[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.

Mount Airy Planning Commission Meeting 9-28-2026

Transcript