[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:00] Good morning. All right, calling, planning, housing, and economic development committee to order. Are we all? We are now. Good morning, everyone. Calling, planning, housing, and economic development committee to order on September 27th. Can we please call the roll? Chair Belgaire, present. Councilmember Adam Stafford. Councilmember Denova.
[0:31] Councilmember Olsen.
[0:33] Here.
[0:33] Vice-cheroyada.
[0:34] Here.
[0:35] Motion.
[0:35] I made five members present at the roll call.
[0:39] All right.
[0:40] Thank you.
[0:42] So we have a long agenda of bills today.
[0:46] Can we start with?
[0:49] Is this CB19?
[0:52] The first one, the agenda.
[0:54] Madam Chair.
[0:55] Good morning.
[0:56] We can start with CB19.
[0:58] Or we can go.
[0:59] Okay, so let me circle back, sorry about that, I would like to bring CB89 forward and
[1:08] act concerning sale of tobacco products and convenience stores.
[1:12] And that I think we have a motion for this bill.
[1:16] Motion to move favourable?
[1:19] Sorry.
[1:19] AB9.
[1:20] AB9 on pause lines.
[1:22] It's closed.
[1:23] The whole.
[1:25] I have two bills just for clarification.
[1:29] We are going to be moving this forward, originally staff thought we needed the two pieces of legislation and they are recommending only one.
[1:42] So my intention is still to pass this legislation, we're just holding the one we don't believe we need.
[1:53] Okay, thank you. So you have a motion to hold and yes, so there's been a motion, okay.
[2:03] There's a motion by the chair, second by the vice chair.
[2:07] Please call the roll.
[2:11] I.
[2:13] Councilmember Adam Stafford.
[2:14] I.
[2:15] Councilmember Danoga.
[2:17] Councilmember Olsen.
[2:19] Aye.
[2:26] Thank
[2:31] you so much. Okay. Now we can move on to Medicare 5 may interrupt or you all voted to hold indefinitely. Is that correct for CB 89. Yes. Okay. Thank you very much for the record that it is held indefinitely. Thank you. All right.
[2:48] Next on the agenda is CB81, I would note that our council member, Adams, has asked if we could hold this until Monday, because he is not able to make it, so we're holding it, and do we need to vote to hold to Monday?
[3:08] Okay, make a move.
[3:10] Second.
[3:12] Okay, there's a motion to hold.
[3:14] second. Chair Bogey. I. Councilmember Adam Stafford. I. Councilmember Denoga. Councilmember
[3:23] Olsen. Aye. Vice Chair Ouyaga. Motion carries 5-0. Yes, 8-1. And we will be bringing back
[3:33] 8-1 on Monday. And thank you all. Sorry. We are moving around in the agenda today. So finally,
[3:43] We are back at CB19, and I would like to turn it over to Ms. Hightower.
[3:51] That's good morning, Chair Blaguey, and members of the PHED Committee.
[3:57] CB19, 2026, draft one, repeals the exemption from detailed site plan review for qualified data centers.
[4:04] This bill was held in the committee on April 2, 2026.
[4:08] There is a proposed draft to A and Mr. Hamlin can discuss those amendments.
[4:13] Those amendments can be located on pages 34 through 38 of your binder.
[4:18] The planning department, excuse me, the planning board voted to take no position on the legislation.
[4:25] The office of law found the bill to be in proper legislative form with no impediments to enactment.
[4:32] We previously had one person sign up online.
[4:36] I'd like to turn to either the bill's sponsor or to Mr. Hamlin to go with amendments.
[4:43] And I'm turning over to Chair Riyada.
[4:45] Thank you.
[4:47] So this is a piece of legislation that I promised to move forward the moment that myself, many of my colleagues and the community have learned about a piece of
[5:00] The legislation that passed before I came to serve on this body that for me, I have to be honest, I felt like really blindsided the community. It created a process that would allow for data centers not to come before the council. It would allow them to go straight to permitting. And as I said before, I'll say again, I think it was done
[5:29] unintentionally to allow for the land oversight to get where it was in the dark of night.
[5:39] I think it's why so many residents, not just in Prince George's County, I think around
[5:45] the country are distrustful of politicians because they take money from special interests
[5:52] and they do things like that piece of legislation.
[5:56] So, then that when it opens up, they can say, well, I didn't approve it.
[6:01] I had no hands in it.
[6:03] It happened not on my watch, but there's an accountability where anything of that magnitude
[6:10] should one come before this body and that it should have a process that allows for community
[6:17] input.
[6:18] And so, what this piece of legislation will do here today is rectify what I think was
[6:24] a huge wrong and it was a way to cut out democracy and the community's voice and things that
[6:38] can be the most impactful to them. I also have amendments that the lawyers will go over that
[6:45] specifically looks at besting rights and abilities so that no project, no matter the time
[6:54] time in which it started here in Prince George's County, would be able to benefit from that
[7:00] law that was passed, a permanent solution to something that we have been advocating for.
[7:07] So I hope that my colleagues will support me in passing this piece of legislation today.
[7:13] I just think that it's important that we center the community and the residents and that
[7:20] that they have a voice and that we write the wrong of the body that, to me, passed something
[7:26] in the dark of night and we have an opportunity to do something that's right and one step
[7:31] closer to restoring the faith of residents and those that they elect to serve them.
[7:36] So thank you.
[7:38] Thank you and I also want to say something because I was part of the group I personally promised
[7:45] that I would put this forward, that was one of the promises that I made last year.
[7:50] And I do want to apologize to many.
[7:52] I was also blindsided and felt a bit foolish as I went around telling people,
[7:58] oh, if there's a data center coming and they're concerned from the residents,
[8:01] it has to come before the council.
[8:03] I said that multiple times.
[8:05] I did not find out until I served on the qualified data center task force.
[8:10] And during that time, that was when we discovered
[8:13] heard that there had been a bill that would remove this process in 2021 prior to me coming
[8:21] on the council. No one even council members that we served with even notified us about
[8:28] this, which made us feel then that it had to go back and actually tell people that actually
[8:35] I was wrong, it doesn't come before the council. I am all about transparency. I've been
[8:42] about transparency, that's been something that I pushed on the council, that's why we have been very vocal about every part of the process, even when it makes me look vulnerable.
[8:53] And in this one there, even, let's just say whether you're four or opposed data centers to cut out the process that gives at least the ability for the community to be a part of the process, meaning that pressuring their council members using the democracy that's been put before.
[9:12] for us makes it, makes it clear to people and it almost sends a picture that everyone
[9:20] is in on putting the data center in the community and doesn't want the community to have a
[9:24] say.
[9:25] I would say that this is not.
[9:27] We have been lobbied hard against doing this.
[9:31] And even colleagues that I have supported in the past have said don't do this because this
[9:36] might send the wrong message, but we're sending the right message.
[9:38] If a data center wants to come to the community, they got to go through the same process as everyone else, there should be no exceptions.
[9:47] And in fact, there should be even more scrutiny on the data center because it has more impact on our community than building a town home or an apartment building.
[9:56] the amount of electricity that is taken, we're going into a-
[10:00] Another cold, they say that this is even going to be a colder winter. And now we're going to have to deal with all of the people who can't pay their bills because they're competing now with a data center in their community. We are also dealing with a lot of impact that we're looking at water. They're things I've heard everyone. So for this, I am a solid support of this. I am unwavering. I'm asking nobody, please do not come and ask me if I'm going to vote against it because the answer is no.
[10:29] So, don't even bother.
[10:31] All right, so we are moving on to,
[10:35] we are moving on to,
[10:40] oh yes, yes and we do not want
[10:42] to put any pressure on our great
[10:45] Shayla, our councilmember here
[10:47] to have people at her door
[10:49] at everywhere begging to make sure
[10:51] that we don't have this happen.
[10:53] So we do not want to repeat history.
[10:56] So I want to turn it over to councilmember
[11:00] I believe I asked to be added as a co-sponsor of this bill, but there was so much happening at the time, I'm not sure if I was added on, so I'd like to be added.
[11:10] And I just want to thank my colleagues for really jumping into action once we realized really what was happening was I was gotten to office last year.
[11:19] We contacted the community, came together as colleagues and said, what can we do to ensure that this doesn't happen to any other community in our county.
[11:29] For something of this magnitude as my colleagues have said, it's really important that the community has a say in how it presents itself, whether that be through regulation, whether that be through, you know, just some of the guidelines.
[11:45] It's unconscionable to think that something would be just placed in a community, and I think that we have historical legacies of large scale industrial operations being put into communities of color with no input, no feedback.
[12:05] And so I'm really grateful for this piece of legislation.
[12:09] I think that, again, this is really sending a strong message that the council is the voice
[12:16] of the people, and so anything like this needs to come before us.
[12:21] So again, I'm really grateful, and I ask to be added.
[12:24] Thank you.
[12:26] Thank you so much.
[12:27] And I'll go back to Ms. High's hours to discuss amendments.
[12:34] Madam Chair, I'd like to defer to Mr. Hamlin.
[12:37] Thank you very much.
[12:41] Okay.
[12:41] Good morning.
[12:42] As it was noted, the intention of the original bill was to undo a provision in CB-120-1
[12:51] that exempted qualified data centers from the detailed site plan.
[12:56] Draft1 did that, but what Draft2 does is it reaches back into projects which may be
[13:06] be proceeding pursuant to the zoning ordinance's transitional provisions under the prior zoning ordinance.
[13:13] And what it does then is reach back and basically put a stop to any project which may have been proceeding under the old ordinance unless they have vested rights.
[13:23] And that's a legal issue that we can't deal with.
[13:25] But essentially what this does is foreclose even projects which were able to proceed under the prior ordinance from doing so.
[13:35] So it strengthens it, and I think really fulfills all the sponsors intent.
[13:43] Draft 2 also does one other thing, and that is it adds language.
[13:47] This is on page 3, line 7 and 8.
[13:51] It would require, in addition to the detailed site plan approval,
[13:56] that qualified data centers be consistent with the general plan
[14:00] and conform to all applicable area master plans, sector plans,
[14:03] and functional master plans, and this is another sort of check or control on data centers
[14:09] proceeding against kind of the wishes of the people.
[14:18] Is anything else, that's it?
[14:24] That's, that's, that's, that's something to be it, yeah.
[14:26] Okay.
[14:27] All right.
[14:28] Now we'll turn to the speaker list that we have starting with Beth Mondry.
[14:56] Testing.
[14:57] Okay.
[14:57] There we go.
[14:58] Thank you.
[14:58] Thank you very much.
[15:00] Good morning, Chair Blighay and members of the Pied Committee. My name is Beth Landry, and I represent C-Can Action Fund. We respectfully wish to raise a very important question regarding CB-119-2026. Being our concern that by passing this legislation puts the hyper-scale data center more auditorium at risk, and we would appreciate clarification that this does not do that. Thank you.
[15:25] Thank you.
[15:26] Thank you.
[15:27] Sure.
[15:29] It does not.
[15:30] At all.
[15:32] This is to the moratorium focus on anything moving forward, right?
[15:41] But we had an issue because there are certain projects that had already moved forward.
[15:46] So we need this legislation as a stop gap for that.
[15:54] And yeah, and I would just agree to make sure people understand you have to, I know that people want to permanent moratorium, but there is right now, unless until we get that and have the votes for that, we want to make sure that nobody skips through the process, understand there are a lot of ways to get around this, and this is one of them and we have to stop it.
[16:15] Okay, so next person is Sarah Hines,
[16:21] and after Sarah Hines, we have Terry Ardvinson,
[16:28] an indivisible. Thank you.
[16:31] Good morning, and thank you for your time. I'm Sarah Hines, and I'm with Route 1 Indivisible
[16:40] Quarter. Oh, Route 1 Quarter Indivisible Group, and I live in Beltsville. Although we move
[16:46] from today's agenda, I would like to voice concern about CB085 2026, which permits
[16:53] qualified data centers in agricultural and residential areas, and repeals detailed plan
[17:00] review. I'm very happy that you are supporting that you have CB019 2026, which repeals that
[17:08] exemption from the detailed site review of the data centers. You know, from an environmental
[17:15] which I know you've raised and you're all aware, but I'll just bring it up again from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab reports that 66 billion leaders of water were used in 2023,
[17:30] and they project 124 billion leaders of water in 2028.
[17:36] The amount of electricity was 4% in 2023.
[17:43] They're projected it would be 12% by the end of the decade.
[17:48] And this would bring in hundreds of tons of carbon emissions into the environment.
[17:54] Microsoft reports employment of 50 employees for an average size data center.
[18:01] So we're not bringing in great employment.
[18:06] And yes, there's construction employment, but that ends after it's built.
[18:13] And the one more thing I'd like to add is Dario Amide, co-founder of Anthropic,
[18:17] believes we should be slowing down the pace of this pace of AI and of due to cyber security breaks.
[18:27] So let's do the same, and I'm also in support of our two-year moratorium.
[18:34] Thank you.
[18:36] Thank you.
[18:37] Next, Terry Arvinson.
[18:40] And after Terry Arvinson, we have Nancy Bison.
[18:44] Bisoner.
[18:47] Good morning.
[18:48] My name is Terry Arvinson.
[18:50] I'm a Laurel resident in Mr. Dernogas district.
[18:54] And a proud indivisible member with indivisible buoy and beyond.
[18:59] Thank you. I did not fully realize what CB-19 was going to do and I really appreciate that you recognize that loophole and have strengthened the moratorium. I would urge you to take it further and work very hard to get a permanent ban.
[19:18] the onus or the load that is going to be put on communities in terms of water and sewer
[19:24] in terms of noise and other types of pollution is not contributing to the quality of life
[19:33] that we appreciate here in Prince George's County.
[19:36] So I urge you to please keep working towards that.
[19:39] Also,
[19:42] I am concerned about development plans and the streamlining of them, and I'll talk
[19:50] about that later when I come back up, but I do believe that the promise of increased
[19:57] revenues that is being touted by
[20:00] Others in support of establishing data centers, especially hyper data centers, is totally out of line with the cost that will be paid by the communities in which they're placed. And again, the load on the infrastructure that this state cannot support right now, especially given as Councillor Blay, like they said, with an upcoming cold winter.
[20:28] And all the other things that we've got going on is just not going to work for this state.
[20:34] Thank you very much.
[20:36] Thank you.
[20:38] We have Nancy.
[20:41] And after Nancy, Kathy, Bob Solomon.
[20:52] Hi, Honourable Council. I have feedback for you today.
[20:56] I was in District 4. I'm so sorry, Tim Adams isn't here right now.
[21:00] But I was at District 4 and I represent today myself and 30 voters.
[21:04] And I wanted to give you feedback for the moratorium.
[21:11] You had said something in that day that it finally got passed that 80% of our constituents
[21:16] don't want data centers.
[21:17] And I found for my 30% sampling that it's your wrong counsel woman.
[21:22] It's actually closer to 100%.
[21:25] So I went and I talked to people.
[21:27] I asked them if they knew anything about the moratorium and the words that I got back
[21:31] or common sense, good for them, it makes sense.
[21:35] Thank goodness.
[21:37] Then I got, when I said to them,
[21:38] what would they like me to say to the council?
[21:41] I got, they know that data centers and AI
[21:43] are not good for the communities.
[21:45] They know that they're all over Virginia.
[21:48] People say they don't want them in Peach County.
[21:50] Prince George's, I had a student, a data science student.
[21:55] He said, they require so much energy, they're needed.
[21:58] the big pollution they don't they don't want them in a college city, so everybody is against them.
[22:05] But I also wanted Mr. Councilmember Adams to know that the people that I said,
[22:11] did you know that your own councilperson voted against the moratorium?
[22:15] And they were surprised by that. They were very surprised.
[22:19] And I'm happy to go to anybody's district and inform people and get their feedback.
[22:23] back. And they were all saying respect the two-year hold. And so, of course, I'm in support
[22:32] of 019 and I'm in support of the two-year moratorium. We need more listening tours. I appreciate
[22:39] that. But I also want to read this thing from a lady. This encompasses everything. I reject
[22:45] having a data center built in Prince George's County. I live 4.6 miles from the proposed
[22:50] Those development, the quality of life in land over and surrounding areas, is already
[22:54] depressed in this lower income community.
[22:56] The light and noise pollution from a data center would further degrade the quality of
[22:59] life in the area.
[23:01] There are times we can hear concerts playing in Northwest Stadium, which is 4.6 miles away.
[23:05] I can't imagine the compounded impact of no more noise from the data center on our peace
[23:10] and quality of life.
[23:11] My electricity costs of these past two years have ballooned tremendously.
[23:15] Higher cost for electricity due to data centers' demands would make living in Prince George's
[23:19] County untenable.
[23:21] During summertime droughts, PG County has been under water restrictions.
[23:25] The strain of data centers, immense water requirements, blah, blah, blah, you all know all this.
[23:30] Lastly, her property value, her property value, would decrease.
[23:34] And then she says, the citizens of Land Over surrounding areas and
[23:38] Prince Georgians as a whole deserve better.
[23:40] We deserve to be protected by our County Council and we deserve better.
[23:45] And I really wanted Tim Adams to hear that, sorry.
[23:47] Thank you very much.
[23:50] Thank you so much.
[23:51] I'm Kathy.
[23:52] Are you here?
[23:53] You are.
[23:54] And John Robinson after her.
[24:01] Good morning, Kathy Burtomeo.
[24:06] I'm concerned about the CB19 in hoping that we can make it better.
[24:14] Do we have the expertise in the county council and the planning board to address the concerns regarding data centers?
[24:21] members.
[24:22] I'm a member of the climate justice wing.
[24:25] This is a group that talks to legislators at the Maryland General Assembly, and we have
[24:35] engineers, we have scientists, we have many people that we talk to and interview talked
[24:42] with the legislators on the bills that they're planning, and we are involved with the Charles
[24:47] County, Frederick, Calvert, and Eastern Shore people, working to learn about their concerns
[24:54] about data centers, and what the developers are wanting, and how...
[25:00] We're trying to oppose these great demands that data centers are having on our counties. As in Fritter County, they're line up the farmland.
[25:13] Building close to an elementary school, just very close and keeping a power plant that was scheduled to close, but now it's going to remain open because of electricity demand. But I admire Hartford County who has banned data centers. And as you know, water is needed.
[25:29] that we can't live without it for two or three days.
[25:33] In the Potomac River, it's the most endangered river
[25:36] in the United States.
[25:37] People think Colorado, because that feeds all these states,
[25:42] but the Potomac River is the most endangered due to economics
[25:46] and for people needing water.
[25:51] Also, planning, how can the council put in data centers
[25:57] when they're going to use PFAS. There's no way to gather and protect people from the PFAS.
[26:04] That's going to be used in these data centers. You can't retain them. And the EPA now is no longer
[26:12] handling the PFAS short on time, I guess. But as you know, the electricity shortage we're
[26:19] expecting rolling blackouts more than 13 days a year is a future scenario. In Virginia schools
[26:25] already had part black out outages on the first day of school.
[26:30] So I'm hoping that we can follow the climate action plan more carefully.
[26:37] Thank you.
[26:37] Thank you so much.
[26:38] And Councilmember Austin.
[26:40] Yeah, if I could just, Ms. Bratolimo, I appreciate your comments.
[26:44] So current law says that data centers don't have to go before the public don't have to go for
[26:51] a detailed site plan.
[26:52] And we're just saying in this, say a future council someday wants to do that, that should
[26:59] be taken out.
[27:00] They should absolutely have to go, even if we don't want them, they should go before
[27:05] the public.
[27:05] So, that's what this bill does.
[27:09] We're on the side of the residents here, I believe.
[27:13] So, and the moratorium stays in effect.
[27:16] Thank you.
[27:17] Thank you. As I said before, we have to catch every loophole. If something happens with
[27:24] that vote in the moratorium is pulled up, that means that a data center can go through
[27:29] without any detailed site plan. And that means that your voices will not be heard. John,
[27:35] and after John Taylor. Yes, thank you. My name is John Robinson.
[27:44] I live in a
[27:47] of CB19.
[27:50] I think there should be no shame in admitting that one has been duped by the
[27:55] tech bros. I mean, they can be very convincing. I understand. But I think another thing we
[28:01] need to do is look at the long-term intentions. And if you pay attention to what they've
[28:08] been saying amongst themselves, their plan is to use generative AI to basically replace
[28:17] us not only in the areas where we use our intellectual powers but also replace physical
[28:25] labor with robots.
[28:27] And you need to look at the end point that they're planning to go to with generative AI.
[28:35] There's the argument has been made by people that look at the economics of this that they actually have no intention of ever turning a profit because they have this fantastic grandiose plans to, quote, live forever upload their brains to a computer, shoot it off into space and escape to Mars.
[28:55] Now Mars has no significant atmosphere, but if you're a quote silicon being, which is what they talk about, it really won't matter to them.
[29:04] And they're talking about simulating all the things that we enjoy here on Earth, on the computer, whether it's hearing birds sing or forest and so forth.
[29:13] I think we need to be aware of where they're trying to take this and just recently, you know, one of the chief architects at Anthropic pointed out that
[29:24] There's a 10% chance in his estimation that by 2030, AI will have decided that human
[29:31] beings are superfluous, and that's only four years from now, by the way, and could wipe
[29:38] us out.
[29:39] And so, you know, use your imagination, is it that hard to imagine that, say, somebody with
[29:45] gigafactories might manufacture an army of robots that potentially could, you know, be controlled
[29:52] by AI that could do us all in. I mean these sound fantastical and ridiculous but these are
[30:00] As that the tech elite have been talking about amongst themselves for a very long time. It's been
[30:06] well-documented by Gilderan, who's been following them. And he has a new book out called The
[30:11] Nerd Right, Obvious Play On Words. So I hope that you'll take that all into consideration.
[30:17] And I strongly support CV19. Thank you. Thank you so much, and Taylor. And after Taylor,
[30:25] or our last one is Kevin.
[30:35] All right, good morning.
[30:36] I'm Taylor Frazier McCollum,
[30:37] and I'm here to speak on CB19, 2026.
[30:41] Last year, I started a petition on change.org
[30:44] to stop the hyperscope data center
[30:45] proposed in land over Maryland.
[30:47] So I want to start with the position.
[30:49] This right here is 25,000 signatures,
[30:51] and we have more than 25,000 signatures at this point.
[30:55] And over 25,000 people agree
[30:56] that data centers bring more detriment
[30:58] than revenue potential.
[31:00] I support this legislation with amendments.
[31:01] The legislation would allow, would still allow a qualified data center on the Bowie State
[31:07] University campus.
[31:08] This week, Bowie State is the location for the Center for Engagement, Environmental
[31:11] and Health and Justice Symposium.
[31:14] Bowie State also hosted the county's environmental conference last year.
[31:17] So how can such conflicting messages be sent?
[31:19] On one hand, Bowie wants to be seen as a leader in environmental justice, but they should
[31:23] still be allowed to have a data center on campus.
[31:25] I disagree.
[31:26] There are so many other ways for Bowie State to lead in technology innovation without loss
[31:30] a tree line in Habitat, Maryland is in a drought currently, and we import 40% of our electricity.
[31:35] We don't have water or energy to spare on any level for a data center.
[31:39] I'm curious what exempts Bowie State and if other universities will want similar exemptions
[31:43] in the future.
[31:44] If this is the best we can do, we are still not keeping the promises to residents.
[31:47] PG County has a climate plan, and with an efforting from the American Lung Association,
[31:51] we can't afford another environmental burden.
[31:54] Science that we look past the exception, yes, I'll be over the moon when Landlewer is officially
[31:58] stopped.
[31:58] But I promise those that sign my position that I will fight to stop hyperscale data center development in the county and this exception for
[32:04] Bowie State puts that promise at risk.
[32:06] We have no details on the size or scope of any future development of a data center at Bowie State.
[32:11] But we know it will raise electric costs and use precious drinking water.
[32:14] We as a county only have 24 to 48 hour emergency supply of water.
[32:18] And until those issues are addressed, we need a permanent pause on data centers.
[32:22] Thank you.
[32:24] Thank you so much.
[32:25] Okay, Chair.
[32:27] Yeah, just for clarity, the pause for the two year, more time stops any data service, including the state.
[32:36] There is no place that could move forward with any type of conceptual design, detailed site plan.
[32:44] No data center period could move forward within any process in the county.
[32:49] The issue was that the legislation that was passed before some of us were elected caused
[32:58] for a project to move forward in the process that the moratorium did not impact, meaning
[33:07] it could live outside the moratorium.
[33:09] It could continue to go forward because it would not be captured in the moratorium.
[33:14] So the only way to deal with that was with separate piece of legislation.
[33:21] So this is a stopgap for anything that lived outside of the moratorium, but
[33:26] the moratorium stops any project for moving for the two years.
[33:32] But I just want to echo my sentiment.
[33:35] I am for a full band.
[33:36] I've said it every time I have an opportunity to say it.
[33:40] But it takes six votes for us to get there.
[33:42] But we have two years, and I say we, as advocates, to hopefully get other people there where we can hopefully pass a full ban.
[33:52] I don't think this can be regulated. I think it needs to be stopped.
[33:56] But I'm doing everything that I have in my power now to make sure that we listen to the residents.
[34:03] We stop what we can with the votes we have.
[34:06] But I'll continue to fight to make sure that we permanently stop it here in Prince George County.
[34:10] thank
[34:14] you and now we lastly we have Kevin. Good morning. I just want to I think Taylor was talking
[34:24] about the line on page three under section four B, part three. There's a line about
[34:34] B, our campus center. I don't know if that's like yeah just clarifying what that means and then
[34:41] And just to add on to everyone saying people are in support of a permanent ban, I wanted
[34:49] to add that within the task force report hidden in the appendix, there are dozens of pages
[34:57] is people are just saying, you know.
[35:00] No data centers. I don't want, don't build data centers. Don't put it here. Find another solution. Huge concern. It's these are very clear statements. Unfortunately, a task force of force doesn't even reflect that as a possibility or an option. But just wanted to run the council that this is the popular demand or the presence. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Do we know anything about the boy's date?
[35:28] Yeah, so he's referencing what the current code says.
[35:32] So when you look at the legislation, the underlining part is what's being added to the code.
[35:40] So when they originally passed the legislation, they had things that passed in the code at that time.
[35:49] So all we're doing is stopping it so nothing can move forward, because right now nothing can move forward, no matter what's in the code.
[35:56] The reason why we're not doing a full like what you consider like regulation change where we start to say oh, you can't put it here, you can't put it there. That's a separate slope when you talk about comprehensive legislation.
[36:11] So we don't want to pass comprehensive legislation that regulates where data center can and cannot go what the specifications are or not.
[36:20] So someone windowed dresses that as a good thing, the moratorium that ends, right?
[36:26] And then what we've been done is mapped out where they can and can't go and the parameters
[36:32] of what they have to have and not have.
[36:35] And so that's one of the reasons why I have not looked at anything that's around regulation
[36:41] because I want a full band.
[36:43] And regulation is windowed dressing.
[36:45] A band is where I want to be.
[36:47] And so, I'm not doing anything that's comprehensive, I just want to do the moratorium, stop Gap for what's moving as I continue to advocate for a full ban.
[36:57] Okay, so any comments from our committee?
[37:03] If not, and motion to move everyone, draft to?
[37:09] Second. All right. Draft 2A. As of been a motion and a second. Can we please call the roll.
[37:17] Chair Bougay. I. Councilmember Adam Stafford. Councilmember
[37:23] Danoga. Councilmember Olson. Aye. Vice Chair Royada. Aye. Motion carries 5-0. All right.
[37:32] Thank you.
[37:33] Now moving on to CB-76, and I'll turn it over to Ms. Heishauer.
[37:43] Yes.
[37:43] Track one of this bill creates a faster track for certain commercial projects in transit-oriented
[37:49] areas that meet specific location and mix-use criteria and are not seeking to have variances.
[37:56] The bill and the amendment, excuse me, the bill in the agenda item summary can be found on pages 39 through 46.
[38:06] Ms. Creganu is here and can provide a fiscal and policy overview of the legislation.
[38:12] But I did want to tell the committee that there is a proposed draft to of the bill, which is all located on pages 70 through 75.
[38:20] The planning board voted to take no position on this bill, and their staff are hearing, can explain that.
[38:28] I would like to ask Madam Chair if she would like to have the bill sponsored speak, or if she would like to defer to Mr.
[38:36] Hamlin for amendments.
[38:38] Let the bill sponsor speak first.
[38:40] Thank you.
[38:42] So colleagues, as many know, I've been working really around how to see meaningful development.
[38:50] in parts of the community where we really want to see it.
[38:55] You know, we have this conversation around how we don't want to see sprawl,
[38:58] how we don't want to see development in areas where the infrastructure does not make sense
[39:02] for the level of development that we're seeing.
[39:05] And then we also know that there are certain areas in the county that,
[39:08] even though they're prime in the sense for development,
[39:11] that they're central to metro stations like a lot of the properties inside the beltway
[39:16] in my district, they're not as attractive as some areas to develop.
[39:21] And so I've really been trying to work around, how can we attract the development we want
[39:27] in the communities that we actually want them to be in.
[39:31] And so I've been working on this piece of legislation for a little over a year, I want to thank
[39:38] Councilmember Denogue and some others that have looked at variations of the legislation.
[39:43] And I'm hopeful that we can get there because there are parts of the county that are not getting the development that they need.
[39:53] But then I also hear my colleagues where I know there's parts of their districts where they're being overdeveloped.
[40:00] My goal is to have a balance where we're not stifling development period because some communities are developed and harming most of the predominantly communities of color and lower economic areas where they really do need an investment in development. And instead we incentivize the development to actually take place there. So that's the attempt of this legislation and others that I'm working on. And my hope is that I can
[40:29] and have the support of this body in doing so.
[40:33] Thank you.
[40:36] Thank you so much.
[40:37] Now we will turn over to staff to go over and limit.
[40:43] Okay, thank you.
[40:46] So, draft one of the bill, it was reviewed.
[40:50] Planning staff had made some recommendations
[40:52] in their staff report.
[40:53] There were some concerns expressed by council members
[40:55] about certain provisions.
[40:56] And a draft two is an attempt to address
[40:58] Both planning staffs recommended technical amendments and the concerns that were expressed by council members
[41:07] Just that the key points are that it shifts to add and this is on page two at the very top a
[41:14] specific definition for this this type of project a commercial reinvestment and innovation project
[41:21] Substantively, it's the same as the language which was originally included in the provisions
[41:26] conditions for the applicability, but a planning staff made that recommendation.
[41:33] We concur, and we put it in there, a couple of other recommendations in the planning staff
[41:38] report regarding language and sentence structure and things like that were incorporated into
[41:43] that definition as well.
[41:46] The sort of second issue that's addressed is it, and this is also on page 2, but down like
[41:53] lines 23 to 30. There was an existing problem with the language in the code that didn't
[42:05] separate the sort of locational requirements and the structural requirements. And so this
[42:13] new language basically for the existing ETOD projects that fixes that issue.
[42:26] Finally,
[42:31] there, you will have some, an amendment sheet I think that's been distributed that
[42:35] addresses a couple legal concerns and one, just oversight on the drafting side of things.
[42:43] This proposed amendment sheet would remove language in the bill that provides that if the
[42:50] The District Council doesn't act on an appeal within 28 days that the Planning Board's
[42:56] decision is deemed affirmed.
[42:59] That's a legal issue, and it will add language to account for the periods of recess when
[43:07] it comes to the timelines that are required to be followed by adding that the months of
[43:12] August and December should not be considered for the purpose of calculating time.
[43:17] I think that pretty much covers that.
[43:20] All right. Thank you. We do have one person on the speaker's list. We have John Robinson on the speaker's list.
[43:35] Yes.
[43:37] I have concerns about things that accelerate. I certainly understand the desire to have a good development and
[43:45] redevelopment where it's needed in the county.
[43:49] I'd like to suggest that there may be alternative models to
[43:53] to, you know, these efforts at acceleration, and instead of waiting for developers to
[43:59] come in and propose something that will provide them the maximum profit, you could look
[44:04] at situations like, for example, how they handle it in Finland.
[44:10] There, they have experts come in and design an area, you know, I have it to be familiar
[44:17] with it because I was married to a Finn for 19 years.
[44:21] They come in and design like a whole downtown or something like that, and then they have the
[44:28] developers and contractors come in and make proposals as to how they're going to implement
[44:35] the design that has been focused on what the community needs and what the people need
[44:40] as opposed to what will generate a profit for the developers.
[44:43] and I think that might be a better model for meeting the long-term needs of
[44:49] prestigious county and the communities that want to see redevelopment.
[44:53] Thank you.
[44:55] Thank you so much.
[44:58] Do we have any comments from committee members?
[45:00] Questions? A few questions about the bill, not necessarily about the amendment. Is that okay now? So this changes to 15 days, I guess, is that right? But then I see the 28 calendar days. So it shortens the amount of time that residents have to appeal this to 15 days from what, from how many days?
[45:28] I believe it's 30 for the standard ETOD, and this is 15 business days.
[45:39] 15 business days.
[45:40] And 30 is the current.
[45:42] Yeah.
[45:43] And it will say that for non, you know, for ETOD expedited projects that don't meet this definition.
[45:51] Okay.
[45:52] And then in
[45:58] terms of the sites, this includes everything that's in a regional transit district or local transit center in the general plan.
[46:12] And then I see in the technical staff report, this expands it, I assume they're not already designated as either regional transit or local transit center.
[46:23] include Southern Avenue Metro, Mercury, Mark, Sebrick Mark, Riverdale Mark, Booyee Mark,
[46:29] and then the purple line stops.
[46:32] So those are being added to, well, they're being included in this, where even though
[46:40] they're not currently designated a regional transit district or local transit center, is
[46:46] that correct?
[46:49] I'm sorry.
[46:50] I'm looking to Josh, but yeah, whoever wants to answer that.
[46:55] Yes, sir, I'm reviewing the revised definition and we do appreciate the council's consideration
[47:01] for planning board comments on adding a definition for this important initiative and use.
[47:07] I do see on page two, lines seven through eight that the added language here would include
[47:14] any constructed heavy or light rail transit stations, so that would include the mark stations
[47:19] that exist in a county and the purple line stations that will soon be operational and
[47:27] I'm sorry, and I have looked at the bill but not with the fine tooth comb.
[47:32] So forgive me, is the reduction from 30 days to 15 days, the only major change in this?
[47:41] Or is there other major changes in this, whoever
[47:51] wants to answer that?
[47:52] I mean, with regards to the appeal process, it eliminates the call-up as well.
[47:59] It's just by a petition appeal.
[48:02] It eliminates the call-up and a short count of numbers wouldn't have the ability to call-up, it wouldn't.
[48:09] So under this bill, council members would not be able to call-up projects if they're within near transit.
[48:17] As it's drafted, that's what it is.
[48:19] Yeah, that's, to me, that's a concern, Madam Chair, that's a concern to me.
[48:28] Yes, you know, for me, I, I know many of my colleagues in how they fill about the call of option.
[48:37] I do feel like they're, and I've always had this feeling there should be a balance when we know that there's projects that are approved because it's not any project that's built there, right?
[48:47] It's only projects that are deemed to be a priority project, not anything that's developed
[48:56] in the transit oriented space that we create a faster process and that a process with
[49:03] more certainty.
[49:04] That is my personal feeling.
[49:07] I tend not to call up projects, but I do understand it's an important tool to have, but I think
[49:14] the balances that are there certain projects and the right location that meet the right standards
[49:25] that we can know don't need to have that. That's the question. I personally think that
[49:34] we should get there but that's just where I am. So I tend not to call up projects either but it's
[49:40] because developers know that I have the ability to call them up and they do it the right way.
[49:44] Okay, so I don't have to call them.
[49:47] Can I ask a clarifying question because I think you explained this before, Madam Chair.
[49:52] You were saying there were specific instances where there are specific templates.
[50:00] That are going to be the same no matter what. I feel like when we when I talked about this, like over the course of the last year, I'm trying to think of an example, but it's escaping me right now, but it's something that won't have much variance. Like something that if the template is followed, there wouldn't be much variance on what, what could be built. And I think it's because I know remember when we were talking about that, which I wanted to do where we could create a process where we had template options for certain types of
[50:29] businesses, specifically in restaurants, so that they can follow a certain format, and
[50:35] it can be fast. We weren't able to pass that at the time. But with this legislation,
[50:41] it's looking at, so for example, if I know that there's a medical facility just throwing
[50:49] a random thing out there, that we knew we needed it, we knew we needed it here, it made sense
[50:56] at a metro station and had all the qualifications, is there any type of mechanism where we can
[51:02] say this is the right development in the right place where we want it that will have a
[51:13] faster track process and more certainty to develop and that's what we'll have to decide
[51:20] as a body because I know especially the call-up feature for council members is a
[51:30] hot topic. I do feel like there's a balance between the two. That's what I'm
[51:37] trying to strike. I believe it's important to have which is why I didn't say
[51:42] let's just get rid of it everywhere for everything at any time. But the question is
[51:46] Is it, do we feel like there's times where development can have more certainty and that's
[51:54] a question that we have to desire and I guess what I'm wondering is if we could maybe
[52:00] work on developing a set of categories as you mentioned, like maybe perhaps depending
[52:05] on like the health atlas, like we would have a rubric to judge it against.
[52:09] So for example, if the project meets the standards of the mapped health atlas and falls in a
[52:16] T-O-D zone, then it doesn't need a call-up.
[52:19] Like to your medical example, right?
[52:21] So something that it's very clear,
[52:25] this fits with the general plan of the region.
[52:30] And this is something that we've well researched
[52:32] needs to go here.
[52:34] Then if we could just spend some time
[52:36] maybe defining some of those categories of parameters,
[52:39] I think this would be great.
[52:44] And then only can you explain to me,
[52:46] where is the call up because I agree I have called up things so I would say I
[52:52] have and I had because I had developers that were unwilling to listen to me
[52:58] in the community so the call up was necessary and frankly effective so I
[53:05] would say that and I think it makes sense in a general sense but that's why it's
[53:11] for projects, the types of projects
[53:14] that want to see where we want to see them.
[53:17] I think that is the nuanced difference.
[53:20] Now, what do you mean approved?
[53:21] So how do we determine that somebody?
[53:25] Because they would go to be this type of project.
[53:29] What type of project?
[53:30] So to have what's we call, thank you, commercial reinvesting.
[53:38] Okay, so only commercial reinvestment, there's no call up.
[53:42] And for any project, what's the definition here?
[53:47] Anywhere commercial reinvestment.
[53:50] I'll make sure I'm laying the right draft.
[53:52] Because I like the adjusted one.
[53:54] Because it said transit oriented, which also,
[53:56] because transit oriented is pretty broad.
[53:59] But if it says in certain protected areas.
[54:01] I want to make sure I'm laying the right definition.
[54:07] Yeah, the definition is at the top of page two.
[54:10] And it includes the sort of locational requirements that are already discussed.
[54:14] It's in a regional transit district, local transit center, any part of which is within a quarter mile radius of a constructed heavier light rail transit station.
[54:25] And then there's the building requirements, at least 50% of its total building square footage is at least five stories height and height at least 60 feet above grade contains a mix of uses in the commercial principal use.
[54:39] classification and multi-family dwelling and that excludes uses in the industrial
[54:45] principal use as well as townhouses single family. So it's basically I think
[54:51] got a particular type of high density mix use. And it can be like towns.
[55:00] I'm open to expanding the definition and qualifications.
[55:08] So that's not something I'm against.
[55:12] And I would just say this, I mean, I was represented for LARGO, right? And LARGO will be included in this. And there was some things in LARGO that I had to call up.
[55:22] So I don't, I mean, I don't know, but it would have to be so, it's not just transit
[55:26] oriented, it has to be sort of multifamily units.
[55:31] Yeah, and five stories high, you know, a bunch of those things.
[55:37] So I think the intention is for these people to build on some of those.
[55:43] I can say to Madam Chair, I really, and we spoke, I really appreciate looking to try
[55:57] to get expedited, you know, at our transit-oriented areas, and then that's what I've done my whole
[56:04] time.
[56:06] And I work on that and under the current rules and I want to support you in your areas to make sure that your areas can get the same kind of, if you feel like this is a tool that you need in the areas that you represent, you know, I'm willing to work with you on that obviously.
[56:29] I know this includes areas that are in my district that I would not be comfortable with
[56:37] having in there.
[56:40] And I do think the call-up provision is important.
[56:43] I wouldn't impose that on your district if that's not what you want, you know, I respect
[56:47] that.
[56:51] So I think there's a way through this.
[56:54] I just don't know exactly what the amendments would be right now to do that.
[57:00] I'd be happy to work with you on that.
[57:03] Madam Chair, if I may.
[57:06] Madam committee chair.
[57:08] For the record chat, Williams of Park and Planning, I do need to make a correction
[57:12] from my prior comments in response to Council Member Olson.
[57:16] My initial inclination when you asked the question, Council Member, was no.
[57:19] And I should have stuck with that instinct.
[57:22] I wrote a staff report for this, so I was remembering a staff report, but as you know,
[57:25] there's been a lot of bills floating around.
[57:28] The language, the combination of lines five and six and seven and eight on page two
[57:33] and a proposed definition means that the constructed heavier late rail station must also be a regional
[57:41] transit district or local transit center.
[57:43] And the station areas that were identified, most purple line stations, as you know, are
[57:47] are not regional transit, local transit centers.
[57:51] They are neighborhood centers.
[57:52] Right.
[57:53] Southern Avenue is also a neighborhood center.
[57:56] So the quickest solution would be to strike end
[58:00] at the end of line six, if you consider amendments,
[58:03] and replace it with the word or.
[58:06] There are other solutions that we can discuss,
[58:08] but that would be the quick and simple solution.
[58:10] I'm sorry, I'm page four.
[58:11] I'm page two.
[58:12] I'm sorry, I'm page two.
[58:14] In the definition on line six.
[58:16] 6, 6.
[58:18] You would strike the term N at the end of the line and replace it with OR.
[58:23] I'm sorry, on line 6, sir.
[58:28] Line 6, N's, the line is, this is in proposed draft 2, I'm sorry, I shouldn't be doing that.
[58:33] Oh, I'm sorry, I have draft 1 in front of me.
[58:36] Thank you, thank you.
[58:38] Thank you.
[58:39] Oh, you already did this.
[58:40] Okay.
[58:40] So you would say in an area, it designated as a regional transit district or local transit center in the general plan,
[58:45] or their equivalents in any successor general plan, or any part of which is within a one-quarter mile radius.
[58:55] I would probably say any part in which the property is located within, just for clarity.
[59:00] Okay, so my question then is at the Adelphi Road UMGC, UMD purple line stop, let's just use that as an example.
[59:08] Would that fall under this bill or not?
[59:12] As the bill is currently worded and proposed draft to, it will not.
[59:17] I'm sorry, say that, please again.
[59:20] As the bill is currently worded and proposed draft to, as the definition is currently worded, it will not.
[59:25] It would not, I believe it is a designated neighborhood center if I recall correctly, it was not absent.
[59:32] You would probably know more than me if the Delphi plan reclassified it to a local transit district.
[59:38] I don't remember, honestly, off the top of my head, I do not remember.
[59:41] I think Laura is going to peachy atlas while we discuss this issue.
[59:47] But if you changed it to Orr, it would have done fine.
[59:51] It would be included to be expedited.
[59:55] Correct, sir.
[59:56] I don't want any of them.
[59:58] And again, there are many ways.
[1:00:00] Is to word this, but if you're looking for something quick and simple, that would include your purple line stations throughout the county. I'm not looking, yeah, I'm not looking to put the order in there then. Okay. So that's one example, right? But we have one example. We have a lot of line stations and multiple council members. Is it the desire of other council members to add purple line stations, remove purple line stations? I don't have a.
[1:00:31] a desire to add the purple station, I mean to my colleagues point that he said, you
[1:00:40] know, his metro stations are very well developed.
[1:00:45] I will say economic and democratically look different under the rules.
[1:00:52] I just, I don't want us to trivialize that since those areas were developed under the
[1:00:57] rules that there is not like redlining racism and things that economically have impacted
[1:01:04] and racial things that have impacted where development happens.
[1:01:09] But to say all that, I mean, I'm not looking to force it into someone else's district,
[1:01:17] but I just want to make sure I say for the record that I'm very sure that there's going to
[1:01:21] be certain parts of the county that can develop under these rules because those businesses want
[1:01:25] to go there.
[1:01:25] they want to go there because of where your district looks and they want to go
[1:01:31] there because of the financial situation of your district and that is not the
[1:01:36] same in my district. So I just want to make sure that I clearly state that
[1:01:41] difference. Sure and I'm happy to work with you on this or something that works for
[1:01:47] your district as well as my district and you know for the whole county therefore
[1:01:51] it works the whole county so we're on the same page. We have an answer to
[1:01:55] Mr. Olson.
[1:01:56] Yes.
[1:01:57] The Delphi sector plan did upgrade the center classification to regional transit center.
[1:02:02] So it is, so it is a regional transit center councilmember Olson.
[1:02:08] Yeah.
[1:02:08] It's not a regional transit district.
[1:02:10] It's a local transit center, but it is inclusive under subsection one.
[1:02:14] Thank you for clarification, Mar.
[1:02:16] So under the current draft two, it would be included.
[1:02:21] It is still included.
[1:02:22] Yes, ma'am.
[1:02:23] And since I had to make just two minor grammatical typographical revisions to consider, on that same page, line 25, it states the proposed development consisting of at least one building, I think shall consist of at least one building is probably a better, a clearer clause for staff to work with when we're reviewing these and making recommendations.
[1:02:49] And on page three, line 23, where you start to see the appellate procedures, it's unclear
[1:02:58] what the term special appeal may mean.
[1:03:01] So you may want to just leave this as appeal procedures for commercial reinvestment
[1:03:06] innovation projects.
[1:03:09] Okay.
[1:03:13] Is there a way to, maybe this is an offline conversation, but I know you, so I want to
[1:03:22] I don't know where the sense of the committee is, but is there a way, there's always a way to exclude certain areas from this?
[1:03:37] Not at this table at this moment, even if they're designated as regional transit sector, or local transit center.
[1:03:47] Not in here now, this would be an offline conversation if the sponsor and the committee's desire were to hold the bill for a few days.
[1:03:58] Or it could pass, you know, the other option, and I know it's putting pressure on all of us, but I want to work with the chair, is, you know, that we could have before introduction, it could have amendments.
[1:04:10] If that's possible, I mean, I'm trying to work with your manager.
[1:04:17] I'm open to either to either Monday or yeah, I think we can get everything done by Monday.
[1:04:25] I think that we have everything set all of the changes done and then that way we can add it to the agenda on Monday and get it passed then.
[1:04:33] I just want to ask the question, is local activity center part of it?
[1:04:38] I just want to make sure it's not.
[1:04:39] No, local attorney.
[1:04:41] Okay, thank you.
[1:04:47] Councilmember Dan Algood.
[1:04:48] Yeah, I just want to say that when you look at the general plan, it gets very confusing
[1:04:53] as to what the title is for the different types of transit centers.
[1:04:58] Thank you very much.
[1:05:00] How many categories are there must be like seven or eight different categories? Five. Five. I think it's important that everybody get a copy of that page or two pages that the breaks out, which, which centers are under which category.
[1:05:15] Yeah, but I think I think my colleagues probably haven't looked at that in a while. So it's important that they see that.
[1:05:24] Right. So I think we're, we do a motion to hold to Monday. Motion to hold to Monday.
[1:05:31] Okay.
[1:05:32] Second.
[1:05:33] Right.
[1:05:33] Can we please call the roll?
[1:05:35] Chair Belgae.
[1:05:36] Aye.
[1:05:37] Council Member Adam Stafford.
[1:05:40] Council Member Denoga.
[1:05:42] Council Member Olsen.
[1:05:43] Aye.
[1:05:44] Vice Chair Ouyaga.
[1:05:45] Aye.
[1:05:46] Motion carries 5-0.
[1:05:52] All right.
[1:05:52] Thank you.
[1:05:53] So the next bill on the agenda is a CB-77, and I'm turning over to Ms. High's power.
[1:06:01] Yes Madam Chair, this bill allows the reuse of commercial buildings and residential single family in the residential single family attach zone.
[1:06:12] It permits restaurants and existing buildings without expanding their footprint while assessing their traffic impact and neighborhood character.
[1:06:21] It also allows certain places of worship under specific standards considering their suitability
[1:06:29] and effects on nearby properties.
[1:06:32] The bill and the agenda item summary on pages 76 through 84.
[1:06:37] Ms. Ganyu is here again if you would like to have a fiscal and policy impact overview.
[1:06:43] The planning board voted to oppose this bill,
[1:06:47] their letter and technical staff reporter on pages 86 to 99,
[1:06:53] as well as we know that their staff are here and can explain.
[1:06:57] That concludes my overview, Madam Chair.
[1:07:00] Thank you.
[1:07:01] All right, thank you, and I'll turn it over to Bill Sponsor.
[1:07:05] Thank you.
[1:07:06] This is another piece of legislation that I've been working on for a while now.
[1:07:13] For some unique issues that we sometimes see in the county,
[1:07:18] where we have spaces that are existing,
[1:07:22] developments could be commercial spaces that currently exist.
[1:07:27] And then when they go to redevelop,
[1:07:30] they run into some problems because of maybe how they're zoned.
[1:07:35] And we know that that's a very expensive process that change.
[1:07:40] So we were trying to look at what are some things that we could offer to make it easier for existing properties that have these commercial uses that are trying to expand to bring the type of things you want to see like restaurants that are not don't have a drive through child care facilities, etc.
[1:08:00] to those communities with and do it in a way that is not a cost burden.
[1:08:07] So I know that there are developments in my district that would be greatly impacted
[1:08:14] by being able to have this type of flexibility.
[1:08:17] So that's the impotence of the legislation and hope to have the body support.
[1:08:25] All right, thank you so much.
[1:08:27] And we don't have any speakers, so do we have any questions from the committee?
[1:08:36] I'd like to make a motion.
[1:08:39] A little question, I'm sorry.
[1:08:44] So I know this, do we know how many properties this was to?
[1:08:55] Park and planning, do we know, do we have a?
[1:09:03] I mean, it's probably not many.
[1:09:05] Right. I mean, it's, I mean, I'm guessing that it's not many, but I'm just interested if we, we know
[1:09:17] there's no map in the folder.
[1:09:23] So, again, for the record chat, Williams, the planning director's office maintains a legislative tracking folder.
[1:09:31] And I do not see any map present in this folder, so it doesn't look like that we requested a map for this particular bill.
[1:09:37] Would it madam chair would it? I mean I'm willing to get this out of committee, but could we maybe get a map before
[1:09:44] Introduction sure just so we have some information and yeah
[1:10:08] Okay. I'm willing to, you know, pass it on a committee. I just, you know, if we can get some more information, I mean, just, I expect it's fine, but I really would just like to see that. All right. Thank you. Do we have a motion? I'm Councilmember Zanogo.
[1:10:33] I had a problem with the development like this many years ago in college part, where there was an old corner store.
[1:10:43] type of facility that had residential over top and laundry underneath, and I forget how
[1:10:49] it was zone, we had to go to tax amendment to try to deal with it because they needed
[1:10:53] to be redeveloped. And there wasn't any logical way to deal with this. I think this is similar
[1:10:59] where you have a longstanding commercial uses in the zone that's RSFA.
[1:11:07] So looking at the
[1:11:08] bill. I know in the past that Park and Plain have pointed out that on page 6,
[1:11:19] where
[1:11:21] it has the, I'll call it the standards, the requirements. You put a church, it talks
[1:11:27] about suitable proposed place of worship, a restaurant, it talks about synonymously affect
[1:11:35] the character of the neighboring properties because this would be a not a special exception
[1:11:43] but go straight to building permit.
[1:11:46] I know deep behind the past, they don't make those decisions, so that potentially creates
[1:11:53] a problem.
[1:11:55] My question is, can we change this?
[1:11:58] This type of use is basically a commercial, like much of the rate.
[1:12:05] The CS or formally CSC, can we just impose for this, because this is for an existing building that has commercial uses that just finds itself in the wrong zone.
[1:12:19] Can we just impose whatever the best commercial standards are and go with that?
[1:12:34] I mean, is David Warner, principal counsel for the commission?
[1:12:38] You're right that when a use is permitted and it comes to DePie and comes to us for recommendation on a permit,
[1:12:45] our permit staff will look and go like, well, we don't really know how to decide if something is going to have.
[1:12:52] You know, we have to take into consideration the character of the surrounding properties.
[1:12:58] They're not in a position to do that.
[1:13:00] So that does make it difficult when you have this.
[1:13:03] So if you have some standards that would allow for the development that's proposed that
[1:13:09] isn't so general, it's going to be easier to go through permit.
[1:13:13] So if it is a standard that says something, for example, as long as it meets the requirements
[1:13:17] of a typical CS zone, it's fine.
[1:13:21] That makes it easier on the permit.
[1:13:23] It's the appropriate only thing.
[1:13:26] I don't know.
[1:13:27] What do you guys think?
[1:13:28] What was the question, sir?
[1:13:30] If they wanted to add standards to this bill,
[1:13:33] just to make it very easy for permits
[1:13:35] to approve the permit when it comes through,
[1:13:38] instead of just having them analyze
[1:13:40] whether the character of the surrounding properties is affected,
[1:13:44] what would be the criteria for a typical type of use like this
[1:13:49] that's reusing a commercial development
[1:13:52] that's, you know, no longer you being used for whatever it was used before, you know,
[1:13:57] a supermarket or a car, auto, a lot or something. But, you know, what would be the kind of zone
[1:14:04] that procedures that would be appropriate for that? I mean, to the extent that we may have any kind of
[1:14:13] restaurant use design standards, regulatory standards, operational standards in a CGO zone,
[1:14:19] That would be fine.
[1:14:21] What I don't recall off the top of my head is whether such exists, but a restaurant within
[1:14:28] any zone is akin to a restaurant in any other zone in terms of its operation.
[1:14:33] So from that perspective, operation design, you would look at whatever we have in the
[1:14:39] current ordinance and we would want to go and just take a look at that and get back to you all on that issue.
[1:14:45] So, with a consideration that we might recommend that if you want this use in the RSFA zone,
[1:14:52] there might be some compatibility elements to the design of the and operation of this use.
[1:15:00] All this is for one acre or less. So I think this reminds me of the College Park situation where it was just a tiny little building in the middle of a residential area that had always been commercial. So if we're thinking in those terms. Well, when I think one acre or less, I think that the majority of restaurants operating in Prince George's County, if not all of them are on less than an acre land. There is. And I apologize. I am certainly not trying to be a Debbie down.
[1:15:29] But there is an unintended consequence that I see with this bill in replacing the X with the P and the RSFA zone.
[1:15:40] The use specific standards are explicit for restaurants to preclude any drive-through, which is fine.
[1:15:50] However, it is silent as to the alcohol production facility's small-scale, the shared commercial kitchen as well.
[1:15:57] So by making this from X to P, those uses will be permitted in the RSFA zone.
[1:16:06] Because you'll get back to the council chair as to the appropriate reference CGO or CS.
[1:16:13] We will go back and investigate whether we have such standards that are applicable to restaurants and get back to Choroyata.
[1:16:21] And in my opinion, David, one principle council, if you pass this out of committee, those do not sound like the type of substantive changes that you can't make after you got them out of committee.
[1:16:30] many of these are disclarefications.
[1:16:33] I'd like to make a motion to move everyone.
[1:16:37] Second.
[1:16:41] All right.
[1:16:41] I'm sorry.
[1:16:42] Please call the roll.
[1:16:44] Chair Begay.
[1:16:45] I.
[1:16:45] Council Member Adam Stafford.
[1:16:47] Aye.
[1:16:48] Council Member Denogra.
[1:16:49] All right.
[1:16:49] Council Member Olson.
[1:16:51] Vice Chair Oriada.
[1:16:53] Aye.
[1:16:54] Motion carries five.
[1:16:55] All right.
[1:16:56] Madam Chair, I'd like to make sure that we were moving.
[1:17:00] Yes.
[1:17:00] That's correct.
[1:17:01] That's favorable.
[1:17:01] I apologize for speaking.
[1:17:03] Thank you so much.
[1:17:05] All right.
[1:17:06] So we can move, um, extra.
[1:17:09] I'm just trying to get to that.
[1:17:10] Yeah, because I know.
[1:17:11] CB 82.
[1:17:13] Um, and try another to miss.
[1:17:15] High tower.
[1:17:16] This bill amends the zoning order to comply with state law.
[1:17:19] It requires cannabis dispensaries or cannabis micro dispensaries to be at least 500 feet
[1:17:26] from a place of worship, and any pre-existing playgrounds, recreation centers, libraries,
[1:17:33] and public parks.
[1:17:35] The bill is on pages 149 through 154, Ms. Gan, you is here.
[1:17:40] Again, if you would like to provide a fiscal and policy overview, the planning board voted
[1:17:46] to support this bill, and that is all I have, Madam Chair.
[1:17:52] Thank you.
[1:17:52] All right.
[1:17:52] Turn it over to Bill Sponsor.
[1:17:56] Yep, this is just clerical in nature.
[1:17:59] Something we needed to pass me along with the state.
[1:18:04] Thank you.
[1:18:04] Any comments from our colleagues?
[1:18:07] Any motion on the floor?
[1:18:10] Motion moved.
[1:18:10] Motion moved favourable.
[1:18:11] Second.
[1:18:12] All right, we have a motion in a second.
[1:18:14] Okay, please call the roll.
[1:18:16] Chair blue gay.
[1:18:17] Aye.
[1:18:18] Council member Adam Stafford.
[1:18:20] Council member Danoga.
[1:18:22] Council member Olson.
[1:18:23] Aye.
[1:18:24] Vice Chair Yada.
[1:18:25] motion carries 5-0.
[1:18:29] All right. Next on the agenda is CB-84.
[1:18:34] Did we do 84 already?
[1:18:37] Can I turn over to Ms. Asawa?
[1:18:40] I'm on 84.
[1:18:41] No one is concerning streamlining site plan.
[1:18:45] 83.
[1:18:46] Right.
[1:18:50] No, I thought that's a bad problem.
[1:18:52] The convenience was, I thought we skipped.
[1:18:53] Well, 89 is what we need to know.
[1:18:55] Got it. Okay, CB 83.
[1:18:58] We are AB 3 and ordinance concerning convenience stores to back up product sales.
[1:19:03] Yes ma'am, this bill amends zoning ordinance transitional provisions to prohibit food or beverage stores under the prior zoning ordinance and amends the definition for an existing convenience store to prohibit convenience stores from selling tobacco and tobacco related products.
[1:19:22] The bill also includes an amortization period for
[1:19:26] impact existing places, and allows them to allow them to adjust to the new requirements of this bill.
[1:19:37] The bill and the summary on pages 168 through 174.
[1:19:42] Again, we have Ms. Ganyu here who can provide you with a fiscal and policy overview.
[1:19:47] the planning board voted to take no position on this bill with amendments.
[1:19:52] There are or were three people here signed up to speak at this time.
[1:19:58] Madam Chair.
[1:20:01] All right, concludes. Thank you so much and turn it over to our bill sponsor. Thank you. As many of my colleagues know, the issue with tobacco stores is one that I have been fighting around for probably the last four years that I've served in this body. As many know, we have such a over saturation.
[1:20:31] of these 20 bar tobacco stores on every corner in certain communities where there's this really known strip in my district where there's four of them all right next to each other, and then two liquor stores across the street.
[1:20:53] And we and many of my colleagues joined me in passing different legislation that where we would try to constantly address some of the loopholes that they would constantly find to open up and those have not been working, they're continuing to open up and they're not slowing down.
[1:21:16] As many of you know, I passed the moratorium that didn't allow any more to get permits in district seven for the next year while I continued to work on legislation that really addressed this no better way to say epidemic, I feel like that is happening in Fisher's County, and in particular areas of the county and a lot of these shops also are breaking the law.
[1:21:45] They're not even purchasing their products from Maryland, they're purchasing their products
[1:21:50] from Virginia, so that they don't have to pay the tax, so that they can make a higher
[1:21:55] profit.
[1:21:55] Because we wonder how can they turn a profit, it doesn't make sense, if they were paying
[1:22:00] the same cost as other vendors, it wouldn't be profitable, the math wouldn't make sense.
[1:22:06] But they're constantly acting as bad actors, starting the law, not paying and following
[1:22:14] the proper procedures. And so when I had a meeting with DPI and we were going over every
[1:22:22] piece of legislative option that we had, it came from an inspector. They said honestly
[1:22:28] the easiest thing is the use, simplifying it that way. And I think we've done our best
[1:22:37] to try to work to find solutions but well I think this industry has shown us that
[1:22:45] they don't care at all about what we're saying we want to see in our
[1:22:51] community and I've hit the end of trying to work with them. I feel like at this
[1:23:00] point we just don't want to see that use and it's a hundred percent in our
[1:23:06] our purview to say that we don't want to see this use permitted in certain areas in the
[1:23:13] county and so I hope to see your support in this piece of legislation because I think
[1:23:18] this might actually get us to where we've been trying to get for the last three years
[1:23:22] around the oversaturation of the 24 hour tobacco stores in the county.
[1:23:28] So thank you.
[1:23:30] Thank you, we do have a speaker's list for this bill, starting with Mike O'Hallorin.
[1:23:40] Good afternoon, members of the Planning Housing and Economic Development Committee for the record.
[1:23:44] My name is Mike O'Hallorin, and I represent the Mid-Atlantic Petroleum Distributors Association.
[1:23:49] MAP does a trade association representing energy marketers, so at Maryland, Delaware, and the District of Columbia.
[1:23:55] Our members also own and operate gas stations and convenience stores located in Prince George's County.
[1:24:00] Okay, CB 83 effectively prohibits the sale and distribution of tobacco and tobacco related products at convenience stores without fuel service in the county.
[1:24:10] Though this bill exempts gas stations from the legislation, it still impacts standalone convenience stores.
[1:24:16] Based on the gas station exemption and recent changes to county zoning rules, it seems the council is continuing to look as the council chair just mentioned in her remarks for ways to combat the proliferation of quote unquote smoke shops throughout the county.
[1:24:29] Map the members share in the concern these attachments have created.
[1:24:33] Our stores take great pride in distinguishing themselves from these businesses.
[1:24:38] We offer fresh food options, groceries over the counter medication, and more.
[1:24:42] Our hope is to work with the council to improve this bill and create a clear distinction between the convenience store industry and these quote unquote smoke shops.
[1:24:51] We recently worked with your colleagues in the Baltimore County Council to pass local legislation to better define the differences.
[1:24:56] We'd like to couple this effort with legislation our-
[1:25:00] Partners in the Maryland General Assembly passed during the 20, 2026 legislative session, excuse me, legislative session. That bill sent a bill A-20 enables the alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis commission to seize illegal products and cite these establishments, whether civilly or criminally, that sell them. Convenient stores are fundamentally different operations from smoke shops. Our industry is made up of general purpose retail businesses whose principal function is to provide a broad
[1:25:29] a large range of everyday consumer goods and services for quick and convenient purchase.
[1:25:34] Tobacco and tobacco related products may constitute an important product category,
[1:25:39] but they are one component of a diversified retail offering that typically includes food,
[1:25:44] beverages, major order meals, and other consumer products.
[1:25:48] Thank you and we look forward to working with the council on this legislation.
[1:25:54] Thank you, next on the list of Sarah Price.
[1:25:56] Good
[1:26:05] afternoon. Now, council members, Sarah Price, on behalf of the Maryland Retailers Alliance.
[1:26:11] I would largely echo the statement of my colleague, Mr. O'Hallarin, but ultimately, I think
[1:26:20] we have questions about the laws that are already on the books, the policies that have already
[1:26:26] been passed by the council, and why those attempts have not worked. I do appreciate the sponsor's
[1:26:34] explanation at the beginning. I had hoped to speak with you before this meeting just to
[1:26:40] get a better understanding of where the bill was coming from and why the existing laws
[1:26:43] haven't been working. It sounds to me like an enforcement issue and we just wanted to have
[1:26:51] a better understanding of how these businesses are getting around these laws and why the existing
[1:26:59] policies are not as effective as the council would have hoped.
[1:27:06] We do have some concerns about the actions of bad actors ultimately resulting in an
[1:27:14] entire industry sector being prohibited from selling legal regulated products.
[1:27:21] My organization doesn't, you know, we're not standing up for bad actors.
[1:27:23] We absolutely understand the issues being faced by the community.
[1:27:28] we're trying to be sympathetic to that, but we do want to make sure that legitimate businesses
[1:27:33] are still able to operate and to make the money that they need to make to operate.
[1:27:39] A lot of legitimate convenience stores and gas stations accept SNAP, they are providing
[1:27:45] food and necessary goods in their communities, and we want to make sure that those good businesses
[1:27:50] are still able to operate, happy to answer any questions and I hope to be able to connect
[1:27:56] with you.
[1:27:56] Thank you.
[1:27:57] Thank you so much and next one is here in here in Vera war.
[1:28:05] Okay and the next person is Taylor
[1:28:08] who I don't see. Thank you. Do we have a motion? Motion to move favourable. Second can we please call the roll.
[1:28:27] Chair
[1:28:28] All right. Thank you. Next that we have on the agenda is CB 84. An ordinance concerning streamlining site plan review act of 2026 turning it over to Ms. Hightower.
[1:28:44] Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. As you mentioned, this bill will allow certain application types to be reviewed simultaneously during the development review process.
[1:28:55] The bill and the agenda on pages 195 through 200.
[1:29:00] There's a proposed draft too of the bill.
[1:29:04] Mr. Hamlin is here and can go through those amendments.
[1:29:08] Also, Ms. Ganyu is here if you would like to have her provide you a fiscal and policy overview.
[1:29:14] The planning board voted to oppose this bill, I believe.
[1:29:19] And that concludes my overview, Madam Chair, thank you.
[1:29:23] All right. Thank you. Any comments from the bill sponsor?
[1:29:29] Just echoing sentiments that I've stated before around, sorry, we're on 84 correct around the work that we're doing around streamlining the development process and this one change to match the concerns that my colleagues had on the subdivision.
[1:29:52] So this matches it so there'll be a draft to
[1:29:56] Reflect all the changes on the subdivision bill that we already passed
[1:30:00] Thank you. And we have some speakers today. I'll start with Terry Arvinson.
[1:30:13] Hello again.
[1:30:15] Terry Arvinson from a Laurel district one. There are so many concerns and impacts to be weighed during the approval process.
[1:30:27] And the range of capabilities and organizations required to properly assess these is beyond the means of any planning board, both in terms of knowledge
[1:30:35] and current staffing resources.
[1:30:38] Streamlining the process is not the answer.
[1:30:41] Providing sufficient resources to do the job right
[1:30:44] is the proper answer.
[1:30:46] What I also don't see in the system right now
[1:30:49] is the transparency that allows the community
[1:30:53] to track inputs, reports, status, and results.
[1:30:57] For example, the winery land sale on Duckett Town Road
[1:31:01] outside of Old Buie has been conducted essentially in secret.
[1:31:06] It is our quality of life that is potentially impinged upon by careless or
[1:31:11] thoughtless development, including loss of trees and contamination of watersheds,
[1:31:16] aggravated traffic patterns that are already at their limit in some areas,
[1:31:21] and infrastructure capacities such as water, sewer, and electricity.
[1:31:26] I have been trolling the county websites for current status on permits, bill approvals, planning submissions, but they don't seem to be available to the voters.
[1:31:36] Request for information is the only way we find out what's being done without our knowledge or consent.
[1:31:43] This is not right, it is not a representative government if we don't know what you're doing.
[1:31:49] Help us to help you make PG County a thoughtful, considerate, and responsibly planned environment in which to raise our families.
[1:31:59] Thank you.
[1:32:00] Thank you so much.
[1:32:01] Next is John Robinson?
[1:32:09] Yes, this is John Robinson.
[1:32:13] The bill has changed remarkably from what I originally saw, but I'd like to just reiterate two things.
[1:32:20] One is that the process is necessarily multi-step and you have to do certain things before you do succeeding things.
[1:32:29] For example, you really need to know where the flood plans are, you need to know where the natural resources are, you know, forest cover, and so forth.
[1:32:37] And you have to have those before you can go to the next stages of evaluating whether a particular proposal is even appropriate for an area or not.
[1:32:45] And just to piggyback the comments that were just made about the old Duckettown community.
[1:32:54] This is an historic African-American community near Buoy.
[1:32:59] They basically had taken for granted the forest that surrounded their community.
[1:33:05] And then all of a sudden they found out that that county had sold it as surplus property.
[1:33:13] and they were planning on, you know, basically cutting down the forest that they had taken for granted, that people tend to do when things have been there for hundreds of years, and they were going to put a winery there.
[1:33:24] And they had no clue that this was coming down the pike. So I think that, you know, this is the important. It's why you have to have transparency.
[1:33:32] You have to incorporate people and you have to evaluate the resources before you, for example,
[1:33:38] sell off County property that has a mature forest on it, or any of these other activities.
[1:33:43] So, thank you very much for your time.
[1:33:48] Thank you, and Kathy, both on the mute.
[1:34:00] Kathy from Greenville.
[1:34:04] Opposed to the streamlining, we need to set down policy that must protect the public protections
[1:34:13] protections have environmental protections, even a fast-track.
[1:34:18] Make sure that the transportation federal and state laws are followed.
[1:34:22] Concerns about the resources to develop smart growth with serial planning review process.
[1:34:28] Fast-tracking using parallel processing compounds, a lack of capability, makes it highly likely
[1:34:34] that mistakes in the approval process will be made that are counter to what PGE citizens
[1:34:40] environmental growth and interest want.
[1:34:45] We need timely and accurate reviews that are compliant with the law,
[1:34:49] making this process go faster, using parallel reviews,
[1:34:53] exposes PG Council, to even more legal action from failed reviews,
[1:34:58] and citizens who experience
[1:35:00] Financial environmental losses has a result. Data base is not working so well. Lining information
[1:35:07] is very difficult and at times not available. The current permit and planning data bases
[1:35:14] are insufficient as DPI is understaffed. Lack of transparency around the projects and not
[1:35:22] proactively provide documents. Developers are required to file as part of the application process.
[1:35:29] Only getting documents through the public record requests gives us that are not being transparent right now.
[1:35:38] It seems that maybe a special treatment is being given to the big developers rather than people that are just wanting to build an addition or at a house.
[1:35:49] So I hope you reconsider this bill.
[1:35:53] Thank you.
[1:35:54] Thank you so much.
[1:35:56] Do we have a motion?
[1:35:59] Move everyone.
[1:36:00] Drive two.
[1:36:00] Second.
[1:36:02] Can we please call the roll?
[1:36:05] Chair Belgae.
[1:36:06] Aye.
[1:36:07] Council Member Adam Stafford.
[1:36:09] Council Member Denoga.
[1:36:11] Council Member Olson.
[1:36:13] Aye.
[1:36:13] Vice Chair Ouyaga.
[1:36:15] Aye.
[1:36:15] Motion carries 5-0.
[1:36:17] All right.
[1:36:18] And finally, we have CB-35, is that the last one?
[1:36:21] Yes.
[1:36:23] And this bill was held in committee on May the 12th and this bill would allow child care centers without the requirement of special exception.
[1:36:37] There is a proposed draft too, and Mr. Hamlin is here, the Planning Board voted to support it, the original version with amendments.
[1:36:47] There was a letter received from Reverend Dr. Matthew Wattley from Kingdom Fellowship,
[1:36:56] AME Church, strongly supporting the legislation.
[1:37:01] There's also Ms. Heather, and I apologize if I mess up your last name, Ms. Heather Dorskley,
[1:37:07] submitted a letter of support and is signed up to speak.
[1:37:12] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[1:37:16] Okay, so we had turned over to a bill sponsor.
[1:37:19] Thank you, colleagues.
[1:37:22] This was part of the package of bills I presented on the Universal Child Care Roadmap.
[1:37:29] As we look at how we're going to expand access to child care, as to be a layered approach.
[1:37:35] One, we did that with creating the first ever Printer Church County Scholarship and funding
[1:37:40] it during this budget cycle.
[1:37:41] So, I thank my colleagues for their advocacy and our ability to get that funding.
[1:37:46] But outside of also creating scholarship opportunities, we also have to create opportunities
[1:37:52] to expand the seats.
[1:37:54] So one of the pieces of legislation I wanted to do was look at the barriers to actually
[1:38:00] open up child care facilities.
[1:38:02] And so I think that this piece of legislation will make it easier for us to expand and have
[1:38:09] more seats across the county, which is a big part of creating access to affordable
[1:38:15] child care and print shortage county. So I hope to have your support. Thank you.
[1:38:22] Thank you so much. We do have some speakers, Ms. Heather, the pot ski, Paul's ski.
[1:38:33] Good afternoon,
[1:38:39] a little bit taller, not usually tall. Good afternoon, Heather, Dell, Paul's
[1:38:43] And I respond to many variations on my last name, so I know where he's there.
[1:38:48] Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee.
[1:38:50] As I said, Heather Dullapulski, I'm a land use and zoning attorney with WireGill.
[1:38:54] And I'm here on behalf of Kingdom Fellowship AME Church.
[1:38:58] They are based on Beltsville Drive in Beltsville.
[1:39:01] And it is our client who submitted the very strong letter of support for this bill.
[1:39:04] And we do appreciate its introduction and moving forward.
[1:39:08] We are strongly in support of both the bill and the overall proposal to make it easier
[1:39:12] to provide daycare in Prince George's County.
[1:39:15] We did submit a lengthier written letter yesterday, so I would refer folks to that.
[1:39:20] In addition to the Worship Center at their Belsfield Drive Facility, Kingdom Fellowship
[1:39:24] also operates Kingdom Care Center.
[1:39:27] It provides wraparound services for the community within existing office buildings.
[1:39:32] So these are office buildings that were very underutilized for a number of years.
[1:39:36] They came and developed their Worship Center as well as the Kingdom Care Center.
[1:39:40] The wraparound services include food and housing assistance, health care, workforce development,
[1:39:46] legal services, and if this bill passes, Kingdom Fellowship stands ready to add a daycare
[1:39:51] center for children as part of this comprehensive service to the community.
[1:39:55] We are also currently seeking a parking departure to accommodate the daycare center.
[1:40:00] And some additional wraparound services at Kingdom Care Center. This would be in recognition of the fact that these are weekday uses that fit well within the higher parking requirement for the place of worship, which obviously has a tires to use on Sundays. The planning board hearing on that is in the end of October, and it's our strong hope that this bill will be approved around the same time that final action is being taken on that. And if so, Kingdom Fellowship is ready to move forward with implementing a daycare center for children at their facility.
[1:40:29] and we do anticipate at this time that it would be up to 120 children.
[1:40:34] So thank you so much for the opportunity to speak to.
[1:40:36] I appreciate it.
[1:40:36] Thank you so much.
[1:40:37] John Robertson.
[1:40:45] Yes, I think it's clear that not just the county, but the whole country is in serious need
[1:40:51] of good, reliable child care for residents.
[1:40:57] However, I do question whether or not the general scope of this legislation is what's required.
[1:41:03] There are situations in various communities where facilities that are meant to provide this type of care do not meet standards and without the appropriate review by the planning department and other experts.
[1:41:22] There's no guarantee that a safe, effective child care situation will be created, and so I would just caution you that just doing away with regulations and requiring permits is not necessarily going to give you the result that you want, which is providing high quality child care for the residents of our county. Thank you.
[1:41:53] I just want to address that because that's is very important that we have high quality
[1:41:59] daycare facilities and daycare is heavily regulated and this in no way changes those
[1:42:07] regulations.
[1:42:08] It's actually one of the things I'm working on on the state level right now because there's
[1:42:14] not even a difference between daycare and afterschool, and because the standards are so high for daycare, so many of our afterschool providers can't even open because of the licensing requirement, even our school, so about you build a school that houses children all day, they have to get licensed separately to do afterschool care, because it's under the daycare requirements.
[1:42:38] So I don't want people to think that this, in any way, changes the regulations or the standards for daycares.
[1:42:45] They still have higher regulations and standards that are regulated by the state to make sure that they are quality child care facilities in Prince George County.
[1:42:56] And then we do have technical amendments, Josh, am I correct?
[1:43:02] Turn it over, Josh, do you have technical amendments?
[1:43:05] Yeah, these are just a handful of amendments that were suggested by planning staff back when they were discussed.
[1:43:13] I think Mr. Warner discussed them at length, and I think there was general agreement.
[1:43:17] So these are just incorporated into the draft, too.
[1:43:20] And those are the only changes to it from draft one.
[1:43:23] Thank you.
[1:43:24] All right.
[1:43:25] Do we have a motion?
[1:43:26] Motion to move favourable on draft two.
[1:43:28] Second.
[1:43:30] Could please call the roll.
[1:43:31] Chair Bougay, aye.
[1:43:34] Council Member Adam Stafford, aye.
[1:43:36] Council Member Janoga,
[1:43:37] Council Member Olson, aye.
[1:43:39] Vice Chair Ruyaga, aye.
[1:43:41] Motion carries 5-0.
[1:43:44] Right, so we are concluded.
[1:43:47] Do we have a motion to adjourn?
[1:43:49] All right, all the eyes have it.
[1:43:54] We are adjourned.