gotcha. And so with that, I turn
[1:03:51] to John uh and and council member Kelly.
[1:03:54] Are are you aware that there is an
[1:03:56] expectation from the council that we
[1:04:00] have our recommendation in front of them
[1:04:02] for their October meeting? In other
[1:04:04] words, do you know whether it will be on
[1:04:06] the agenda for the October meeting? And
[1:04:08] if it is, then we need to haste along.
[1:04:11] >> I do not recall asking you to expedite.
[1:04:15] Okay.
[1:04:15] >> Um I can check the draft agenda. I have
[1:04:19] in my email to see if it's on there.
[1:04:21] >> Uh that that's that's
[1:04:23] >> I don't think so.
[1:04:24] >> You
[1:04:24] >> I don't think so. I don't remember
[1:04:25] seeing it either.
[1:04:26] >> You don't have to. I I think we have
[1:04:28] some sense of relief that you know we we
[1:04:31] can uh give it our full time and and
[1:04:34] provide um provide our opinions on this.
[1:04:38] Okay. So that covers the timeline
[1:04:40] reality of the mandate and um um
[1:04:46] we'll we'll do it uh we'll do it with uh
[1:04:49] without a lot of haste. Um
[1:04:52] so what I'd like to do then is uh
[1:04:56] hopefully each commissioner has had time
[1:04:58] to go through the draft ordinance
[1:05:00] 2026-25.
[1:05:03] Uh, I believe the town staff also
[1:05:05] provided or recommended that there be uh
[1:05:08] perhaps uh a quick look at the bill
[1:05:11] itself, HB 1466
[1:05:15] uh for its language. And then I believe
[1:05:18] the town staff also provided us what uh
[1:05:21] Carol County uh was exploring as their
[1:05:25] adjustment to accommodate the
[1:05:27] legislation regarding accessory dwelling
[1:05:29] units. And so you had a bit of
[1:05:31] background, so to speak, in order to now
[1:05:33] come and put eyes on the town's uh draft
[1:05:37] amendment. Um, and so what I'd like to
[1:05:40] do is if you form some questions or
[1:05:42] opinions, um, I will go down the line
[1:05:46] and pull you basically and give you the
[1:05:48] opportunity to ask uh questions. Would
[1:05:50] it be reasonable u, Mr. McCarron, the
[1:05:53] questions be directed to you?
[1:05:55] >> Sure. If they're legal.
[1:05:57] >> Okay. Okay.
[1:05:59] The questions are questions to
[1:06:02] >> only a few of us are legal here, but no,
[1:06:04] I'm just kidding. Uh, no, that's fair.
[1:06:06] Um, uh, so if you have questions, please
[1:06:09] ask them in order to get to a
[1:06:11] recommendation. Um, if you wish to close
[1:06:15] your questions and comments with a final
[1:06:18] determination of either approval or
[1:06:20] disapproval, uh, and by the way, the
[1:06:22] code does state that we have to provide
[1:06:25] the council a recommendation of approval
[1:06:28] or disapproval. In the past, we've given
[1:06:31] recommendations that were couched in the
[1:06:33] terms of favorable or unfavorable, but
[1:06:37] upon review of the code, uh, it does say
[1:06:40] approval or disapproval. So anyway, if
[1:06:42] you could use those semantics, I would
[1:06:44] appreciate it. That's how it'll be
[1:06:45] recorded. And again, if you feel
[1:06:48] comfortable with rendering that
[1:06:49] conclusion tonight, it will be recorded.
[1:06:52] If you're not ready, then I will open
[1:06:55] this agenda item again with John uh for
[1:06:59] our October meeting and I will ask that
[1:07:02] you have reached a conclusion for a
[1:07:03] recommendation at that date. Um so if we
[1:07:07] can get your recommendation, that's
[1:07:09] great. If not, we'll look for it at the
[1:07:12] next meeting. Is that fair rules of how
[1:07:14] we want to do this? Any any suggestions
[1:07:18] otherwise,
[1:07:19] Mr. McCarron? Is that
[1:07:21] >> Looks good. Yep, that looks fine. Okay,
[1:07:23] then if I may do that, um, and again,
[1:07:27] uh, well, I'm not going to go into that.
[1:07:30] So, what I'd like to do is uh Stephen,
[1:07:33] um I'm going to ask that you start us
[1:07:36] off if you have any questions about the
[1:07:38] draft ordinance or any conclusions. Uh
[1:07:41] it's your time.
[1:07:42] >> Steve, can you pull the mic towards you
[1:07:44] or
[1:07:44] >> um So, we already have code on accessory
[1:07:50] apartments. So, this is specifically
[1:07:52] more for
[1:07:55] uh dwelling units, correct? Okay. So,
[1:07:59] um, there only a couple things that I
[1:08:01] saw reading through that in our code
[1:08:05] when we discussed the different
[1:08:08] districts R1, R2, R3, etc. Um, it
[1:08:12] specifically says that there is a
[1:08:14] maximum density for each of those in in
[1:08:17] other words, R1 is one dwelling. If we
[1:08:22] are going to allow an ADU, do do those
[1:08:25] districts need to be does the phrasing
[1:08:27] need to be changed that they will be
[1:08:28] allowed to have one dwelling plus one
[1:08:32] ADU or not? I I don't know how that
[1:08:35] applies.
[1:08:36] >> So, the way this is constructed at
[1:08:38] least, and you can construct it probably
[1:08:40] any number of ways. Um, this is set up
[1:08:44] as a special exception.
[1:08:46] So I don't think that the u
[1:08:50] >> So it only has to list that a special
[1:08:52] exception is allowed. That type of
[1:08:54] special exception is allowed in the R1,
[1:08:56] R2.
[1:08:56] >> Yeah, R2 etc.
[1:09:00] >> Okay. Then the only other thing that I
[1:09:01] saw was um a couple issues with setbacks
[1:09:06] as far as accessory structures
[1:09:08] and ADUs. uh 11262
[1:09:12] and ADU
[1:09:14] is uh has a setback of 10 feet from the
[1:09:17] side and rear lines whereas accessory
[1:09:20] structures are three and six foot
[1:09:22] depending on whether they're 100 foot
[1:09:26] 100 square foot or less. So I don't know
[1:09:28] if that applies to anything.
[1:09:31] So the only restriction that the state
[1:09:33] code provides is you can't require any
[1:09:36] greater setback than uh for uh the zone
[1:09:41] in which uh the principal residence is
[1:09:44] located. Um
[1:09:48] but there's a lot of leeway obviously um
[1:09:52] you know within that. Um, so I think one
[1:09:55] of the points made was that uh the rear
[1:09:59] um setback line on I believe every one
[1:10:03] of the residential districts is 40 ft,
[1:10:06] you know. So why say 10? Um you don't
[1:10:10] have to say 10. The only thing that
[1:10:12] probably should be considered then is
[1:10:14] remember you cannot
[1:10:17] whatever this means uh unduly restrict
[1:10:20] uh uh ADUs. you how many current single
[1:10:26] family homes without an ADU already bump
[1:10:29] up against the 40. And so as to if
[1:10:32] you're going to require 40 for the ADU,
[1:10:35] you're basically negating that use for
[1:10:38] those residential properties with single
[1:10:40] family that already bump up against the
[1:10:43] 40T. I don't know how many that is, but
[1:10:45] it's something to consider. If it's a
[1:10:47] lot, then obviously it leaves you open
[1:10:50] to the argument that you have unduly
[1:10:52] regulated it and therefore don't make
[1:10:54] many many of these properties candidates
[1:10:58] for uh an ADU. That that'd be the the
[1:11:01] issue.
[1:11:03] >> Okay, that's all I had. Can I follow up
[1:11:05] on that real quick what he was asking?
[1:11:07] >> Sure. for Tom. Um, with the law that was
[1:11:10] passed,
[1:11:11] >> um, I think it was saying that the
[1:11:14] section may not establish setback
[1:11:15] requirements that exceed the existing
[1:11:17] accessory structure setback requirements
[1:11:19] for the side and rear lot lines.
[1:11:22] >> It says,
[1:11:31] give me a second
[1:11:35] setbacks.
[1:11:38] Are you looking within the legislation?
[1:11:40] >> Yeah.
[1:11:49] » So, it's in um
[1:11:50] >> established setback requirements that
[1:11:52] exceed the existing accessories
[1:11:54] >> accessory. So, wouldn't aren't permitted
[1:11:57] sheds accessories?
[1:11:59] >> Yep.
[1:12:00] >> And a permanent shed in the town of
[1:12:02] Manor is six feet.
[1:12:04] So then the excess ADU would have to be
[1:12:06] six feet.
[1:12:08] >> Minimum
[1:12:10] >> the Yes, the minimum
[1:12:12] >> would be six feet. You can't be 10
[1:12:16] unless the code changes.
[1:12:19] I think did they address that with
[1:12:29] » beds and garages whatever was
[1:12:32] >> I think the the state law you can't
[1:12:34] restrict it more than what it is and
[1:12:35] since we have it at six feet we minimum
[1:12:38] six feet
[1:12:39] >> you can't restrict the setback more than
[1:12:42] >> but are we considering a shed in this
[1:12:44] example as being a livable structure
[1:12:47] sure that meets all the other
[1:12:48] requirements for a dwelling unit. It's a
[1:12:52] shed.
[1:12:53] >> I mean that there are a number of open
[1:12:55] questions about this statute. I don't
[1:12:57] know where it leaves us on many a front
[1:12:59] like do we need a parking plant
[1:13:01] >> as a town uh by way of example.
[1:13:05] >> You know it's what it says the existing
[1:13:07] accessory structure setback
[1:13:09] requirements. So, you know, if if I
[1:13:12] haven't looked, but assuming it's
[1:13:14] correct that the accessory structure,
[1:13:16] that's what it says.
[1:13:17] >> I see your point,
[1:13:18] >> then that probably should be six feet or
[1:13:20] you change, you know,
[1:13:23] >> but it's somewhat at
[1:13:25] you may well have existing
[1:13:28] uh accessory structures that are within
[1:13:29] six feet, not 10 feet. If you change got
[1:13:32] >> change that. So, I believe we
[1:13:34] consolidate all these good comments by
[1:13:36] saying it's 10 foot side yard and six
[1:13:39] foot rear.
[1:13:40] >> I think that's probably
[1:13:42] >> I think it's six feet six. It should be
[1:13:44] six feet either way. Sideyard or
[1:13:47] >> side or it wouldn't matter. Yeah.
[1:13:48] >> Yeah. It should be six feet.
[1:13:50] >> Okay. So,
[1:13:51] >> because if not then we're now creating
[1:13:53] non-conforming uses all over the town.
[1:13:56] >> I'm with you.
[1:13:57] >> Yeah.
[1:13:58] >> And foot. I guess is a a a doorway to
[1:14:02] non-conforming use.
[1:14:05] >> Okay. And Commissioner Ali, we're going
[1:14:08] to continue with you. Any other
[1:14:10] questions or
[1:14:11] >> I I will give you my paper.
[1:14:15] Um I I just saw a few things that with the lot lines and and the parking
[1:14:21] rules um that don't conform to the state
[1:14:24] law requirement. Um, and then also the
[1:14:26] ADUs counting towards the density and
[1:14:30] that need to be cleared up. And then not
[1:14:34] addressing the state law, but some
[1:14:36] issues that I saw that may come up and I
[1:14:38] put them in here. But things we need to
[1:14:41] think about is the height
[1:14:44] of the structures, privacy,
[1:14:47] rentals,
[1:14:49] owner occupancy and enforcement is not
[1:14:52] in here. Um, they will definitely cause
[1:14:55] complaints and disputes. Um, I put some
[1:14:58] stuff in here about what other
[1:14:59] jurisdictions like Frederick and Carol
[1:15:00] are doing. Um, there's privacy like if
[1:15:04] you have a ADU structure six foot from
[1:15:06] your neighbor's wall, what kind of
[1:15:08] windows are allowed? Are they high
[1:15:10] windows, low windows? Um,
[1:15:13] is if you have a two-story house, um,
[1:15:16] can you go with the full two stories?
[1:15:17] Are we doing 70% or single story?
[1:15:20] though. And then how to measure the
[1:15:23] square footage that we're doing. It's
[1:15:24] not in there. Um but I have several
[1:15:27] pages that I'll give you.
[1:15:31] » And and Steve, if I may, um Steve has
[1:15:34] provided those same comments to John and
[1:15:37] myself. I I think we ought to kick them
[1:15:39] out to all and and to
[1:15:43] >> Yeah. So, if if we can, John, kick them
[1:15:46] out to um council liaison and and the
[1:15:49] rest of us just to make sure everybody
[1:15:51] can see what uh
[1:15:54] Steve's comments are all about. Very
[1:15:56] good. Okay. Um so, not ready for a
[1:15:59] recommendation.
[1:16:01] >> Not ready, Steve, for a recommendation.
[1:16:04] >> No.
[1:16:05] >> Okay.
[1:16:07] >> No, no, no, no, no. That's all good. I
[1:16:10] was just making sure because I'm trying
[1:16:11] to keep some notes here. I'll go back
[1:16:12] and look at the video. Uh
[1:16:16] Heather, your thoughts, questions?
[1:16:18] >> Um I think Steve probably covered these
[1:16:20] already in his paper, but um I was also
[1:16:25] looking at the um the parking thing and
[1:16:28] requiring a a parking study of the
[1:16:30] applicant, which is adding cost for the
[1:16:32] applicant, and I don't think that aligns
[1:16:33] with the state. Um, and then the other
[1:16:36] one was, and again, I don't mind all
[1:16:38] these, just for the record, but looking
[1:16:41] at compatibility with the state, um,
[1:16:43] making sure that the ADUs are
[1:16:45] architecturally compatible. I don't
[1:16:47] think that's I don't think you're
[1:16:48] allowed to be super picky on that
[1:16:50] either. There might be something with
[1:16:51] HOAs, but I thought I read something
[1:16:53] about that um, as well. So, yeah, I
[1:16:56] mean, it's basically trying to make it
[1:16:58] as least as least restrictive as
[1:17:00] possible. So, yeah.
[1:17:02] >> On the parking study as one one could
[1:17:05] read the state statutes requiring a town
[1:17:09] >> yes
[1:17:10] >> park and study now I I don't think
[1:17:12] anybody has a good concept of what that
[1:17:14] is because from property to property to
[1:17:17] property is going to be very different
[1:17:20] >> the way Tonytown at least tackled this
[1:17:22] and it's the way therefore Hamstead
[1:17:24] tackled it and hence what's in here just
[1:17:27] by way of suggestion is is that if
[1:17:30] somebody wishes to deviate or gain some
[1:17:34] waiver of the parking requirements, then
[1:17:36] the onus would be on them before this
[1:17:38] body to justify why it is they want it
[1:17:42] >> presumably by means of a more specific
[1:17:45] traffic or uh I'm sorry, parking study u
[1:17:48] relative to their property uh
[1:17:50] individually.
[1:17:52] I will thoroughly confess that I'm not
[1:17:55] certain that that's what the state code
[1:17:59] contemplates. Although I will also say
[1:18:01] I'm not sure what the state code's
[1:18:03] talking about where it says the towns to
[1:18:06] do a parking study for the whole town.
[1:18:09] >> Well, that's what it sounded like.
[1:18:11] >> My my theory is that they're trying to
[1:18:15] >> not have the applicant do anything with
[1:18:18] parking. Yes. that if the town has a
[1:18:20] problem, that's the town's problem, not
[1:18:21] theirs.
[1:18:22] >> Yeah.
[1:18:22] >> And that on street parking as well
[1:18:24] counts and all that.
[1:18:25] >> I think that's a reasonable reading of
[1:18:26] that.
[1:18:26] >> And I read a lot of other counties are
[1:18:28] just getting rid of the parking
[1:18:30] requirement all together because they
[1:18:31] don't want to get tangled up in that.
[1:18:33] So,
[1:18:35] >> yeah. And and and I'll just jump in
[1:18:37] here. I recall John, you also and
[1:18:39] Martine also, there was an ADU task
[1:18:41] force
[1:18:42] several months ago and it was a series
[1:18:45] of Zooms that were led by the Maryland
[1:18:47] Department of Planning and if I recall
[1:18:50] accurately, uh, parking and separate
[1:18:54] utility metering were probably the two
[1:18:58] hottest items that just kept coming back
[1:19:02] into the conversation as to what do we
[1:19:04] want the state to really mandate.
[1:19:07] in those two very specific areas. Very
[1:19:11] important, right? Both bringing cost to
[1:19:14] a study uh to the town um and and impact
[1:19:18] to the community when you start talking
[1:19:20] about, you know, doubling your driveway
[1:19:22] space next to your neighbor, right? That
[1:19:25] sort of thing. Um so the parking issue
[1:19:29] resonates with just longstanding rough
[1:19:32] edges on this uh bill. You want to add
[1:19:34] anything, John?
[1:19:34] >> Yeah. I mean, my my big concern, and I
[1:19:36] brought that up in the meeting, is
[1:19:37] again, look at how much we dealt with
[1:19:40] lot 15 and water allocation. So, we now
[1:19:43] have an existing a new use
[1:19:45] >> that's going to impact Barney's chart.
[1:19:48] And we also have I have concerns about
[1:19:50] um you know, how are they getting the
[1:19:52] water to their property? Are they
[1:19:53] extending services from their existing
[1:19:55] house? How are they getting rid of that
[1:19:56] waste water uh when they're done with
[1:19:58] it? You know, are they tying it in
[1:20:00] through the existing system? In my
[1:20:02] understanding, it almost has to be its
[1:20:03] own separate connection, but but again,
[1:20:06] then that's, you know, they're going to
[1:20:08] have to tie into the main. They're going
[1:20:09] to have to So, I'm not sure exactly how
[1:20:11] we're going to have to handle that.
[1:20:13] >> Yeah.
[1:20:13] >> You know, what you know, and I guess I
[1:20:15] would defer to Barney on that because
[1:20:16] it's, you know, water and sewer is him.
[1:20:20] >> How do we handle that, Barney?
[1:20:23] >> Existing code says you have to have a
[1:20:25] separate water and sewer connection, but
[1:20:26] this may be different. So that's just
[1:20:30] existing code
[1:20:32] >> because again that's an additional undue
[1:20:34] burden that we're not supposed to put
[1:20:36] onto these ADUs
[1:20:38] >> for those connections and returns.
[1:20:41] >> I just the name accessory
[1:20:44] dwelling unit. You know that's like
[1:20:48] >> do you prefer granny shed? That's the
[1:20:50] other term I've heard.
[1:20:50] >> Well I mean it's they
[1:20:53] >> what's an accessory to the
[1:20:55] >> it's a separate dwelling
[1:20:56] >> primary structure. I mean, it's a
[1:20:57] separate dwelling all in itself with it
[1:20:59] with its own power. I mean, it's it's a basically it's it's a tiny house.
[1:21:03] Let's say that
[1:21:05] >> it's a tiny house that's next to a real
[1:21:07] house
[1:21:09] and it if they want it separately
[1:21:11] metered in separate parking, that's
[1:21:12] going to be difficult unless they have a
[1:21:14] large driveway like we said and then
[1:21:16] it's going to make your job more
[1:21:17] difficult and it's going to, you know,
[1:21:20] >> impact on infrastructure and things like
[1:21:22] that.
[1:21:24] >> I'm g I'm going to let you continue. Uh,
[1:21:26] Brian, but before do you are you ready
[1:21:28] for a recommendation at this point?
[1:21:31] >> I I wouldn't recommend it as written
[1:21:33] because there's a lot of issues I think
[1:21:34] that still need to be addressed.
[1:21:36] >> So, disapproval at this point. Okay. I'm
[1:21:39] just
[1:21:40] >> No, it's it's
[1:21:40] >> I'm keeping the scorecard here.
[1:21:41] >> Agreeing with everybody as well.
[1:21:43] >> Gotcha. And so,
[1:21:45] >> my apologies for for jumping in.
[1:21:48] >> It's okay. I was actually done my
[1:21:49] thought.
[1:21:50] >> Okay.
[1:21:52] And and are you ready to make a
[1:21:54] recommendation at this juncture or
[1:21:56] continue through next month?
[1:21:57] >> Continue.
[1:21:58] >> Okay, gotcha. Um, Commissioner Hedley,
[1:22:02] >> I would just like I'm I've been looking
[1:22:05] at this issue for a very long time and
[1:22:07] I've seen different solutions. Like my
[1:22:09] neighbor's house actually has a twocar
[1:22:11] garage with
[1:22:13] they call it the back house, but it had
[1:22:15] a toilet and it, you know, served as
[1:22:17] somebody's office, but it could be
[1:22:19] turned into it's already existing. So,
[1:22:22] I'm just wondering if we take a look at
[1:22:24] everything around town, how does
[1:22:25] everybody feel about pre-approved
[1:22:27] designs
[1:22:28] to maybe settle all of the issues and
[1:22:31] concerns that we have? Like if if a
[1:22:33] citizen comes in and says, "I need to do
[1:22:34] an ADU." We could say, "Here are your
[1:22:36] five choices." And it has like the, you
[1:22:38] know, American Disabilities requirement.
[1:22:40] It's already talked about parking. It's
[1:22:41] got sprinklers. It's got the 800 square
[1:22:43] feet. Um,
[1:22:45] >> so like a design guideline specific to
[1:22:48] ADUs.
[1:22:49] >> Yes. And just something that would be
[1:22:51] sort of simplifying the process, you
[1:22:53] know, reasonable choices. Everybody has
[1:22:55] different needs, that sort of thing. But
[1:22:56] it would give our town staff a chance to
[1:22:58] say, "Hey, this is what we would like to
[1:23:00] see. this would make, you know, maybe it
[1:23:02] makes Barney's water and sewer issue
[1:23:05] easier and and I don't know, I just
[1:23:08] thought I'd throw that out there if we
[1:23:09] could just sort of have a simplified,
[1:23:11] you know, five or six or whatever
[1:23:12] choices. And then
[1:23:14] >> plus we'd also avoid
[1:23:18] um, for lack of a better word, ugly
[1:23:20] aesthetics sitting in somebody's
[1:23:22] backyard that we don't maybe, you know,
[1:23:24] somebody says, "Oh, I've got this
[1:23:25] really," you know.
[1:23:27] >> Yeah, I'm not so sure that that's a
[1:23:29] great suggestion. Um because as as I
[1:23:31] understand the legislation, there's
[1:23:33] three flavors of these ADUs. That's an
[1:23:35] ADU that exists within the existing
[1:23:37] dwelling structure.
[1:23:39] >> It's kind of like modifying the current
[1:23:42] perimeter.
[1:23:43] >> Number two is you add on to that
[1:23:45] existing structure. You extend it out in
[1:23:48] some direction to add a room, bedroom,
[1:23:50] kitchenet, whatever. Um and by the way,
[1:23:53] that addition has to have its own
[1:23:55] separate entrance. I I saw that in the
[1:23:57] legislation. Um, and then third, it's
[1:23:59] wholly apart from the single family
[1:24:01] dwelling. It's somewhere on the
[1:24:03] property, uh, within the allowed
[1:24:05] setbacks, but it's a self-contained, you
[1:24:09] know, structure that is, uh, a dwelling.
[1:24:13] Um, and so I think your suggestion is we would look to kind of treating all
[1:24:18] three flavors as the possible ADU
[1:24:21] options for some property owner is is
[1:24:24] kind of what you're saying. I'm not so
[1:24:25] sure that would be a part of this text
[1:24:27] for the ordinance.
[1:24:29] >> Yeah. Well,
[1:24:31] >> or
[1:24:32] >> probably if you wanted to make it really
[1:24:33] complicated,
[1:24:35] >> I I would say probably not.
[1:24:37] >> Yeah. I mean, maybe at some point down
[1:24:39] the road if such a uh is if such a
[1:24:41] design guideline specific to ADUs was
[1:24:44] created approved by the council, then an
[1:24:47] amendment to this proposed text could
[1:24:49] then maybe have a sentence that points
[1:24:51] to it. you shall do an ADU in accordance
[1:24:55] with um you know the town code, the
[1:24:58] planning administrator and the design
[1:24:59] guidelines. Something that would be kind
[1:25:02] of where we would circle back to the uh
[1:25:04] ordinance amendment. Um but no, it's a good idea. Um any other input or
[1:25:10] questions for
[1:25:12] >> Well, I I'm read
[1:25:17] paper.
[1:25:19] >> Okay. So, so you're not ready for a
[1:25:21] recommendation at this point and u read
[1:25:24] uh Steve's good input too. Okay. So,
[1:25:28] Commissioner Buts, your thoughts,
[1:25:30] questions to Mr. McCarron.
[1:25:32] >> I can't improve upon the these excellent
[1:25:34] ideas and suggestions. I like the
[1:25:36] continuity and consistency as much as
[1:25:39] possible.
[1:25:40] >> Okay.
[1:25:40] >> I think that would be appropriate, you
[1:25:43] know, to try to be as consistent as we
[1:25:46] can.
[1:25:48] And uh I take that to it's premature to
[1:25:51] have a decision from you at this point.
[1:25:53] No decision. Gotcha. Okay.
[1:25:56] Um then that leaves me and um
[1:26:01] I did have some premeating interaction
[1:26:05] with uh with Tom on some of my
[1:26:07] questions. So we ought to be able to
[1:26:08] fasttrack some of these items, Tom, if
[1:26:10] that's uh fair. Um I did have a question
[1:26:14] just for the good of the group. He's
[1:26:15] convinced me that it's not a concern.
[1:26:17] But I did raise a concern with Tom as to
[1:26:20] the cover sheet for this proposed text
[1:26:23] uh appropriately addresses all of our
[1:26:26] quote residential districts re
[1:26:29] conservation R1, etc., etc. However, as
[1:26:33] most of you know, there is a residential
[1:26:36] allowed use within, believe it or not,
[1:26:38] an NP property. So the MP district, as
[1:26:42] you know, takes an existing structure
[1:26:44] and transforms it, converts it, whatever
[1:26:47] the right word is, into a commercial
[1:26:50] use. Okay? And it's a less intensive use
[1:26:53] than light commercial. And that's why MP
[1:26:56] was developed so that we could use these
[1:26:58] old buildings, come up with some
[1:27:00] professional commercial use that's less
[1:27:03] intense than making that building get
[1:27:07] raised and then building a typical
[1:27:11] office building, professional building
[1:27:12] to accommodate that commercial use. Um,
[1:27:15] but our code does allow a residential
[1:27:18] use within those. Now, in the spirit of
[1:27:22] and I'm going to channel the legislature
[1:27:26] here, which is a dangerous thing to
[1:27:28] attempt, but um I I believe their focus
[1:27:32] on ADUs was in current strictly
[1:27:35] residential districts, and that there
[1:27:37] wasn't an interest, nor is there an
[1:27:39] interest with having an ADU suddenly be
[1:27:42] constructed as a part of an MP approved
[1:27:45] structure. um even though the code says
[1:27:48] you can live in that new business as a
[1:27:51] residential use. So, uh anything to add
[1:27:54] to that conclusion? So, in other words,
[1:27:55] my my conclusion is I raised the
[1:27:57] question about MP being included in this
[1:27:59] new text. Uh I don't believe it's
[1:28:02] appropriate, nor is it included. Um any
[1:28:05] comment?
[1:28:06] >> Yeah, it's not included as currently
[1:28:08] written. Um
[1:28:10] other municipalities have kind of gone
[1:28:12] either way. Um I know of one at least
[1:28:15] that basically says wherever residential
[1:28:18] property exists and in that town it
[1:28:21] doesn't just exist in the residential
[1:28:23] there are some non-conforming uses for
[1:28:25] instance in some of the commercial zones
[1:28:27] says that those properties are eligible
[1:28:29] for an ADU.
[1:28:31] >> Wow.
[1:28:31] >> Um um in this case uh I as drafted did
[1:28:36] not include it uh as an option in the NP
[1:28:39] district because um uh it just seemed at
[1:28:44] odds with the purpose of the NP district
[1:28:46] which is to really phase out over time
[1:28:50] obviously in an orderly fashion
[1:28:53] residential use in favor of commercial
[1:28:55] use and so is it consistent with the MP
[1:28:58] purposes that you have here to now
[1:29:00] introduce another means of
[1:29:03] >> right
[1:29:03] >> of uh expanding if you will a
[1:29:06] residential use in the NP people may
[1:29:09] disagree with that you can write it any
[1:29:12] way you to write it.
[1:29:13] >> It would be kind of in in the short
[1:29:15] phrase that I kind of arrive at, it
[1:29:16] would be going backwards now into the
[1:29:19] original structure, whereas you've
[1:29:21] already made a commitment to convert it
[1:29:24] into primarily a commercial enterprise.
[1:29:26] Is that accurate?
[1:29:27] >> That's how I read the first three
[1:29:29] purposes of the
[1:29:31] >> Okay. So, MP off the table as far as as
[1:29:34] far as my question. Um, my second
[1:29:36] question was placing all of the new text
[1:29:39] into the special exceptions category of
[1:29:42] all these uh, residential districts um,
[1:29:46] just seemed a bit odd because the state
[1:29:48] is saying it's a permitted use. You must
[1:29:52] permit an ADU. Um, and so it kind of
[1:29:55] caught my eye that we were now going to
[1:29:56] regard this as something that had to
[1:29:58] come through an application for an ADU
[1:30:01] would have to come through the planning
[1:30:02] commission, as you know, for
[1:30:03] recommendation to the board of appeals
[1:30:05] in the board of appeals authorizing that
[1:30:08] ADU and that new use. Um, and so we had
[1:30:13] a give and take as to is it more
[1:30:15] appropriate to put these under permitted
[1:30:17] uses that you know exist under every
[1:30:19] district. you have permitted uses and
[1:30:21] then you have and I think in some of the
[1:30:23] taxonomy it says allowable use but
[1:30:25] permitted allowable and then you have a paragraph under each district that
[1:30:30] says special exceptions. Um and and so
[1:30:33] again I turn to you special exception is
[1:30:36] the appropriate place to put this new
[1:30:37] text.
[1:30:38] >> Well, you can make them permitted uses
[1:30:41] of right. Uh what I will say about that
[1:30:43] is that special exceptions or
[1:30:45] conditional uses as they're sometimes
[1:30:47] referred to are permitted uses. They are
[1:30:50] permitted under the code. The general
[1:30:52] assembly, I'm sorry, the the uh
[1:30:54] legislative body, the local government
[1:30:56] has said this is a permitted use within
[1:30:59] a particular zone. In this case, the res
[1:31:01] it would be the residential zone. It's
[1:31:03] just that it's a conditional use subject
[1:31:06] to approval by the board of appeals.
[1:31:08] >> Board of appeals. Again, other
[1:31:09] municipalities have done different
[1:31:11] things with this. Tony Town has done
[1:31:13] sort of a hybrid. I think for the very
[1:31:16] higher density residential districts,
[1:31:18] they have made this a special exception.
[1:31:20] For our 10 maybe or 20 and above, they
[1:31:25] make it a permitted use of right. Why
[1:31:29] would uh a special exception uh perhaps
[1:31:32] be something advisable? Uh uh well
[1:31:36] because you are superimposing on
[1:31:39] existing districts not all of the
[1:31:41] properties necessarily being equal or
[1:31:45] great candidates for this and others
[1:31:47] being lesser candidates for this in
[1:31:49] terms of the impacts on neighboring
[1:31:51] property. Um so uh if you're going to
[1:31:56] permit it as a right in a in any
[1:31:58] particular res residential zone why it's
[1:32:01] going to be eligible on every single
[1:32:04] property without really any oversight
[1:32:08] about that except through the planning
[1:32:10] you know the the consequences.
[1:32:15] The reason that special exception I
[1:32:17] think has been found uh particularly
[1:32:19] helpful in that regard is because the
[1:32:22] board of appeals has to approve a
[1:32:24] special exception. And so the very thing
[1:32:27] in fact the most important thing that a
[1:32:28] board of appeals does in that regard is
[1:32:32] determine whether under state law a
[1:32:35] special exception should or shouldn't be
[1:32:37] granted in a particular case. And there
[1:32:39] is a test for that set forth in case
[1:32:42] law. And that is is the proposed special
[1:32:45] exception use more uh adversely
[1:32:49] impactful on the particular property at
[1:32:52] issue
[1:32:54] by virtue of something unique to that
[1:32:56] property, its topography, its access to
[1:32:59] public roads, its size, its
[1:33:01] configuration versus other parcels
[1:33:04] within the same district.
[1:33:06] >> So uh and this probably to your next
[1:33:09] question as well. Why does it say that
[1:33:10] the board of appeals may uh approve?
[1:33:13] It's because the board of appeals
[1:33:15] doesn't have to approve. They there are
[1:33:18] instances where a board of appeals can
[1:33:20] say this is not appropriate on this
[1:33:22] particular property because on this
[1:33:24] particular property the use proposed is
[1:33:28] much more adversely impactful than on
[1:33:31] other parcels within the same zoning
[1:33:33] district. And we can't mitigate that. We
[1:33:37] don't believe that that is mitigatable.
[1:33:40] Um so um
[1:33:42] >> so the cate so the category of special
[1:33:44] exception and the language where the
[1:33:46] board of appeals may not shall but may
[1:33:50] um in your view doesn't um
[1:33:54] doesn't run headlong into the spirit
[1:33:56] intended from the from the house bill as
[1:34:00] undue obstacle and all that.
[1:34:03] >> Not in my opinion. And I would add to
[1:34:05] that as I said in the email um if you
[1:34:08] look at uh solar uh the the statute that
[1:34:12] the state passed relative to solar
[1:34:16] uh for capacities uh I forget the exact
[1:34:19] threshold but a capacity below a certain
[1:34:22] level where um the public service
[1:34:25] commission would have to review uh for
[1:34:27] instance uh uh more significantly
[1:34:31] that state statute specifically ally
[1:34:34] says a local government may not make it
[1:34:37] a special exception. So I take from that when the general assembly wants to
[1:34:42] say you may not make it a special
[1:34:44] exception, they know how to say it, they
[1:34:47] did not say that in the final uh HB1
[1:34:50] 1466 that got passed and signed.
[1:34:53] >> Okay. U my next question was with regard
[1:34:56] to the uh proposed amendments to the
[1:34:59] special exceptions paragraph within the
[1:35:01] code 11262.
[1:35:03] um F um and and this proposes that we
[1:35:07] add a new uh sub paragraph 31 uh that
[1:35:11] addresses the new ADU language. Um and and so as I went into that, I looked
[1:35:18] and I saw that we have sub paragraph 17
[1:35:20] on family apartments. And then we have
[1:35:24] subp paragraph 21 which also uh is
[1:35:27] proposed and and that remains in and
[1:35:30] then we have 21 which is addressed as
[1:35:33] accessory apartments. And so my only
[1:35:36] question to Mr. McCarron was um if
[1:35:39] 2026-25
[1:35:41] flies then special exceptions will have
[1:35:44] a paragraph on family apartments,
[1:35:47] accessory apartments, and then now the
[1:35:50] new text on ADUs. And I was just
[1:35:52] wondering aloud,
[1:35:54] isn't family apartments the same as an
[1:35:56] ADU? Isn't a accessory apartment the
[1:35:59] same as an ADU? Would it be wiser to
[1:36:01] consolidate
[1:36:03] those two existing into a new come one
[1:36:07] come all covers every base ADU kind of
[1:36:10] language or uh do we need to keep family
[1:36:13] and accessories separate?
[1:36:15] >> Well, you you certainly may. So, I was
[1:36:18] trying to be somewhat minimalist in
[1:36:20] terms of the
[1:36:22] >> wrecking ball that one would take to the
[1:36:24] code. Okay.
[1:36:25] >> So, I was trying to work within the
[1:36:26] framework. we actually were ahead of a
[1:36:28] number of towns and that we had an
[1:36:31] accessory apartment uh concept. A lot of
[1:36:34] towns didn't even have that going into
[1:36:36] this exercise. Um but having said that
[1:36:41] um I mean yes you could you could
[1:36:45] certainly consolidate those things just
[1:36:48] understand that um these specific
[1:36:50] standards are passed uh and adhere to
[1:36:55] particular
[1:36:57] special exceptions because the general
[1:36:59] I'm sorry the u the legislative body has
[1:37:03] determined that you know this is how we
[1:37:06] need to mitigate
[1:37:08] more impactful uses through the special
[1:37:11] exception. And so they what comes with
[1:37:14] that is bootstrapped with that are
[1:37:16] specific standards that must be
[1:37:17] established at the board of appeals with
[1:37:20] which the proposed use will comply.
[1:37:23] There may be specific standards that are
[1:37:25] very unique to family apartments that
[1:37:27] maybe aren't as great a concern with a
[1:37:29] single family separated ADU,
[1:37:33] vice versa, uh or an accessory
[1:37:35] apartment, things of that sort. Uh you
[1:37:38] might not require the same the parking
[1:37:41] >> for for a uh
[1:37:43] >> uh an accessory apartment by way of
[1:37:45] example that you would for a completely
[1:37:48] separate single family home.
[1:37:51] >> Okay. Um and and this good conversation
[1:37:54] has invoked uh another question and that
[1:37:57] is um as a special exception that has
[1:38:00] the uh in step with the board of
[1:38:04] appeals.
[1:38:05] >> Yes.
[1:38:05] >> Where they may authorize that it would
[1:38:08] still come through the planning
[1:38:09] commission. Correct.
[1:38:10] >> Right. If it's a separate structure ADU
[1:38:13] flavor that that third of the three that
[1:38:16] I described uh that structure would
[1:38:18] require a site plan I would imagine
[1:38:21] >> I I believe so
[1:38:23] >> and and so for
[1:38:25] >> located uh that it's going to be within
[1:38:27] setbacks etc.
[1:38:28] >> Right. And so in that case for that
[1:38:31] particular flavor of ADU none of the
[1:38:34] current site plan process would be
[1:38:37] adjusted. we'd still play the role with
[1:38:41] or would we? I guess that's my question.
[1:38:44] I mean they we don't give that role that
[1:38:47] we have to the board of appeals. I don't
[1:38:50] believe
[1:38:52] >> no. Right.
[1:38:53] >> The board of appeals is going to be
[1:38:55] concerned with simply is the use
[1:38:57] appropriate
[1:38:58] >> this particular property.
[1:39:00] >> Gotcha. And perhaps then part of them
[1:39:02] reaching that decision, they may or may
[1:39:04] not have our review and deliberation on
[1:39:07] a site plan for that flavor. Is that
[1:39:10] fair?
[1:39:10] >> Right. And it's probably reverse
[1:39:12] engineered in the sense that the
[1:39:14] specific standards are going to curtail
[1:39:17] or limit what once somebody has a
[1:39:20] special exception somebody can come to
[1:39:23] this body with by way of a site plan.
[1:39:25] >> Okay.
[1:39:26] you know they're you know the parking by
[1:39:28] way of example may be you know in you
[1:39:32] know they have to establish that they're
[1:39:33] going to propose and build you know
[1:39:37] something
[1:39:37] >> a separate structure
[1:39:40] >> right
[1:39:40] >> and I guess all I'm getting at is um and
[1:39:43] I'm not trying to add to the possible
[1:39:45] wrecking ball here I was just curious as
[1:39:47] to whether in that unique circumstance
[1:39:50] of a separate detached structure and a
[1:39:53] site plan being required Um,
[1:39:56] is it is it wise to put any words in
[1:39:59] this ADU text that says they still must
[1:40:02] follow for detached ATUs that require a
[1:40:06] site plan, etc., etc. Um,
[1:40:10] or is it necessary just to emphasize
[1:40:12] they still have to go through a site
[1:40:14] plan process?
[1:40:15] >> Well, and it's funny because you say
[1:40:16] site plan, so I automatically think of a
[1:40:19] commercial operation. I don't think of a
[1:40:21] residential having a site plan. So, it'
[1:40:24] almost be like an ADU location plan and and really my understanding is I
[1:40:30] thought they had to be owner occupied
[1:40:32] properties. It didn't have to be an
[1:40:35] individual or a relative that lives in
[1:40:36] that ADU.
[1:40:38] >> But but again, I'm concerned about
[1:40:42] >> VBOS and those type of things. that's
[1:40:44] going to I feel like we need to have
[1:40:46] some kind of language in there to sort
[1:40:48] of protect us from that
[1:40:50] >> because we don't want those sorting to
[1:40:52] pop up.
[1:40:53] >> It also says owner occupied, but it
[1:40:55] doesn't address uh the actual owner how
[1:40:58] do we certify that? Is are they
[1:40:59] certifying it every year? There's
[1:41:02] nothing in there. Is the owner Can the
[1:41:04] owner be an LLC? Can the owner be a
[1:41:06] trust? Can the owner be a corporation?
[1:41:08] >> Right. The owner should be living at one
[1:41:09] of the two properties. It's either the
[1:41:11] larger house or the smaller house. I'm
[1:41:13] saying, but that's that's really what
[1:41:14] owner occupied should be. Like your
[1:41:16] mailing address, if you're the owner of
[1:41:18] the property on your deed or on the
[1:41:20] estat,
[1:41:21] >> you should be occupying one of those
[1:41:23] structures.
[1:41:24] >> That's going to need to be clarified,
[1:41:26] >> right? Which is just a hornets's nest,
[1:41:29] you know, I can see coming, you know.
[1:41:31] And the funny thing, I was just sitting
[1:41:32] here thinking is like, um, say I have an
[1:41:36] existing structure, you know, is that
[1:41:38] ADU on the back of my existing house
[1:41:41] outside of the BRL but within the six
[1:41:44] foot setback, is it is that going to be
[1:41:46] allowed? You know, because it's an if
[1:41:48] you call it an ADU attached to my house,
[1:41:50] is does it have to meet all the BR BRL
[1:41:53] requirements for that house?
[1:41:57] So, so I'm not ready to render a
[1:42:00] recommendation at this point.
[1:42:03] Um, but I am intrigued by just the site
[1:42:05] plan process and and um for that
[1:42:08] particular flavor, a detached separate
[1:42:11] dwelling in addition to the existing
[1:42:15] single family dwelling. Um, so I need to
[1:42:17] put some more thoughts on that and and
[1:42:20] talk to you John as to whether any text
[1:42:23] needs to be added to make sure that
[1:42:26] whatever is required for that particular
[1:42:28] kind of ADU um
[1:42:31] the commission does or does not need to
[1:42:33] bite on that apple. I I'm just
[1:42:36] >> right because somebody could come in if
[1:42:37] they have a BRL that's behind they have
[1:42:39] adequate BRL behind their house, they
[1:42:41] could just put an addition on their
[1:42:42] house and call it an ADU. they'd be
[1:42:44] connecting through their existing water
[1:42:46] line and their existing sewer lines
[1:42:47] because they're connected to the house.
[1:42:49] But if you have a separate dwelling out
[1:42:52] back now, that's that's the big
[1:42:54] question. It's not part of the house,
[1:42:56] >> you know, does it have its own water
[1:42:58] connection? Is it requiring that own
[1:43:01] connection? You know, are we going to
[1:43:02] allow for the extension of services from
[1:43:04] the existing residents?
[1:43:07] >> Yeah. Chairman
[1:43:08] >> again. Uh, sure. Would you allow me just
[1:43:11] to Yeah, please tie a few things
[1:43:13] together. The uh with a thought. So, um
[1:43:17] you all your comments are as usual very
[1:43:20] thorough and uh not much to add or
[1:43:23] anything. Setbacks were a big concern of
[1:43:25] mine reading through this. Um so I think
[1:43:27] there's been some clarification and
[1:43:29] probably some more thought that has to
[1:43:31] happen. Um the the things I want to tie
[1:43:35] together. So I think Commissioner Ali
[1:43:36] brought up privacy, right?
[1:43:39] um related to setbacks, but also in
[1:43:42] relation to location and possible site
[1:43:44] plan, location plan. It just got me
[1:43:47] thinking realize in in Mount Airy,
[1:43:51] not every backyard is level,
[1:43:55] right?
[1:43:56] >> Um and
[1:43:58] >> just in my own situ, it got me thinking
[1:43:59] of course about my backyard and
[1:44:01] surrounding backyards.
[1:44:03] If you wanted to put a an ADU that was
[1:44:06] 30% of my neighbor's backyard, right, on
[1:44:10] my on, you know, on my side, you know,
[1:44:12] near my
[1:44:14] property line, it would most have to be
[1:44:17] most likely have to be one end of it
[1:44:20] would have to be on stilts, let's say,
[1:44:21] right? It would be possible, but have to
[1:44:23] be some engineering, right? That would
[1:44:25] have to happen, right?
[1:44:26] >> Which would it would put it high. It
[1:44:28] would put it probably over my roof line.
[1:44:32] So I'm just I'm posing an example here
[1:44:34] where again we know we're not level here
[1:44:36] in Mount Airy, right? In general. So um
[1:44:40] again tying together privacy, location,
[1:44:44] site plan. Um there could be some sticky
[1:44:47] situations if we're not careful.
[1:44:50] >> Now I I I think you've done a good
[1:44:52] summary of a lot of points made as you
[1:44:54] mentioned. You know, Commissioner Omali
[1:44:56] mentioned privacy, and I think that
[1:44:57] suits the example you you you posit
[1:45:00] here. Um, yeah, I I I need some more
[1:45:05] thought on this, but no, I understand
[1:45:07] your circumstance. And again, I think
[1:45:09] that also plays into why it's important
[1:45:11] that we leave in the word may authorize
[1:45:13] at the board of appeal. Just kind of
[1:45:16] every situation has got to be unique. We
[1:45:18] got three different flavors, different
[1:45:20] terrain, different geography, uh
[1:45:22] different sizes of the main dwellings,
[1:45:25] etc. Um parking on and on and on points
[1:45:29] that John brought up. So, so no, no,
[1:45:32] thank you very much. That those are all
[1:45:34] good points. So, um I copy I'll end my
[1:45:37] comments and I'll just summarize by
[1:45:39] saying I believe I have one commissioner
[1:45:40] who has reached a disapproval opinion at
[1:45:43] this stage. that commissioner can
[1:45:45] certainly change that opinion because
[1:45:47] we're going to continue to deliver it
[1:45:48] this John on the agenda for October. I I
[1:45:52] will ask that the uh commissioners all
[1:45:55] of us you all of us uh try to reach uh
[1:45:59] try to try to digest this discussion uh
[1:46:01] for more questions for October. But
[1:46:04] let's see if we can't uh go ahead and u
[1:46:07] reach a u commission decision on this
[1:46:11] draft ordinance in October.
[1:46:14] Um any last comments on this? Yeah,
[1:46:16] Commissioner, can
[1:46:16] >> I ask a question about that? So, um if
[1:46:19] the ordinance like going back to the
[1:46:21] previous instructions about reviewing
[1:46:23] ordinances and not like you know going
[1:46:25] back with red line and all that because
[1:46:27] it's the council's to do. Um if they're
[1:46:30] not I mean other than providing more
[1:46:32] comments on this existing ordinance,
[1:46:35] what what would what is the intent to be
[1:46:37] able to make a recommendation? Yes or
[1:46:39] no? Um, so, so just as so you've covered
[1:46:45] a lot of things here, so let me put it
[1:46:46] this way. So if you can next time tell
[1:46:49] me you approve of it as it's written,
[1:46:51] then that's pretty clear a message to
[1:46:53] the council that you don't see any
[1:46:55] issues with regard to what's been
[1:46:57] drafted. If you wish to have um a
[1:47:01] conditional approval with areas or
[1:47:04] specifics that you would see
[1:47:06] improvements to the proposed text, then
[1:47:08] that would be something that would again
[1:47:10] it would help Mr. McCarron and the
[1:47:12] council kind of understand general areas
[1:47:15] along with some specific entries. uh
[1:47:18] specific entry would be like my earlier
[1:47:20] discussion with him about the board of
[1:47:22] appeals is may the right word on
[1:47:24] authorizing because it's a pushed use
[1:47:27] allowable use by the state. So may
[1:47:29] authorize it seemed a little weird for
[1:47:32] me. Uh but he's convinced me otherwise
[1:47:34] that um again every application will be
[1:47:38] different and they have the authority to
[1:47:40] say it won't fly in this case or that
[1:47:42] case etc. Uh so I hope I've answered.
[1:47:45] Yeah. So that's kind of the value. Um I regard this recommendation as another
[1:47:51] venue to inform the council and to
[1:47:54] inform the author of things to consider.
[1:47:57] I believe a point's already been raised.
[1:47:59] We're going to change the setback um to
[1:48:03] six feet in that one area of the
[1:48:06] proposed text. Um
[1:48:09] so that's kind of my expectation if
[1:48:11] that's if that's acceptable.
[1:48:13] Yeah, it does. I I was just, you know,
[1:48:15] if we all agree that as written, it's
[1:48:17] not acceptable, then it would really
[1:48:19] just be kind of like we've done with
[1:48:21] other ones, it would be either, you
[1:48:23] know, no with comments or or I mean,
[1:48:27] sorry, yes with comments or it's just a
[1:48:29] no as written, but we're not going back
[1:48:31] and providing specific changes to the
[1:48:33] ordinance. So,
[1:48:34] >> um but again, it's whatever you're
[1:48:37] comfortable
[1:48:38] >> submitting. Um and and my earlier
[1:48:41] guidance about let's just try to avoid
[1:48:43] doing redline you know word by word
[1:48:45] grammar and all those such thing um you
[1:48:49] know m Mr. McCarron and town staff are
[1:48:52] going to catch those things I think
[1:48:53] misspellings and so forth. Um so I think
[1:48:57] just my perspective is the real value is
[1:48:59] kind of big big strategic view
[1:49:03] components of the proposed text. Does it
[1:49:06] comply with the spirit of HB1466?
[1:49:10] Um those sorts of feelings,
[1:49:13] >> Mr. Chair, if Yeah.
[1:49:14] >> So what I sent you earlier, that's
[1:49:16] appropriate for what you're looking for
[1:49:18] then, correct?
[1:49:19] >> Yes.
[1:49:19] >> Because I tried to he he asked us the
[1:49:22] two questions. Do we think it meets it?
[1:49:24] >> And then what do you think should be
[1:49:26] changed? So then I just I went through
[1:49:28] and put this is why I don't think it
[1:49:30] this is why I don't and this is areas of
[1:49:32] concern. this is where I think it could
[1:49:34] be changed and then the ball's in their
[1:49:36] court. So
[1:49:37] >> yeah and and again you know if you say
[1:49:39] it's unacceptable or it's disapproved
[1:49:42] and and no further input that
[1:49:45] and again it's just me and respectfully
[1:49:47] said that doesn't help the author or the
[1:49:50] council. You know if you say no it's not
[1:49:52] good enough. I think a little a little
[1:49:55] elaboration as to your rationale would help them and they may even go to
[1:50:00] your point in that rationale and make a
[1:50:02] change as a result of your disapproval.
[1:50:04] Um but let's put this on the agenda,
[1:50:07] John, for October and uh uh does any
[1:50:12] commissioner need more information? Um
[1:50:15] again, we've provided the Carol, the
[1:50:17] state, and of course the proposed text.
[1:50:20] Uh if you do have a need for any
[1:50:22] additional information to reach that
[1:50:24] next discussion um John
[1:50:30] to everybody as well including
[1:50:31] >> Sean. Gotcha. Okay. So I'm going to
[1:50:33] close this agenda item because we're
[1:50:35] going to continue it next time. And so
[1:50:37] now we're into the quick topic about the
[1:50:40] signage code. Um, we started this
[1:50:43] science code two meetings ago as a
[1:50:45] proposal to try to improve the wording
[1:50:47] because again in the background or in
[1:50:50] the past we've we've had some good
[1:50:52] debate as to how to read the code on
[1:50:55] everything from electronic displays
[1:50:58] um etc etc. Um and so there was a
[1:51:02] valiant effort to adjust the signage
[1:51:04] code a few years back. Uh because of the
[1:51:08] speed of technology and marketing and
[1:51:10] advertising
[1:51:12] um we've started now to kind of look at
[1:51:15] that code individually given examples
[1:51:18] that we've been confronted with for sign
[1:51:20] applications and offer some thoughts as
[1:51:22] to maybe how we can improve the signage
[1:51:24] codes. Of course, the legislative body,
[1:51:26] the council is the sole authority for
[1:51:29] any amendments to the current code. And
[1:51:31] so again, all I'm asking is if you want
[1:51:33] to advise the council through our
[1:51:35] liaison
[1:51:37] um to consider an amendment to the
[1:51:40] 112-11,
[1:51:42] uh then that's what we're all about. So
[1:51:44] if you have any more input, uh
[1:51:46] Commissioner Ali provided some input. Um
[1:51:49] I have some input. Uh so just continue
[1:51:51] to send that to John and John, you uh me
[1:51:54] and Martina. Uh let's just get together,
[1:51:56] not not tonight, but let's just get
[1:51:58] together and decide uh how we're going
[1:52:00] to roll all that together so we have
[1:52:04] one-stop shopping on the commission's
[1:52:06] feelings toward changes and uh we'll
[1:52:10] create a master document that reflects
[1:52:12] everyone's input if if you so choose. So
[1:52:15] continue to offer that up to John and um
[1:52:19] perhaps we'll have a final proposed set
[1:52:22] of edits and changes. Uh next time we'll endeavor toward that reports and
[1:52:28] other business. Uh Councilman Kelly, if
[1:52:30] you could just give us a summary of the
[1:52:31] last meeting, please.
[1:52:33] >> Sure.
[1:52:37] » Okay. So, uh the council met on
[1:52:38] September 14th. Uh the council and the
[1:52:41] public were given a presentation by
[1:52:43] Mosley Architects with an updated police
[1:52:45] station design. Uh we now have a base
[1:52:47] design that is 5600 uh gross square feet
[1:52:51] that fits into the $5 million uh budget
[1:52:53] we've been working with. There also
[1:52:55] alternative designs for future add-ons
[1:52:58] uh if uh or when they're deemed
[1:53:00] appropriate. Uh three of us move to
[1:53:02] continue with the process uh using the
[1:53:04] base design. So that's uh where we're
[1:53:07] headed.
[1:53:08] The recommendation for the purchase and
[1:53:10] installation of a weather alert uh siren
[1:53:12] system was approved in a 3 to1 vote. Uh
[1:53:15] also ordinance 2026-22
[1:53:18] related to mobile food units was
[1:53:20] reintroduced uh with red lines and
[1:53:22] deferred to the October meeting.
[1:53:24] Ordinance 2026-24
[1:53:27] related to the transfer of real property
[1:53:29] uh was introduced in a hearing scheduled
[1:53:31] for October 5th, the next meeting uh at
[1:53:33] 7:15 p.m. uh just before the meeting.
[1:53:37] Ordinance 2026-25
[1:53:40] related to al alternative dwelling units
[1:53:42] was introduced and referred to you all.
[1:53:44] Uh ordinance 2026-26,
[1:53:48] an emergency budget amendment for a
[1:53:50] decarbonization study in the amount of
[1:53:51] $135,000
[1:53:53] was approved uh and it's fully funded
[1:53:55] through an energy efficiency and
[1:53:57] conservation block grant. The council
[1:54:01] will meet uh next uh this coming Monday,
[1:54:04] October 5th. Any questions? Any
[1:54:08] questions?
[1:54:10] Uh John, do you have anything to add or
[1:54:12] highlight in your uh staff report?
[1:54:15] >> Uh no new business on this end right
[1:54:16] now.
[1:54:17] >> Okay. Um
[1:54:20] did you want to make a comment?
[1:54:23] >> I just had a quick question about um all
[1:54:26] the projects that we have. Do you guys
[1:54:28] have any kind of like metric or like um
[1:54:32] something that says, "Okay, the project
[1:54:34] at Chevy Court is in this phase or the
[1:54:36] project on Buffalo Rose is in this
[1:54:38] phase." Something that we could sort of
[1:54:40] have as a commission to kind of keep us
[1:54:42] updated about where everything is in the
[1:54:44] process. Not that I want to make more
[1:54:45] work for you, but
[1:54:47] >> it sounds like more work.
[1:54:48] >> It does, doesn't it? Um
[1:54:49] >> I didn't know if you had anything like
[1:54:50] that already just for your own
[1:54:53] >> dashboard. Another dashboard.
[1:54:54] >> Yeah. Or Yeah. or just even something
[1:54:56] that we could get every month if not
[1:54:58] even I mean it's sometimes there I mean
[1:55:00] it seems like there's a lot coming up
[1:55:02] and sometimes we have kind of have to
[1:55:03] have a lot of refreshers about where
[1:55:05] everything is
[1:55:06] >> I guess I'm wondering what do you want to see like you know how
[1:55:09] many building permits have been issued
[1:55:11] which is part of the zoning
[1:55:12] administrator report
[1:55:13] >> yeah no I don't think we need that just
[1:55:14] kind of
[1:55:15] >> because that's part of the zoning
[1:55:15] administrator report actually shows how
[1:55:17] many build building permits have been
[1:55:19] issued um but again I mean the dashboard
[1:55:22] is there they have one building permit
[1:55:24] on Dennis
[1:55:26] subdivision. Buffalo Ridge hasn't gone
[1:55:29] anywhere because you just approved it,
[1:55:31] >> right?
[1:55:31] >> We're waiting for improvement plans and miler. So, I mean, Green Tree um
[1:55:37] myars are being signed and being routed
[1:55:39] up to Carol County for an update, but
[1:55:41] you know, no dashboard uh for those
[1:55:45] particular items.
[1:55:47] >> Okay.
[1:55:49] >> I can give you an update or something or
[1:55:51] >> it's not typically something we would
[1:55:53] publicize. Um but if you want some kind
[1:55:56] of a
[1:55:57] >> update matrix of what's happening on
[1:56:00] what projects you've approved I mean
[1:56:02] that's we can do that but
[1:56:04] >> yeah I I think um
[1:56:08] so let me work with you about kind of
[1:56:10] what I'm envisioning. I like the word
[1:56:12] dashboard. I'm familiar with dashboard
[1:56:14] on you know kind of one-stop shopping on
[1:56:17] projects. Um, so let me see if we can
[1:56:20] put some contours to kind of what we're
[1:56:22] talking about here and how it would
[1:56:25] appear on the town website for Joe Bag
[1:56:28] of Donuts to go in and say, "Oh, what's
[1:56:30] going on there with Chevrolet Court?"
[1:56:32] And they would get, I don't know, four
[1:56:35] or five items of information, a site
[1:56:37] plan, stuff like that. They would get a
[1:56:40] site plan, a status, how many permits,
[1:56:42] not
[1:56:43] >> not a really rich understanding of it.
[1:56:46] Certainly not like into the details, but
[1:56:48] maybe just some fundamental stuff like
[1:56:51] the last approved site plan.
[1:56:52] >> Well, I think it's uh I think that's
[1:56:54] great idea along with council member de
[1:56:56] motor's suggestion. Again, our website
[1:56:59] is just about to go under review and
[1:57:02] modifications. So, this would be the
[1:57:04] time to set that in motion,
[1:57:05] >> throw some ideas. Yeah.
[1:57:06] >> And possibly have something that's
[1:57:08] updated monthly.
[1:57:09] >> Yeah.
[1:57:10] >> I don't see it up being updated daily.
[1:57:12] >> So, let's let's knock that around. Um,
[1:57:15] and we'll throw it out to the other
[1:57:16] commissioners just to kind of say, you
[1:57:18] know, here's kind of what we're thinking
[1:57:19] would be valuable to the citizen, you
[1:57:21] know, to kind of
[1:57:22] >> you could call it the Mount Air
[1:57:23] development dashboard.
[1:57:26] >> Thanks, Brian.
[1:57:28] >> Yeah. What's going on,
[1:57:30] >> Brian? Put that together.
[1:57:35] » Okay. Um so just to recap um and to go
[1:57:40] back to the very beginning um if you can
[1:57:43] add to the agenda a quick discussion
[1:57:45] John about possibly and again this isn't
[1:57:48] a forceful ask it's just if you can back
[1:57:52] to discussion as to how the commission
[1:57:54] may navigate through the site plan
[1:57:58] regarding the police station. uh that
[1:58:00] topic again. Um and and if if I may
[1:58:06] um Council Member Kelly, when when you
[1:58:10] give your October report, and again, I'm kind of pausing here because I feel
[1:58:17] like I'm violating my own rule, which is
[1:58:19] not to tell somebody how to suck eggs,
[1:58:20] and that is if you could consider
[1:58:23] mentioning the interest of the
[1:58:25] commission in that regard.
[1:58:28] um and and couch it please as
[1:58:30] respectfully
[1:58:32] wanting to help because of our
[1:58:35] experience with other developments and
[1:58:37] buildings and and developers and pattern
[1:58:40] books and etc. Uh is that a fair
[1:58:43] statement commissioners? I don't want to
[1:58:44] volunteer you into something that you
[1:58:46] feel like is out of bounds. Um okay. So
[1:58:49] if if that's an ask for
[1:58:53] um these two August individuals here,
[1:58:56] then um if if it can be explored, then
[1:59:00] I'd appreciate it. Is that fair?
[1:59:02] >> Yeah. And again, as we've I've said all
[1:59:04] along, I'm I'm in your corner to have
[1:59:06] this presented to the planning
[1:59:07] commission for
[1:59:08] >> for suggestions.
[1:59:10] >> Okay. And and of course all that said in
[1:59:12] deference to what legal boundaries we we
[1:59:14] may or may not may not have. Um any
[1:59:18] alibis from the commissioners hearing?
[1:59:20] None. I am adjourning this meeting. The
[1:59:22] next
[1:59:23] >> Oh, one one real one real quick
[1:59:25] question.
[1:59:27] >> Going back to the signs. I know we're
[1:59:28] not making the actual recommendations to the council, but I think at our last
[1:59:33] meeting, um, council member Mund made a comment about we had to be careful
[1:59:38] because there were some concerns about
[1:59:41] freedom of speech. Can I ask Tom what we
[1:59:43] need to keep in mind if anything when
[1:59:47] we're looking at the sign
[1:59:49] in information or sign things? Um I
[1:59:54] think the reference was made to a
[1:59:55] Supreme Court case in that regard
[1:59:59] and uh I think we fixed that. Uh what it
[2:00:03] had to do from memory with uh can you
[2:00:06] regulate
[2:00:08] um in that case I think it was a
[2:00:10] church's sign versus other commercial
[2:00:16] uh signage within the same zoning
[2:00:19] district. and the Supreme Court held
[2:00:21] that that is a contentbased uh
[2:00:23] restriction on speech and therefore was
[2:00:26] unconstitutional. However, the court
[2:00:27] went on to say that um
[2:00:32] certainly you may do it by zoning
[2:00:34] districts. So you may say okay in this
[2:00:36] zoning district this size of a sign by
[2:00:39] way of example is appropriate but what
[2:00:42] you can't say this s this size for
[2:00:45] commercial this size for a church this
[2:00:48] size for something else I believe we
[2:00:51] addressed that in the last set of um
[2:00:55] revisions and I think the way the signs
[2:00:57] ordinance now is structured is by zoning
[2:01:00] district which supreme court at least
[2:01:02] one of the probably seven opinions in
[2:01:05] that case as they're prone to issue many
[2:01:08] opinions in every case um seem to
[2:01:11] suggest was appropriate that that
[2:01:13] restriction could be done. So, I I
[2:01:15] that's a long answer to say. I think the
[2:01:17] signs ordinance as it's currently
[2:01:19] organized
[2:01:21] um
[2:01:23] addresses that.
[2:01:26] » Um I'm since the reference was made
[2:01:29] toward council member Mander, do you
[2:01:31] wish to add to that of the privacy
[2:01:34] caution? Um, and and maybe one minute,
[2:01:37] Carl,
[2:01:40] or
[2:01:43] >> I'm fine with that. I mean, as long as
[2:01:45] the code doesn't change, that would,
[2:01:48] you know, allow us to be challenged
[2:01:50] again. But if Tom says in most district,
[2:01:52] that's handled fine. Just try and use
[2:01:57] common sense while looking at it and see
[2:02:00] if it does, you know, do a simple test
[2:02:03] in your mind. Does this restrict speech
[2:02:06] or size or does it violate anything?
[2:02:09] That would be common.
[2:02:10] >> Yeah.
[2:02:11] >> So, I'm good. I'm good with it.
[2:02:13] >> Gotcha. And again, um
[2:02:16] my attitude is
[2:02:19] um go into looking at changes to the
[2:02:22] signage code unconstrained by that
[2:02:25] concern. allow the town attorney to move
[2:02:30] that suggested text or point into the
[2:02:35] legal parameters to abide by the law. Do
[2:02:38] you follow what I'm saying? I mean, if
[2:02:40] you think a good idea, don't bridle your own thoughts with the
[2:02:46] possibility that it could create a
[2:02:49] freedom of speech issue. Just put it out
[2:02:51] there and then the the good council will
[2:02:54] say, "Oh, no. that would run against um
[2:02:58] you know Similsburgger versus McCarron
[2:03:01] and we can't we can't do that. Is that
[2:03:04] fair?
[2:03:05] >> Yeah. And I kind of call that
[2:03:11] » and so just kind of unconstrained is
[2:03:13] kind of how I'm encouraging you know
[2:03:15] throw your thoughts out there if you
[2:03:16] think because of your experience on this
[2:03:18] day as dealing with code and a proposed
[2:03:21] application for some sign. Um, if you
[2:03:25] think it's a good idea, put it down and
[2:03:27] just offer it and then we'll we'll
[2:03:30] bounce it around. Uh, any other alibis
[2:03:32] from the commissioners. It's been a
[2:03:34] great meeting. Um, and so the next
[2:03:36] meeting will be 7 p.m. Town Hall October
[2:03:40] 26
[2:03:42] and I see we are at 9:04. I adjourn this
[2:03:45] meeting. Thank you.