[15:01] Good morning,

[15:10] everyone. The time is now 10.05, and I will call the February 12th, 2021, signing board

[15:16] meeting to order.

[15:21] We have the following board members with us today, Vice Chair Gerardo.

[15:25] Good morning, everyone. Commissioner Corrier, morning. I am Chairman Barnes. We will now move forward

[15:31] with the business of hand. Please note that the deadline for all participation, pre-registrations

[15:37] and for all submission of material that exhibits for us 12 noon or Tuesday before the planning board meeting.

[15:45] Please note that a whole walk-in speaking sign-up is no longer permitted. We will now move over to today's agenda.

[15:52] But before we move on to today's agenda, I'd like to take a moment of silence and a point of privilege

[15:58] to recognize an extraordinary woman that meant so much to the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission.

[16:06] And I, with all condolences to her family, I'd like to share the passing of Mary Wells Farrell.

[16:14] Former Director of MNCPPC Department of Parks and Recreation here in Prince George's County.

[16:21] A former commissioner with MNCPPC, Montgomery County Planning Board,

[16:27] Ms. Wells Harley served more than 40 years with the Department of Parks and Recreation.

[16:31] She became a director in 1996, and throughout her distinguished career, she earned numerous

[16:38] accolades at the National State and local levels for her leadership, and professional

[16:43] accomplishments including being named when a girl is top 100 women in 2024.

[16:49] May we take this one minute of silence to honor her life and her legacy Mary Wells.

[16:56] All right.

[17:24] The place is for today's meeting with Jenny's follows, items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and

[17:30] 9.

[17:31] First item on the agenda is item 2, draft minutes of February 5th, 2026.

[17:37] I look forward motion.

[17:38] Mr. Chair, move that we approve the minutes from February 5th, 2026 meeting?

[17:45] Sir, you asked the second.

[17:47] To improperly move the second, I will now call the roll by Mr. Durardo.

[18:07] Good morning, Mr. Chair, and thank you to members of playing board. This is Deborah

[18:12] Borden. I am the general counsel for the commission. I have a few bills here that we will

[18:18] ask you for a position on and a couple of bills that we are just going to submit informational

[18:25] testimony on. So I'll get right to it. Jordan indicated that she was on her way to

[18:31] anapolis right now so she can't join us. So I will get started,

[18:45] titled Marilyn beverage container,

[18:47] recycling refund and litter. So this would establish recycling refund and litter reduction program

[18:58] to increase the reuse and recycling of beverage containers statewide. We think this is generally

[19:06] a good idea because it would help us to reduce litter in our parks. We spend a lot of money

[19:15] picking up litter and keeping our parks free of refuse and we think this would be generally

[20:00] Would help to avoid these bottles going into our waterways, because that's a big problem. They get washed into sewer drains and storm water drains and they end up in our waterways.

[20:15] So, we have prepared information for this one and let's see.

[20:24] Yes, so we are proposing just an informational sheet for this one, so no position required and no no motion required.

[20:35] I'm happy to answer any questions you might have about it.

[20:39] Any questions?

[20:41] I have a question.

[20:43] Okay.

[20:45] The next bill is the,

[20:49] House Bill 654, natural resources Maryland had heritage areas of authority, funding, and grants.

[20:57] Of course, anytime we see the word funding and grants, we get our ears per cup.

[21:03] So this one would decrease the percentage of program open space funds transferred to the Maryland heritage areas authority financing fund.

[21:12] So, this one we are a bit concerned about this because it would decrease the amount of money

[21:20] available for non-capital historic preservation grants and so we would like to put in some

[21:33] information about the use of these funds that we have made over the years.

[21:42] So would decrease the percentage from 10% to 7% of program open space funds transferred to

[21:49] this financing fund.

[21:53] And we have, let's see, identified that the Parks Department has received funding through

[22:03] program several times in the past, both parks departments.

[22:09] We had intended, at least on the Montgomery

[22:11] side, to apply to the non-capital grant program to conduct necessary research and archaeological

[22:18] fieldwork at the new Ednors, the soapstone quarry park. Limiting this funding really limits the

[22:27] sources that exist for this type of study, you know, non-capital meaning,

[22:35] non, you know,

[22:36] building, construction, renovation funds that don't result in a capital asset. So getting

[22:44] funds for like a study or design work can be very difficult. And this is the kind of funding

[22:50] that they're looking to lower. So we would like to submit again another

[22:57] informational statement for that. And so no motion required for that.

[23:05] Any questions?

[23:06] I don't know.

[23:07] You may proceed.

[23:09] Okay. Next we have.

[23:14] We've got this House Bill 778.

[23:18] This is Land Use Middle Housing Options Requirements.

[23:22] This is another bill focused on housing and increasing the supply of housing as a way

[23:30] of creating more affordable housing in the state.

[23:35] So this bill would require local governments to do comprehensive plans and planning to

[23:43] evaluate the suitability of certain commercial or industrial land for housing use.

[23:50] It also alters the requirements for the housing element within our comprehensive plans.

[23:57] It requires us to promote and encourage building middle housing units with their talking

[24:10] And it would also give us basically the affirmative duty to study these areas.

[24:21] We would have to do a survey, basically, to create an inventory of vacant land and land

[24:31] that could be used for housing in the future.

[24:35] And we would have to do this as part of our comprehensive planning.

[24:39] So as part of master plans, as part of general plans, we would have to include an inventory of vacant land.

[24:49] So we had some suggestions for this bill.

[24:54] We do think, you know, this is this is kind of the.

[25:01] The kind of thing that we are doing somewhat anyway, we're all looking for ways to make housing more available and more affordable.

[25:14] So this is not necessarily such a wrenching change. We do have some suggestions for clarifying certain areas of the bill.

[25:28] And we are proposing that we support the bill with amendments.

[25:37] So I can go through those amendments, or I can ask James, if he wants to hit any of those amendments, or highlight them, if you have any questions.

[25:47] Now, any questions? I haven't done what I'm doing.

[25:52] Interesting.

[25:53] Okay, so I would need a motion to support this one with amendments.

[25:58] Mr. Chair, I moved that we support House bill 777A with amendments proposed by our General

[26:05] Council.

[26:07] Mr. Chair, second.

[26:08] It's been properly moved.

[26:09] Second.

[26:09] I will now call the World Vice Chair, Gerardo.

[26:11] I vote aye.

[26:12] Commissioner Coye.

[26:14] I vote ayes.

[26:15] Well.

[26:16] Okay.

[26:17] The next bill is

[26:22] SB 158, and I will put that up.

[26:27] SB 158 is construction of sidewalks and crosswalks, safe alternative routes to public schools.

[26:33] We are proposing an informational sheet for this one.

[26:38] We do recognize that, so what this bill does, I'll start there, is that it requires the county counties, boards of education,

[26:51] and each year to prepare and post a certain manner of a report that identifies pathways that

[26:57] public school students use to travel to school, using safe alternative routes.

[27:04] So it requires our boards of education to, you know, identify safe routes, any gaps

[27:13] in sidewalks, crosswalks that need to be installed that are not currently there, it basically

[27:20] requires them to take a look at the access the pedestrian access to their schools to make a plan

[27:29] for making sure that all of those access areas and all those alternative routes are in fact

[27:36] safe. So it really places a spotlight on pedestrian access to public schools in the state. So

[27:46] think that's a great idea. We do think it's going to take a bit more time than the bills

[27:52] suggests for all of that coordination to happen. And certainly once the coordination is done

[27:57] and the plans are done and the plans are made, it's going to take even more time to actually get

[28:03] the infrastructure installed. So, you know, they may need to coordinate with SHA to put in

[28:11] sidewalks, they may need to put in crosswalks, there may need to be a lot of cross coordination

[28:17] in order to get these walkways and sideways and access points up to what we would consider

[28:28] a safe standard for kids to access the schools. So great idea and we just want to give a little

[28:37] for national sheet on this one.

[28:41] Happy answering questions.

[28:43] If we think it's a great idea, why are we supporting it?

[28:48] Well, we try to stay in our lane in the sense

[28:51] that this really is mostly on the school systems,

[28:57] to do, you know, the requirements are mostly on the school

[29:03] systems to initiate this, to report out on it, to execute it.

[29:10] So we want to be a good partner, we want to say to them, you know, we think, you know,

[29:16] that, yeah, this coordination is probably a really good idea, and, you know, we want

[29:21] to be supportive.

[29:23] And so we don't know if our counties are going to support this, we don't know if our

[29:27] county school systems are going to say this is going to be too expensive for them.

[29:31] we don't know that at this point.

[29:33] So we don't want to get in the middle of that.

[29:37] All right, thank you.

[29:38] We're going to need other questions.

[29:40] What does it say or not?

[29:43] Oh, thank you.

[29:44] And thank you.

[29:45] And the final one that we have is Bambi.

[29:51] SB 267.

[29:53] So let me put this on the screen.

[29:58] SB 267.

[30:02] I miss Jordan. Okay. So, this is Mako's housing bill, known as Bambi, the Bambi Act, building affordability

[30:14] in my backyard is the acronym that they came up with. And this bill covers a lot of the same areas

[30:23] that the governor's housing bill, the silvers and silver and starter homes Act, covers. So we

[30:32] We have put together, again, a support with amendment bill, because we support the concept.

[30:38] We support the efforts to get affordable housing more housing supply, as well as affordable housing in the state.

[30:46] We realize this is a huge, important push.

[30:50] And we want to be a partner in trying to make sure that the bill that is passed is going to incorporate sort of

[31:01] best practices and so we think that there are some best practices in this bill and we want

[31:07] to highlight those. We've also put together a few comments to clarify certain items in the bill

[31:19] and but what we expect from the bill is that the or from the legislature is that they will

[31:30] compile everything into one bill.

[31:33] We do not expect all of these bills to actually pass.

[31:38] What we will see over the next several weeks

[31:41] is that the bills will become consolidated.

[31:45] And it's very likely that they will become consolidated

[31:48] in the governor's bills.

[31:52] So we hope we'll be a part of that process

[31:55] of sort of whistling down and amalgamating these bills

[31:59] And we do hope to see some of the items in Bambi actually incorporated into the governance

[32:08] bill.

[32:08] That's what we would expect to see.

[32:10] Because we don't think all of these bills covering exactly the same area are not going

[32:15] to be necessary.

[32:16] They're going to pick one and then they're going to revise it so that it reflects what will

[32:22] pass.

[32:23] So that, knowing that we've put together some really basic comments about Bambi and I can go through them, I can defer to James, who knows much more about this than I do, and I'll stop there and see if you have any questions.

[32:41] James is good. Any questions?

[32:45] I don't know. I would love on the.

[32:51] There.

[32:52] I'm all shooting for our amendments.

[32:54] Yes.

[32:55] Mr. Chair, I move that we support SV261 with amendments as proposed by Council.

[33:02] I'll second on that.

[33:04] It's actually a Senate bill 267.

[33:06] It's 67.

[33:08] 67.

[33:10] I'm going to move this second.

[33:11] I will now call the World Vice-Chair Gerardo.

[33:13] What I.

[33:14] I'm answering the question.

[33:15] What I can have.

[33:16] What I as well.

[33:18] Thank you.

[33:19] And that concludes my legislative update.

[33:22] And we.

[33:24] There are motion to approve the legislative update on Senate Bill 267.

[33:30] Senate Bill 156158.

[33:32] I'll spell 778 Senate Bill 342 and I'll spell 654.

[33:38] I think we're ready.

[33:40] I probably need to do them all.

[33:43] Because some of them were just for information information.

[33:48] I don't, um, they're on council because you need a second motion.

[33:53] I don't.

[33:54] I don't.

[33:55] All right.

[33:55] Thank you so much.

[33:57] Thank you.

[33:58] We'll now move on to the consent agenda.

[34:02] Is there a motion?

[34:04] Mr. Chair, if the consideration of the record for item 4A, I move the adoption of staff's

[34:11] findings and approval of the items on the consent agenda, the accordance with the recommendations

[34:16] of staff.

[34:18] I'll second my motion.

[34:19] That probably moved to something I will now call the roll, Vice Chair Daroddo.

[34:23] Oh, aye.

[34:23] Mr. Daroddo.

[34:24] And I apologize, well, now we want you to read the agenda items, the first item on the

[34:30] agenda item five details, I plan to be in T dash two zero two four days one zero.

[34:38] I'm sorry, zero one zero, I'm pretty bad, I'm pretty glad we will now hear from Mr.

[34:44] Smith.

[34:52] Being Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Board for the record and on son with

[34:57] over in these on-section.

[34:59] I've been...

[35:00] Number 5, it details a plan DT-2024-010 for enclaves at brandy 1 phase 2. The details in plan is for development of 36

[35:11] time-house-dwelling units and associated infrastructure. The property is located within the residential

[35:18] single-family attached the zone. The property is located on a west side of General Lafayette Boulevard,

[35:24] approximately 850 feet southwest of its intersection with CHAP4DRIVE.

[35:32] As a matter of how keeping prior to February 10th, known deadline, the applicants submitted one

[35:38] exit. As with exit 1, outlines a revised step report findings and revised conditions proposed

[35:45] by the applicant. The first request seeks flexibility in how the applicant may demonstrate

[35:51] conformance with the gateway signage requirements. The secondary requests were

[35:57] pond revisions to the findings and condition related to the calculation of

[36:01] the transparency percentage of the building for that. Staff and agreement with

[36:06] applicants proposed revisions for both defining and conditions. Based on

[36:11] evaluation and analysis, nobody then staff recommend that the planning board

[36:15] adopt the findings of this report with revisions proposed by the applicant and

[36:20] with the Palm Best Staff, the Applicants Act B1 and the Proceeded Health Set Plan DT-2024-010

[36:29] and Type 2 3-Connovation Plan TCP2-2025-0189 for unplayed ads on the one-based 2.

[36:39] Subject to the recommended conditions of approval will be in the technical staff report.

[36:44] And the revisions proposed by the applicant and a greater palm by staff in the

[36:49] accident, applicants expected one.

[36:52] This concludes staff from the presentation.

[36:55] Thank you.

[36:56] Any questions from the prime board?

[36:59] Have a look.

[37:00] See, and we will now hear from the office against the firm, just a whole thing.

[37:07] Thank you.

[37:08] Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the.

[37:10] It's starting to get too thorn in and we have that maybe a 10 day on given testimony in the

[37:17] size.

[37:18] Thank you.

[37:21] Yes.

[37:22] The testimony about receive is to turn.

[37:29] Again, good morning, Mr. Chairman.

[37:30] Members of the Board.

[37:31] Thomas Aller and attorney with offices here in Largo and I'm representing the applicant in this

[37:35] case.

[37:36] Sage Ventures Inc.

[37:37] Sage is also the owner of the property.

[37:40] We have representatives of our engineering firm, Sultez,

[37:43] it's here to state a beckle, and then we also have a representative of

[37:47] sage online as well.

[37:48] There are any questions.

[37:50] The application before you has a long history, we've been in front of the board with two

[37:54] part of preliminary plans, a subdivision, two part of detailed site plans, and I realize

[37:59] looking back at my notes that only Commissioner Geraldo was here for those

[38:02] prior applications.

[38:04] But if I could ask staff to pull slide seven up on the PowerPoint presentation,

[38:13] I just wanted

[38:14] to note that this case has taken time to bring to you because it is a fairly rare example

[38:24] of a project that started under the old ordinance and is now transitioning to the new ordinance.

[38:29] And I want to thank staff, everybody in Urban Design, for working with us.

[38:34] People with far more attention to detail than I have helped to figure out how to marry the old ordinance with the new ordinance

[38:42] And that's what this is an example of and if you look at the slide that

[38:47] Staff is pulled up

[38:48] You can see in the in the white shaded area the area of the project that was approved under to phase one

[38:55] preliminary plan of subdivision phase one detailed site plan and then the area where the

[39:01] The amber area where the townhouses are located are the additional 36 units, which are being added as part of the new zoning order and as part of phase two.

[39:13] And once this site plan is approved,

[39:16] the project will be able to be completed and will look like a full development.

[39:21] I think when I was here last, which was the last April,

[39:25] I said that they were getting ready to start development of phase one.

[39:29] They are now 100 development of phase one and are grading the property and so the timing ended up

[39:36] working such that they'll be able to move seamlessly from phase one into phase two, which will allow for no disruption

[39:42] into development of the project.

[39:44] So again, I wanted to thank staff for their assistance.

[39:47] As F mentioned, we did propose two minor revisions in the exhibit that we submitted and

[39:56] and staff are in alignment on that amendment as I would request approval.

[40:00] All the detailed site plan by the planning board with those revised conditions.

[40:05] But I can't show any questions if it's fast.

[40:09] Let's get to it.

[40:10] Are there any questions for Mr. Howell?

[40:14] I don't believe any of why it's signed up in our position.

[40:19] Is there a motion?

[40:20] Yes, Mr. Chair.

[40:21] I'm moved that we adopt the findings and recommendations of staff as detailed in the staff report.

[40:26] and as further modified by applicants exhibit number one and approve DET2024-010 detailed site plan

[40:37] I'll include at Brandywine Phase 2 as well as the Type 2 3 Conservation Plan TCP2-2025-0089.

[40:49] It's been approximately moved a second. I will now hold a roll of ice chair to roll though. I vote aye.

[40:54] Mission of 4. Yeah. I vote aye as well.

[40:58] The next item when a gen is item 6, detail site playing DSP, dash 1025, dash 01017,

[41:05] I'd land it. It's spur.

[41:14] When he meets the chair and the member are planning for. For the regular, my name's Emery Fong.

[41:19] to the United States.

[41:21] I didn't know.

[41:23] The best possible in our manner.

[41:26] We just want to.

[41:28] That's a shame.

[41:29] Good for the way, man.

[41:30] With all those who attend on given testimony on this item, please reach right and.

[41:37] Please.

[41:38] We're informed that the testimony about it.

[41:40] Give is the truth.

[41:42] I do me.

[41:43] Mr. Chairman.

[41:44] Father, I'm also your procedure.

[41:45] any preliminary motions that are requested need to be made prior to staff's presentation.

[41:50] So I appreciate your indulgence to address you before Mr. Young provides his presentation.

[41:57] In your additional backup, which we received yesterday when it was posted online, there appears

[42:02] to be a correspondence or some type of work documentation. We have somebody with respect to

[42:08] this item. I would respectfully request that the Board consider striking that from the record

[42:13] in this case for a number of reasons. One, it's not signed. It's not even type-signed.

[42:20] So we have no ability to authenticate or even indicate who presented this. I'm sure there's

[42:25] a way of documenting that through the email that it came through, but that's not provided

[42:28] on the actual document that's submitted. Under your rules of procedure, all documentation

[42:32] that's submitted to you and writing must be sworn, and it's implied that it's sworn

[42:37] once it's filed, however, without any type of signature of the sort, there's no way

[42:42] authenticate that. Second, it is completely unreliable. If you look at what's been presented in that document,

[42:50] it references to a ZMA-2022-005, which is not the subject of this application.

[42:59] That case number is referenced to the zoning map amendment. For this property,

[43:03] however, that was approved more than two years ago, that record is closed and that approval is

[43:09] final and unappealable. Third, if you look at the context of the written document itself,

[43:18] it references approximately 300 residential units and approximately 121 acres. This property

[43:23] was approved for 1200 units and it was over 468 acres. So it's not even relevant to the actual

[43:30] property that's the subject of this hearing. For all those reasons and this unreliability,

[43:36] It's not probability value and the potential prejudice that I would call my client to have this in the record

[43:41] We would ask that it be struck. Thank you

[43:45] Did that's what I am glad to see that you have done your homework and your research. Yes, sir, and I will agree with you

[43:53] And have you got stricken out from this please

[43:57] Mr. Hung

[44:01] The Morning Missaging and the Memlem Planning Board for the Raker, my name is Emery Fong,

[44:06] with Southern Design sections. I have number 6 is the SLS-P-S-P-S-P-S-P-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S for infrastructure,

[44:19] impumant, including property stream, water, sewer, stone, drain, and the stone water management facilities.

[44:25] The subject property is located on the northwest side of the Piscartaway road and it's

[44:34] intersection with the steel road and it's within the residential plant development zone.

[44:41] As a matter of housekeeping,

[44:44] as the attorney for this application prior to the Tuesday

[44:48] And on day by step, we see one exhibit from Mr. Jerome Tidwell, President of the Branch

[44:54] here, Hong Honourance Association, which is title-opposition-issip to one.

[45:00] However, this document was originally next to the prepare for the zoning map amendment. The M8-2022-005 to address concerns related to transportation and the railway impacts, safety and emergency response, schools and public facilities and storm water, water shed and environmental strain.

[45:24] This zoning amendment was approved by the District Council on November 8th, 1824 concerns

[45:34] allies in this document relate to adequacy and war subsequent to the e-variate through

[45:40] Sotypocator of adequacy ADQ-203-032, approved by the planning director and the premium

[45:49] planning of the subdivision, PPS-2023-016, approved by the planning board in October 2025.

[45:59] Subject detailed pipelines, including the engineering details for construction,

[46:04] the street, sewer, stone drain, and the stone water management facilities need to support

[46:11] future residential and non-residential development and address the several of the previous

[46:17] race infrastructure related concerns. Based on the finding present in the technical step report

[46:24] of the design staff recommended the planning board adopt the findings of this report and the

[46:30] detailed site plan DSP-2025-0017 and type 2-3 conservation plan TCP2-2025-005-3 for high-landing

[46:44] subject to the recommended condition of the approval within the technical step

[46:48] before and this concludes that. Thank you.

[46:52] Good job. Are there any questions from the planning board?

[46:56] I have nothing.

[46:57] Seeing none.

[46:58] Mr. De Desk.

[46:59] Thank you.

[47:00] Mr. Chairman.

[47:02] Thank you.

[47:02] Mr. Wong for your presentation.

[47:04] Mr. Chairman, with me this morning from Hyde Field Act position, which is the subsidiary

[47:09] of NBR Inc. is Mr. Pat Donahue.

[47:11] And I would just ask that if you could just acknowledge yourself for the board's recognition.

[47:16] From Rogers and Sulton, who have Mr. Case Anderson, Charlie Hal, Christine Gillette, and Rob Swayham,

[47:21] from that heart trafficking consulting, although they're not here in person, but online, Mr.

[47:24] like Len Hart, and from G.S. Brockton Associates, Mr. Minuro Harrison, is with us as well.

[47:30] And for my office online is the Ms. Danielle Lockhart, who is our senior

[47:33] of Lane Planner. I want to thank staff for its review and presentation. It's recommendation

[47:39] in this case. I'm going to start off by saying that we have no request and modifications

[47:43] in any findings or conditions. We are in alignment and an agreement with staff's recommendations.

[47:49] As staff is indicated, we are here on infrastructure-only detailed site plan

[47:53] for the former Washington executive airport and standing gravel mine, which is to the Northwest

[47:59] for Washington, because of the way raired and stayed raired. As you know, Mr. Chairman, this is not

[48:04] and in terms of the board, this is not a new reasoning case. That was approved over two years ago.

[48:09] It's not a case about increasing density. The plenary plan was approved by UOL just like this past fall

[48:14] in September of 2025. It is not a request to revisit prior approvals. All approvals are

[48:20] final and beyond appeal. This is our first step at implementing the project that is

[48:27] undergone years in, in fact, decades of public review.

[48:31] Highlanding is a transformative 425 acre long-distance land into a

[48:38] fall-fully planned residential community that delivers significant public benefits.

[48:43] Those public benefits, as you all know, include 109th and 32 acres of permanent stream

[48:49] park land that will be conveyed to the Commission.

[48:51] Far from succeeding in the mandatory dedication requirement, 7,370 linear feet of trails

[48:58] integrated into Tinker's Creek, Shream Valley, in fact on Monday of this week we had a comprehensive

[49:03] meeting with the Department of Parks and Recreation on these trail networks.

[49:08] Shared use pass on both on bike lanes on both sides in Maryland 2203 and Steadrad, 5,000

[49:14] square foot community clubhouse with gathering and space for the community. Major, intersection

[49:19] and frontage improvements along Maryland at 223 and State Road, improvements spearheaded

[49:24] by the applicant, with consultation and buy-in from the community after years and years of

[49:29] community engagement. This is responsible redevelopment, reclaiming a full-more-mind and airfield

[49:35] and replacing it with environmental preservation, multimodal connectivity, and long-term public

[49:41] open space.

[49:42] What's before you today is our first attempt and step at the infrastructure.

[49:46] Proceeding this will be a subsequent detail site when it's for actual phases of development.

[49:51] This planning include public streets including the Master Plan C518, 518, utilities,

[49:56] and strong water management facilities, sidewalks, and so on.

[50:00] Reuse pass and environmental protection measures. No building architecture is before you today, no new density is proposed. Staff has evaluated this application under Section 27-365E and finds that it incorporates all prior conditions of approval, preserves regulated environmental features of the full-successant possible, conforms to the approved RPD-basic plan approval, and meets all Apple development standards.

[50:25] We agree. Mr. Chairman, I could go on. I just want to conclude by providing that this

[50:33] component of the project represents the culmination of years of public process and inter-APC

[50:39] review, as well as tremendous amount of public outreach. I have previously and other hearings

[50:44] gone through the lengths that this applicant and this development team have gone through

[50:48] with respect to public outreach to include creating a stakeholder group of all community

[50:53] leaders in this area. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention it, but I don't need a

[50:57] belabor because I think you're well aware of the efforts of this particular applicant

[51:00] in this application as a relates to that outreach.

[51:06] This plan, however, nonetheless,

[51:08] implements the lawfully approved rezoning. It implements the lawfully approved

[51:13] preliminary plan and subdivision that you all approved just a few months ago.

[51:18] It implements a significant environmental preservation and public

[51:21] Parkland dedication, and we agreed that staff is carefully reviewed the record and recommends approval

[51:26] of this application and the Associate Institute, too, and as I mentioned before, we agree.

[51:32] And in further support, we would just incorporate an adopt our justification statement, which

[51:36] isn't your back if a page is 1, 3, 4, E, A. With that, Mr. Chairman, obviously we're happy to

[51:40] answer any questions, but I would conclude there, and just respectfully request your continued

[51:45] support of this very important project, and the words approval has recommended by staff.

[51:49] Thank you.

[51:50] Are there any questions?

[51:52] We'll miss it.

[51:52] Let's go.

[51:53] I have none.

[51:54] A little.

[51:56] And I see that there is nine in opposition.

[51:59] There's their motion.

[52:00] Mr. Chair.

[52:01] I moved that.

[52:01] We adopt the findings and recommendations with staff as detailed in the staff report and approve

[52:07] DSP 2025 dash.

[52:10] 1-7 detailed site plan, high landing and type 2-3 conservation plan, TCP-2-2025-0053.

[52:22] A second on this job.

[52:24] I'm probably moving to second.

[52:25] I will now call the roll.

[52:26] Thanks, Chair.

[52:27] You're all done?

[52:28] But I...

[52:28] Mission to the core.

[52:29] You're leveled up.

[52:30] And I'll go and I as well.

[52:31] Thank you so much.

[52:33] The next item on the agenda is item number 7.

[52:36] Extention.

[52:37] requires for preliminary plan for the2210121

[52:44] in multi-family apartment. We will now get

[52:47] fund must be there. Thank you, Speaker.

[52:50] Morning Mister chair and members

[52:52] of the boards for the care. My name is

[52:54] myself,

[52:55] I think this is the subdivision section. Item

[52:58] number seven, a

[52:59] gender is an extension request for the preliminary plan

[53:03] of subdivision

[53:04] for dash 2201 through titled the Hermann Wolfi family apartments.

[53:11] This preliminary plan of subdivision was approved by the planning board on January 18, 2024,

[53:18] and was valued through February 8, 2020. The property is in the residential single-family

[53:25] RSF-65 and RSF-8A zones however the preliminary plan of subdivision was reviewed under the

[53:35] prior one-family detached residential R-55 and one-family semi detached and two-family detached

[53:42] residential R-35 zones. It's located in the on the north side of a year old,

[53:50] Approximately 2,500 feet south east of its intersection with MD410 East West Highway.

[54:00] The preliminary plan for dash 22012 approved two parcels for development of 145

[54:07] multifamily during units. By later dated on December 18, 2025, the applicant requested

[54:16] the one-year extension of the plan's approval and if this request in the approved preliminary plan,

[54:23] will be valid through February 8, 2007. Section 24-119B of the prior subdivision regulations

[54:34] authorizes the planning board to grant an extension to the normal exploration of the preliminary plan

[54:41] subdivision when certain criteria are met. These criteria and all the findings are listed in the

[54:49] staff's number and them. Staff has not received any exhibits or correspondence prior to the

[54:55] Tuesday noon deadline February 10, 2020.

[55:00] In conclusion, staff, we commend that the planning board adopt the findings of the staff's memorandum and approve the one-year extension request of the preliminary plan of subdivision for that to 201-2.

[55:15] These concludes the staff's presentation. Thank you.

[55:18] Richard, are there any questions from the claimants?

[55:21] I'd love to.

[55:22] And I'm Mr. Tedesco.

[55:24] I'll leave.

[55:26] Let's go.

[55:26] So I'm still promised to tell the truth.

[55:30] Good morning, Mr. Chairman, for the recommendation.

[55:32] Tedesco, law, season, rainboat.

[55:35] Here on behalf of the applicant and owner

[55:38] housing and community housing initiative

[55:40] in Mousa, and Pentecostal Church of Washington DC,

[55:43] on the line virtually with us

[55:45] representatives of Community Housing Initiative, Joe Byrne, Robert Byrne, and Pat Byrne, and from

[55:51] Land Tech, Kim Morgan, I want to thank Ms. Von Duys for her review and also Ms. Scoop, we had

[55:58] a number of four responses back and forth with respect to this request and I want to thank

[56:04] them for their analysis and their review. I'm happy to submit on our letter that was submitted

[56:09] in support of this. We certainly agree with staff's recommendation to grant the one-year extension

[56:15] The detailed site plan is in the process of certification and the plat has been prepared.

[56:21] So we do expect that the one-year extension will be sufficient of time to bring this project to completion,

[56:28] or at least the entitlement to completion, so that we can deliver affordable housing inside the buttway and high bill.

[56:36] Thank you Mr. Chairman.

[56:37] And are there any questions from Mr. Tedes?

[56:39] I have none.

[56:41] And is there, I don't believe any one is signed up in our position?

[56:46] Is there a motion?

[56:48] I move that we adopt the findings of staff Mr. Chair and recommendations of staff as

[56:53] detailed and staff report and approve the one-year extension of the preliminary plan for

[56:59] preliminary plan for dash 2201 to the Hermann-Moltag family accounts.

[57:06] That's the second of us, Chairman.

[57:09] It's been properly moved to second.

[57:10] I would now call the road by steer of the road.

[57:12] Oh, aye.

[57:13] Commissioner for four years.

[57:14] I don't go to that.

[57:15] And I go to that as well.

[57:17] Thank you so much.

[57:19] Next item one.

[57:19] The agenda is item number eight.

[57:21] The seminary plan of sub division.

[57:23] PPS.

[57:24] There's two zero to five.

[57:26] There's zero zero to zero.

[57:28] Four to several comments.

[57:29] We will now hear from staff.

[57:56] Mr. Chairman.

[57:57] Members of the board for the record.

[57:59] my name is Jason Bartlett with the subdivision section. Item number eight on the agenda is

[58:07] preliminary plan of subdivision.

[58:13] Cornerstone Commons PPS-2025-002. This subdivision

[58:20] proposes 166 lots and 33 parcels for development of 116 townhouse dwellings and 8,720 square feet

[58:30] of existing community service use.

[58:34] Before I continue, as a matter of housekeeping,

[58:37] a items were submitted by the applicant as additional material,

[58:42] prior to the new deadline on February 10th.

[58:45] These items have been entered into the record

[58:47] as applicants exhibit one through eight applicants exhibit one.

[58:54] is applicants written testimony in support of revised findings and conditions, which will be discussed later in this presentation.

[59:04] Applicants exhibit two is a community outreach exhibit providing a summary of the dates and types of community outreach extended.

[59:14] Applicants exhibit three provides questions asked and answers provided by the applicant at an October 25

[59:22] at an October 2025 meeting with the Pepper Mill Village Community Association.

[59:29] Applicants exhibit four is a Zoom meeting notice for November 10, 2025.

[59:36] It's sent out by the applicant to the surrounding community.

[59:40] Applicants exhibit five through eight are resumes or CDs of the consultants

[59:46] retained by the applicant for the design and engineering of the proposed

[59:51] subdivision. In addition, the planning board received two letters from

[59:57] and through his homes, front on vision.

[1:00:00] Dried, expressing support of the proposed development and the in-opposition to the connection of the

[1:00:06] bishops' drive to gently land. These letters have been entered into the record as part of the case

[1:00:12] back up. Next slide,

[1:00:21] continuing with the presentation, this second slide shows general indication

[1:00:26] of the property in the central western part of Prince George's county within planning areas

[1:00:32] 72 and council district seven. Next slide please

[1:00:46] Mr. Flanagan. Next slide.

[1:00:54] More specifically,

[1:00:56] the site outlined in purple is located on the south side of central avenue and east of hill road.

[1:01:02] Next slide please.

[1:01:11] I'm in some technical difficulties.

[1:01:14] There it is.

[1:01:17] A designing map shows a site outlined in red and lying in the residential multi-family

[1:01:21] 20 or RMF 20 zone.

[1:01:24] It further shows a property is surrounded by land predominantly zone residential.

[1:01:28] Next slide, please.

[1:01:38] This slide shows a property also lies with if in military insulation overlay zone for height

[1:01:43] associated with the joint base androids of protein but

[1:01:46] or clearance of 50 to one that will be reviewed at the time of detailed site plan.

[1:01:52] Next slide, please.

[1:01:57] The mass plan right-of-way map shows that the property has

[1:02:00] front-inch on central avenue, a master plan classified arterial roadway, requiring residential

[1:02:06] loss be plated with the minimum block depth of 150 feet. It further requires the applicant

[1:02:12] demonstrate through a noise study that the transportation generated noise is less than or can be

[1:02:18] to be less than 55 DBA during high-time hours and 65 DBA during daytime hours at the proposed location.

[1:02:30] The 150 foot lot depth requirements and noise requirement will be discussed in more detail in upcoming slides.

[1:02:38] Next slide, please.

[1:02:40] The slide provides a bird's eye view of the property showing the property is currently

[1:02:46] improved with a 300-seat church and associated parking located along the frontage of central

[1:02:52] avenue, which is proposed to remain. It additionally shows existing single-family detached

[1:02:57] development, a long-juntary lane that abuts the subject property on three sides. As further

[1:03:04] shows the property is surrounded by land developed with single-family detached homes to the north

[1:03:09] and west sides and sparsely to the east.

[1:03:15] We would like to note at this point that all remaining slides in this presentation have been rotated clockwise to provide a larger viewing image, which orientates the site with central avenue shown to the left and the north end of the site to the right.

[1:03:33] This overall view of the preliminary plan of subdivision shows a layout of the proposed 186 lots and 33 parcels for the development of 186 townhouse dwelling and the existing church.

[1:03:48] The boundary of the proposed subdivision is outlined in red.

[1:03:51] The primary management area, protecting steep slopes and environmental

[1:03:56] excessive areas, such as the stream and floodplain, is outlined in bright pink.

[1:04:03] The existing public rights of way are highlighted in blue.

[1:04:06] The area proposed to be dedicated as public right away are highlighted in orange.

[1:04:13] Private roads and alleys are highlighted in gray.

[1:04:15] The two parcels that will preserve the existing church and its parking are highlighting yellow.

[1:04:23] The residential lots are outlined in black, and the proposed stormwater management ponds are outlined with bold black lines.

[1:04:33] No, I don't say that.

[1:04:35] You went up to the site. Access is provided via two points along central avenue.

[1:04:41] If you could go back please.

[1:04:43] of the

[1:04:47] site access is provided via two points along central avenue.

[1:04:53] One is from the existing public right of way of gantry lane, which terminates into a proposed

[1:04:59] is the right way.

[1:05:00] Private Street at its northern end, and which serves two additional proposed private streets and alleys. The site's second access is from a proposed private road that

[1:05:10] biceps and serves the existing church property and extends into the development, serving lots and connecting to other proposed internal private roads and alleys in the eastern portion of the site.

[1:05:22] The street connectivity will be discussed further into this presentation.

[1:05:27] This preliminary plan is associated with an approved certificate of adequacy,

[1:05:32] ABQ-2025-005, which was approved in accordance with the subdivision regulations to ensure

[1:05:41] the infrastructure necessary to support the proposed development are adequate in accordance

[1:05:46] with established levels of service.

[1:05:48] Next slide, please.

[1:05:52] This slide provides an illustrative exhibit showing the types of townhouse units being provided

[1:05:59] and their proposed locations within the development.

[1:06:02] Next slide, please.

[1:06:06] The applicant requested a variation from Section 24-4102C1 of the subdivision regulations to allow

[1:06:14] three lots be plated that do not meet the 150 foot lot depth requirement.

[1:06:19] This line exhibits the three-seventic lots outlined in black, as well as a 150-foot lot

[1:06:26] depth dimension line for reference. It further shows the noise contours and proposed mitigation

[1:06:32] measures to reduce noise to the required levels. Given the proposed mitigation and the analysis

[1:06:39] of variation criteria outlined on pages 7 through 10 of the technical staff report, staff recommended

[1:06:47] approval of this variation.

[1:06:52] This side provides an excerpt of the preliminary plan

[1:06:57] showing the existing public right away of Bishop

[1:06:59] Dride's entry lane in blue.

[1:07:03] The area in yellow represents staff determination of the area

[1:07:07] which should also be dedicated as public right away

[1:07:11] to complete the street connection.

[1:07:14] The applicant currently proposes a portion of the area

[1:07:18] in yellow as private road sea without connection to Bishop Drive.

[1:07:25] Staff's determination is supported by the three code section shown on this slide and discussed

[1:07:30] in finding three and seven of the technical staff report on pages 5 through 7 and 16 through 18 respectively.

[1:07:41] Specifically, Section 24-4201, D of the subdivision regulations, states that all proposed

[1:07:50] streets shall comply with the standards in Section 27-6206, vehicular access and circulation

[1:07:57] of the zoning ordinance, and be continuous and an alignment with existing and plated

[1:08:03] streets and enjoying subdivisions, so as to create a network that is functional and easily

[1:08:10] understandable, staff find that in accordance with this section, existing and platted

[1:08:16] Bishop Drive is in alignment with Jim Prelain as shown in this exhibit.

[1:08:22] His connection would make these streets continuous and provide a functional street network

[1:08:28] that is easy to understand thereby conforming to this section of the subdivision regulation.

[1:08:35] Section 27-6206-H1 of the zoning ordinance states that the arrangement of streets in a single

[1:08:44] family residential subdivision shall provide for the alignment and continuation of existing

[1:08:51] or proposed streets into a joining lands, where the joining lands are developed and include

[1:08:57] opportunities for such connections, staff find that this regulation applies as the

[1:09:02] adjoining land where Bishop Drive-ins is developed and the opportunity to make

[1:09:07] this connection exists. Section 27-6206i provides two parts, part one states, the

[1:09:18] pro street layout, shall be coordinated with the existing street system and

[1:09:23] surrounding areas, staff find it in conformance with this part, connecting

[1:09:28] gentry lane to Bishop Drive is a proper coordination of the existing

[1:09:32] street system which was intended to connect as evidenced by the existing

[1:09:38] right-of-way dedication shown on this slide. Part two states of the

[1:09:43] existing street shall to the maximum extent practical be extended to provide

[1:09:48] access to adjacent developments and subdivisions and to provide for additional points of

[1:09:54] the ingress and egress.

[1:09:56] Staff again find that the connection is clearly practical.

[1:10:00] As the existing, dated right away extends over the applicant's proposed private road, staff further fine, that the street connection supports the complete street policies of the master plan of transportation,

[1:10:13] in connecting multiple transportation networks.

[1:10:18] Staff would like to further highlight the importance

[1:10:20] of complete and connected neighborhood streets

[1:10:23] and the wide behind the requirements of the policies exist.

[1:10:30] Connected streets create additional points of access

[1:10:33] through neighborhoods which supports emergency access and circulation.

[1:10:38] They create mutually beneficial connections to neighborhoods serving uses.

[1:10:45] In this case, in particular, there are existing neighborhood datecares, community center,

[1:10:52] a school, as well as a church on the subject property.

[1:10:57] And the loud neighborhood circulation without having to go onto central avenue, a higher

[1:11:04] speed roadway and the re entering, I'm sorry, and the re entering other neighborhood street

[1:11:11] and then re entering other neighborhood streets, creating additional points, a potential

[1:11:17] traffic conflicts.

[1:11:19] In applicants exhibit one, the applicant expresses their disagreement with staff that such

[1:11:25] a connection is required, appropriate, or in public interest for this project.

[1:11:31] The African states that staff places undo weight on a generalized policy preference for street connectivity.

[1:11:40] However, staff contend that applicants exhibit one places undo weight on the traffic analysis adequacy

[1:11:47] and the fact that the community outreach established that the connection was not desired.

[1:11:53] However, staff finds that none of these factors were intended to be addressed by the cited code sections.

[1:11:59] In fact, the site has already met atocacy by evidence of the approved certificate of atocacy.

[1:12:06] This requires for all preliminary plans prior to planning board approval.

[1:12:11] Staff contend that these particular sections of the subdivision regulations and zoning ordinance

[1:12:16] were intended to address street patterning and the continuation of streets into other neighborhoods

[1:12:23] that create a functional and sensible street system throughout the county.

[1:12:28] separate from the traffic adequacy.

[1:12:31] Staff further contend that creating a connection

[1:12:35] such as the one between

[1:12:38] Gentry Lane and Bishop Drive,

[1:12:41] which is clearly practical, feasible,

[1:12:44] and even envisioned with the development

[1:12:46] that dedicated Bishop Drive to public use,

[1:12:49] is exactly what his co-sections intended to ensure.

[1:12:53] Staff further contend that to allow this connection

[1:12:56] to go unbuilt is clearly contrary to the requirements of the zoning ordinance and conformance

[1:13:02] with the master plant. Next slide please.

[1:13:12] This slide shows a Type 1 Tree Conservation

[1:13:14] Plan with a pose on-site woodland preservation areas highlighted in green and stormwater

[1:13:20] management ponds and structures outlined with bold black lights. The applicant has requested

[1:13:26] of variance from section 25-122B1G of the Prince George's county code, which requires preservation

[1:13:34] of specimen trees.

[1:13:36] This preliminary plan of subdivision proposes a removal of 57 specimen trees on site.

[1:13:44] Due to the number of trees requested for removal, they are indicated on this slide in general

[1:13:49] areas of tree clusters to be removed outlined with red cloud lines.

[1:13:54] staff recommend the planning board approve this variance request, which is supported by required

[1:14:00] finding for approval and discuss further in the environmental findings on page 26 through 29

[1:14:05] of the technical staff report.

[1:14:08] Next slide, please.

[1:14:13] This slide shows a proposed impact to the PMA.

[1:14:16] There are two types of impacts or what?

[1:14:19] The periary impacts and permanent impacts.

[1:14:21] The temporary impacts are generally for grading during construction that will be allowed to regenerate afterwards and no longer be considered impacts.

[1:14:30] The permanent impacts are generally for road crossings, water and sewer line easements,

[1:14:35] outfall structures and the light that will be installed and remain in place.

[1:14:41] The three temporary impacts are identified on the slide as T133.

[1:14:46] The five permanent impacts are identified as A through E.

[1:14:50] staff recommend the planning board to prove the requested PMA impacts as further be

[1:14:55] told staff analysis on page 32 through 34.

[1:15:01] The next slide please.

[1:15:11] The slide shows a location of open space and recreation areas. The active recreation areas are highlighted in red. The past recreation areas are highlighting yellow. The natural features in light purple and required landscape areas counting toward open space set aside our highlighting green.

[1:15:30] The applicant exceeds requirements for open space set aside which includes active recreation areas as further discussed in staffs analysis on page 35 and 36 of the technical staff report.

[1:15:43] Next slide please.

[1:15:48] This slide shows an analysis of the connectivity index for the site.

[1:15:53] As previously discussed, the preliminary plan proposes two full movement access points along central avenue that feed into the proposed internal private roads and alleys.

[1:16:03] to serve the lots and parcels.

[1:16:06] Staff note that four of the links shown on this exhibit

[1:16:10] do not meet the definition of a link

[1:16:12] as provided in the zoning ordinance.

[1:16:14] However, with their removal,

[1:16:17] the site still meets the minimum connectivity index

[1:16:20] of 1.5.

[1:16:22] Revisions to the findings in the technical staff report

[1:16:25] related to the connectivity score

[1:16:27] will be provided in the final resolution.

[1:16:30] Staff further note that the connection

[1:16:32] of Bishop Drive to Gentry Lane should also be provided as previously discussed.

[1:16:38] Next slide, please.

[1:16:42] In conclusion, the subdivision staff recommended that the platform board adopt the findings

[1:16:47] and approve the preliminary plan of subdivision, pps-20205-002, type one tree conservation

[1:16:54] plan, tcp1-20205-0032, as well as the variation request to section 24-404.

[1:17:04] We want to see and the variance request from section 25-122B1G subject to the findings and conditions

[1:17:13] in this technical staff report.

[1:17:15] And this concludes the ask for the patient.

[1:17:18] Morning, good job.

[1:17:19] Very good.

[1:17:20] Today must be Matthew to Desco Day.

[1:17:26] One of the first his family role in the session is, we're about all the time to the, my late father's birthday, so it's a good one.

[1:17:35] It all persists and sending on given testimony on this item to stand and raise their right hand.

[1:17:42] These, where are a firm that the testimony you about to get is the truth?

[1:17:47] I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the board. It's nice to be over for you for the third and final time today.

[1:17:56] I appreciate your indulgence in your accommodations.

[1:18:03] With me this morning from NBR Inc. Who is the applicant for this case. I've seen Matthew Cinesco.

[1:18:09] As law officers, law officers enact me hoes any green belt on behalf of the applicant in VR.

[1:18:15] From MBR, we have Mr. Paddoni here. If you can just acknowledge yourself,

[1:18:19] Ms. Nuschen, Mirpur, and from MCB Real Estate, we have, and you're with us as well,

[1:18:25] making up the full applicant team. Rogers Consulting is the civil engineering environmental planning team

[1:18:33] for this case, Charlie Howe, Christine Gillette, Rob Swannimer with us, also Casey Anderson,

[1:18:39] and there's doing this for this one as well.

[1:18:41] Then her traveling insulting, Mike Lenhardt online,

[1:18:45] from my office to New Yorker,

[1:18:47] to the founding locker, from our office as a student

[1:18:51] and land planner, and from G.S. Park and Associates

[1:18:53] from Mr. Miro Harris, and here's the Indian audience

[1:18:55] with us.

[1:18:57] As always, I do want to thank Mr. Barley

[1:18:59] and Ms. Gupta for their review,

[1:19:01] and Mr. Barley has come to be expected

[1:19:03] to very thorough, well presented case this morning,

[1:19:08] as well as a very thorough staff report, and we agree with 99.8% of it. I'm happy to say that.

[1:19:19] And I think we all knew going into this case very early on with respect to what the major issue is going to be.

[1:19:25] And I'm going to get into that in a moment, Mr. Chairman, but if you can just give me just a little bit of indulgence,

[1:19:30] I do want to go through a couple of high points before we get to the main attraction.

[1:19:36] As Mr. Bradley indicated, we're here on Plenary Plan of Television, PPS2-025-002 for cornerstone

[1:19:43] comments.

[1:19:44] This is another NBR I thoughtfully and Rogers consulting, thoughtfully designed, context,

[1:19:49] sensitive, townhouse community on approximately 29.3-2 acres, along central out in the arm of

[1:19:55] them to use this permitted. This project conforms to the...

[1:20:00] General plan, sub-reason for a master plan, and we saw adequately see requirements for

[1:20:04] a significant environmental resources, as meaningful onsite recreation, which will be further highlighted

[1:20:10] in the detailed site plan. It invests millions of dollars into this community along central

[1:20:15] avenue in the blue and corridor, an area specifically earmarked and flag for redevelopment

[1:20:20] and reinvestment by the county, this commission, and the administration. It reflects

[1:20:25] extraordinary responsiveness to neighborhood input.

[1:20:30] As I mentioned before in the staff

[1:20:32] in the care, there's only one actual issue before you today, on this case. The staff

[1:20:36] recommendation to extend this and drive into this community. I will address that later

[1:20:41] and respectfully in the presentation here in a moment.

[1:20:46] Turning to Plan 235 in the master plan, this property is located within the established

[1:20:50] community's growth policy areas. The recommends and encourages context-sensitive

[1:20:54] in full development, reinforcement of existing neighborhoods, and infrastructure supported

[1:20:59] development.

[1:21:00] The sub-region for, in 2010, sub-region for master plan recommends medium-high density

[1:21:05] residential uses for the property that equates to 8 to 20 dwelling units per acre.

[1:21:11] The application before you propose a 7.1 dwelling unit per acre, slightly below the master plan

[1:21:16] range, but intentionally designed to create a transition to the surrounding single-family

[1:21:21] it was while preserving the environmental features on the property.

[1:21:25] The density is not maximized in this case, it is moderated.

[1:21:29] To respect existing neighborhood character,

[1:21:31] it's not over-development, it's responsible planning.

[1:21:35] This project in this property is very unique.

[1:21:38] It has significant challenges.

[1:21:41] Environmental stewardship was at the heart of the layout.

[1:21:45] Balancing that in the features to accommodate what's needed in this area,

[1:21:48] in favor of the value of the quarter.

[1:21:52] The site contains significant woodland, streams, buffers, associated tributaries.

[1:21:58] Approximately 8.75 acres of priority force within the stream valley, the development

[1:22:03] however preserves the stream valley and protective easements, concentrate the development outside

[1:22:08] of the PMA, and utilize the environmental site design and stormwater management techniques,

[1:22:13] and includes aforestation and re-forestation measures.

[1:22:16] The impact of sensitive areas are very limited and mitigated as supported by staff and I want to

[1:22:21] thanks staff and the environmental planning section for each review.

[1:22:24] They worked hand-in-handly for some of those elements of this project and I want to thank them.

[1:22:30] This is an environmentally sensitive redevelopment, a previously developed church property and not a reinforced

[1:22:37] sprawl development.

[1:22:43] As Mr. Brullard indicated, it should be an advocacy,

[1:22:46] demonstrating a conformist to all public facility, out of two findings,

[1:22:49] says previous events proved.

[1:22:53] Turning to the applicants and its consulting teams efforts

[1:22:58] with respect to outreach and kind of what frames the issue before you this at this morning.

[1:23:04] Mr. Chairman, today marks seven months and two days since your first hearing.

[1:23:09] I think I've stood before you at least on 25 cases during that time period, maybe more.

[1:23:16] Little more.

[1:23:16] Just a little more.

[1:23:18] Just a little more.

[1:23:19] Um, long before your mandate on that July 10th date with respect to outreach, which you made very clear from the very first case that you had that right.

[1:23:28] I was your second case that day.

[1:23:31] This team has been demonstrated.

[1:23:33] And Tom and Tom again, with the help of G.S. property associates, myself and others, stakeholders,

[1:23:44] we endeavor to embark upon as much outreach as we possibly can.

[1:23:48] That occurred eight and nine, ten months before we even sat in the chair.

[1:23:55] And it's continued up until, as recently yesterday, as a matter of fact, because we've

[1:23:59] to represent it as a bishop drive here, who, one of whom most speak this morning, we did

[1:24:06] not simply comply with the statutory nose requirements. The team connect there with two dozen

[1:24:11] meetings and engagements over the past year or more. These efforts predate, as I mentioned,

[1:24:17] predated your mandate to applicants and zoning attorneys.

[1:24:22] In addition, if you see on your screen,

[1:24:23] just so that you've east of Hillary and on the projects of the Marion Project, which you

[1:24:27] recently for the same development team was involved in that application so we were

[1:24:31] out in this community and that project has already gone through preliminary

[1:24:34] planers are going through detailed sites. So it's about a year or more ahead of this

[1:24:37] project. We hadn't been out in this community for years before we even got to

[1:24:42] the first documented outreach that we provided in the applicants exhibit to

[1:24:48] I guess it will be. And when we heard preliminary because we said hey we've got this

[1:24:53] project at this project we've got other projects on the corridor. We heard very

[1:24:57] I can see something like that.

[1:24:59] We better...

[1:25:00] I'll make a connection to Mr. Drug, because there's folks I'm not going to be too happy. So when we were in our planning stages and preparing plans for an otherwise we kind of knew from the get-go that that was probably going to be an issue.

[1:25:11] We've since learned after actual directed engagement with folks on Mr. Drug and within the peppermint of those communities, there's a reason that, but we had understood the future would, in fact, be true.

[1:25:24] From the very first and middle we made, we did not show the connection a bit of drive

[1:25:30] based upon that feedback that we received.

[1:25:34] Staff rightly so, and as expected, even at the pre-acceptance stage record,

[1:25:40] we showed that connection on the point where we were writing.

[1:25:42] We explained in multiple letters as well as our justification to say,

[1:25:45] why we were not going to do that.

[1:25:48] It wasn't in an effort to not be responsive to staff.

[1:25:51] It wasn't an effort to pick a fight.

[1:25:54] It wasn't an effort to do anything other than to do what you mandated, which was created when

[1:25:59] when.

[1:26:00] When we have an opportunity, and not every case limits itself to these types of opportunities,

[1:26:05] but when we have an opportunity to accommodate the community's desires, I promise you I'm

[1:26:13] going to do that.

[1:26:15] If it results in a longer hearing on a Thursday of a results in staff having to provide a longer

[1:26:21] presentation or results in me having to provide written testimony to support that, we will do it and staff will respond.

[1:26:28] And that's what you have, of course, it's not me, of course, then.

[1:26:31] It's not the community versus the applicant.

[1:26:35] Some cases, the things that we are asked to do we can't do.

[1:26:40] Sometimes they are cost prohibitive.

[1:26:41] Sometimes the property just doesn't allow us to do it, we may want to, we just can't.

[1:26:46] In this instance, we had an opportunity.

[1:26:48] We had an opportunity to listen, we had an opportunity to build a trust, we had an opportunity

[1:26:54] to be responsive.

[1:26:55] And that's what we did.

[1:26:57] And that's all we're doing.

[1:27:00] I wouldn't go through this in great detail.

[1:27:03] I'm sharing the board noticed the amount of outreach that occurred in this case.

[1:27:08] From the sense of coalition to meetings with the Peck Mill Civic Community Association,

[1:27:14] to numerous meetings with Miss Young and her neighbors who live at the end of this

[1:27:19] drive to include actual door-knocking, dropping literature,

[1:27:27] all to the residents on gentry lane to request meetings with them so that they

[1:27:32] knew things were going to change. This property is armed in this arm of

[1:27:35] 20zone. It's actually contemplated for even higher density development than

[1:27:39] what to propose to the tune of multifamily arm office, residential multifamily.

[1:27:44] We came in with front homes, one because one of the things we heard with

[1:27:49] Mary and Project, which is a full rental product is, we'd like to have more home ownership.

[1:27:54] We said, great, perfect.

[1:27:56] I don't know the Project, great down the street.

[1:27:57] That's going to provide a few simple town home ownership for continued ownership.

[1:28:04] You can see just from this area on that.

[1:28:06] One of the issues with the Central Avenue in the blue line corridor, and one of the issues that

[1:28:13] the future sector plane is endeavoring to accomplish, which you all have a joint public hearing

[1:28:17] on that I think in March.

[1:28:18] is acknowledgement that there is a tremendous amount of single-family detached homes in this area of the county, inside the Broadway, which is wonderful, but we need higher density residential development to spur higher, better commercial redevelopment along this corridor.

[1:28:37] This project, as well as other projects on the quarter, do exactly that.

[1:28:43] And so, but change is hard.

[1:28:46] A lot of these residents have lived in this community longer than I've been alive.

[1:28:53] I related to these members of the community.

[1:28:56] And since I remember Central Avenue as a kid, I remember the driving movie theater on Central Avenue.

[1:29:00] I remember I know how Central Avenue has changed, but it hasn't always changed for the better.

[1:29:04] And we've tried to explain and encourage that while changing is hard, it's necessary.

[1:29:11] We were asked to do two things.

[1:29:13] Two things.

[1:29:15] Move the units as far as you can from the existing homes on this drive.

[1:29:19] And please, please, please do not make that connection.

[1:29:23] The written testimony that we provided, we've demonstrated how we did that.

[1:29:27] We've increased the buffer along that western side of the property.

[1:29:31] And the closest house, I think, is 130 feet from the closest existing house on Bishop

[1:29:36] Drive.

[1:29:37] We moved things from Charlie will smack me, but I think it was like 26 feet or something

[1:29:43] to over 120 feet.

[1:29:46] That was directly in response to Ms. Young's requesting to mirror her neighbor's request.

[1:29:50] And the other thing we did is I promised them that we would not show the Bishop Drive

[1:29:55] connection.

[1:29:56] And that I would stand before you one day in the future and pound it up.

[1:30:00] And try to convince you to accommodate their requests by not having that connection made from a vehicular standpoint.

[1:30:11] Understanding full well that everything Mr. Bartlett said, with respect to the policy, is well-reasoned.

[1:30:22] So I want to go through that in a little bit more detail, as far as what the code requirements say.

[1:30:28] And again, acknowledge staff recommendation, again, this is not me versus them.

[1:30:36] It's reasoned it's based in policy considerations, but we do not believe it's needed.

[1:30:44] Nor is it in the immediate communities interests.

[1:30:49] We believe that you, as a planning board, have the final authority to exercise discretion in this case on a case-by-case basis.

[1:30:56] And in support of that app of the applicant's efforts with the community, we will ask you again at this hearing.

[1:31:04] So please exercise that discretion.

[1:31:09] And recommend excuse me, approve this preliminary plan as recommended by staff, but it's not a five by applicant's exhibit one.

[1:31:21] The vehicle of connectivity, despite staff recommendation and presentation today, is not mandated absolutely in the care group.

[1:31:32] Section 27, that's 626H1, which decided by staff, it's in their staff report of the zoning ordinance.

[1:31:39] Stays, that streets shall be arranged to provide continuation into a zoning lanes, quote,

[1:31:45] where it is deemed appropriate, closed book.

[1:31:48] That was conveniently omitted from Mr. Barrett's presentation, but it's in there.

[1:31:53] Where it is deemed appropriate.

[1:31:54] That phrase is not mandatory.

[1:31:57] It's not mandatory language, it expressly requires a plenty of words to make a judgment call.

[1:32:03] Section 27626I provides that streets should be extended to provide access,

[1:32:09] quote, to the maximum, extant, practicable, closed quote.

[1:32:13] Practicable is also a discretionary standard.

[1:32:17] It necessarily allows the board to consider one, whether the connection is

[1:32:26] and they were heard in Bax, and whether it meaningfully advances the public interest.

[1:32:31] Third, Section 27626E2C explicitly authorizes the planable to waive or modify a cross-access,

[1:32:39] where, quote, adequate vehicular access and circulation are provided without such connection,

[1:32:44] and the waive or will not adversely affect public safety or mobility.

[1:32:50] The traffic impact analysis demonstrates that adequate vehicular access exists via the Maryland

[1:32:54] in 2014 in Gentry Lane Access Points.

[1:32:57] Emerging the access is accommodated.

[1:33:00] The connectivity score exceeds the required thresholds,

[1:33:03] and no intersection,

[1:33:04] an extreme determination depends

[1:33:05] on the fish of your health extension.

[1:33:08] Finally, Section 24-421D requires that the street systems

[1:33:13] create a functional, easy, understandable network.

[1:33:16] We believe that the street network does not.

[1:33:19] That section also cites back to 27606 E2C,

[1:33:22] which is the waiver provisions, to allow the board to flexibility to modify.

[1:33:29] Staff was correct in the sense of the policy reasons, and again, the reasoning is sound.

[1:33:35] I don't debate it, but I'm not going to proceed because I made a promise.

[1:33:39] So, I stand before you to respectfully request that you and the brewery exercise your discretion,

[1:33:48] as recommended by staffs exhibit, and approve this application without the bishop drive extension.

[1:33:56] The code sections, as staff indicated in the presentation this morning, said,

[1:34:00] that the sections are intended to ensure these connectivities.

[1:34:03] I don't have to think that, but it also gives you the ability and the authority to

[1:34:09] deviate from that basic point of your discretion that the code gave you, and that's what

[1:34:14] we're asking you to do today.

[1:34:19] The bill consensus, and so staff doesn't hate me after this hearing, part of the information

[1:34:24] that we provided in our written testimony, was a potential concession to bill consensus

[1:34:35] to further implement multi-modal access and circulation for the board to consider

[1:34:41] possibly a pedestrian connection and not a vehicle connection. They would

[1:34:45] accomplish all the things that the vehicle connection would do without the

[1:34:49] negative impacts of vehicle connection would do that in this bishop. I believe it's

[1:34:52] here today to test the final. And I do want to thank if I didn't already. I want to

[1:34:56] and especially her neighbors, Miss Carter, Mr.

[1:35:00] Groundman and others who took time many, many times to meet with us, to go over this and to present

[1:35:07] their letters in support of what I'm here trying to advocate for. If pedestrians in

[1:35:13] action would enhance walkability, it would connect to transit along the peppermint road. They provide

[1:35:20] safe routes to nearby schools and avoids introducing vehicle or caught through traffic and to an

[1:35:26] for residential neighborhood, but as the board

[1:35:29] to consider that as a touch of documents.

[1:35:33] Your role as repeated before is discretionary.

[1:35:38] 27-626H1, H1, where deemed appropriate.

[1:35:44] 626I to the maximum centipractical.

[1:35:48] 626H2, waivers and modifications.

[1:35:51] This makes clear that you are empowered and expected

[1:35:54] on a case-by-case basis to exercise that judgment.

[1:35:58] Advocacy is satisfied, safety is preserved,

[1:36:01] and the community has been meaningfully engaged.

[1:36:05] And most of all, the pedestrian compromise

[1:36:07] can be imposed as a compromise.

[1:36:12] The code authorized is usually approved

[1:36:14] if we're playing with Aberquan in the vehicle,

[1:36:16] or if it's in a different way.

[1:36:19] This matters because the bourgeois is not

[1:36:22] to apply policy mechanically.

[1:36:24] It's the way the transportation on needs, communities, impact, environmental stewardship,

[1:36:31] adequate standards, public interest.

[1:36:34] In this case, the VISTA traffic sense which just redistribute traffic will unnecessarily

[1:36:40] encourage cut-through traffic.

[1:36:42] The project needs every object of objective, adequacy standard, notwithstanding.

[1:36:48] The connection is not required for safety or performance, and the community has been

[1:36:52] engaged, a compromised pedestrian solution is offered,

[1:36:57] that can be, that can also protect

[1:36:59] these existing neighborhoods.

[1:37:01] It can guarantee that discretion, again, is that your exit slides will.

[1:37:05] If losing Mr. Chairman, orders to end comments is a $20 million dollar or more private

[1:37:10] investment in a part of the county that is long never-do.

[1:37:14] It's concept-sensitive.

[1:37:16] It's an info project inside the boatway.

[1:37:18] It's environmentally responsible.

[1:37:21] fully adequate under the county laws and the product of genuine community collaboration.

[1:37:27] The only issue is whether discretionary, vehicular extension, not required for adequacy,

[1:37:33] should override community supported design and vegetable compliance.

[1:37:37] We respectfully submit that it should not.

[1:37:40] We would ask that the preliminary claim of subversion be approved as recommended by staff

[1:37:43] as modified by applicants exhibit one which we thank you for your reading ahead of time

[1:37:49] for you to have consideration. With that Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Young is signed up. She did

[1:37:54] indicate to me this morning she would like to be heard. I will submit there and then respond

[1:38:00] and closing once again. Mr. Young has the chance to address you. This is a great job.

[1:38:12] Chair, the Lisa Colvin Senior Council, I just want to quote a record quote, what,

[1:38:20] in 1762, O6H1, actually says in the read-in to entirety, said the board.

[1:38:27] There it is.

[1:38:29] That bold pose says there are an instrument of streets in a single family residential

[1:38:34] set position.

[1:38:35] So, provide for the alignment and continuation of existing or proposed streets into

[1:38:41] joining lands.

[1:38:42] With a join in lands are undeveloped and deemed appropriate for future development.

[1:38:47] or are developed and include opportunities for such connections. So there was some language that

[1:38:55] it was inadvertently dropped from that, but we wanted to just make a clear subject you have

[1:39:00] that information check. I'm sure it was inadvertent. Are there any questions for Mr. De Desco?

[1:39:08] You know, our council was, that's what I was going to point out as well. In terms of, I disagree as a

[1:39:17] I'd disagree that it's discretionary. I think the idea would, with, especially with an

[1:39:22] zoning code on roads, is that to try to have continuity is important. And it makes more sense

[1:39:29] in this particular case, especially given that you already have the development there. And I think

[1:39:37] you need to have connecting streets. The idea of not is, is not our policy. And I disagree that I don't

[1:39:46] think it's discretionary, especially in this case.

[1:39:51] No, I believe that there is one that is signed up to just a matter of this.

[1:40:47] We had no problem with the development. We just don't want to treat open.

[1:40:54] True. You don't know what, you must, what am I going to say?

[1:40:59] No, thanks. We don't want to help. We just don't want to treat all.

[1:41:04] We have lived there. It's peaceful. The street is not that big as it is.

[1:41:11] We don't want all that extra traffic. We live there.

[1:41:15] And please don't harm me.

[1:41:18] Okay.

[1:41:19] Do you have any questions for me, sir?

[1:41:22] I'm not.

[1:41:23] Thank you so much.

[1:41:24] Thank you.

[1:41:25] Thank you.

[1:41:26] Mr. Dasker.

[1:41:31] Thank you.

[1:41:32] Mr. Sloan.

[1:41:32] Mr. Carter.

[1:41:33] Mr. Cameron.

[1:41:35] Mr. Brown.

[1:41:36] Anything for you there.

[1:41:37] We would submit.

[1:41:38] It's been presented.

[1:41:39] If there aren't any questions.

[1:41:40] We're going to again.

[1:41:41] Mr. Dasker.

[1:41:42] Mr. Dasker.

[1:41:42] Thank you.

[1:41:47] Mr. Brown.

[1:41:48] Mr. Brown.

[1:41:49] Mr. Brown.

[1:41:50] Mr. Brown.

[1:41:50] Mr. Chair, move that we adopt the findings and recommendations of staff as detailed and

[1:41:56] staff report and approve PPS2025-002 preliminary plan of subdivision corner storm

[1:42:04] comments and type one tree conservation plan and TCP1-2025-003 through a variation from section

[1:42:14] 24, 4, 1, 0, 2, C, 1, and variants to section 25, 1, 2, B, 1, G for the removal of

[1:42:24] the specimen trees, subject obviously to the conditions and recommendations of staff.

[1:42:30] And just to hear one thing that I noticed in reading the staff report was the fact that

[1:42:39] that gives it another access point off of central avenue.

[1:42:48] So that all the traffic is not coming out through that one.

[1:42:51] That's helpful, the other is as well,

[1:42:53] is that we have children can now access

[1:42:57] without having to walk on the street,

[1:42:59] on central avenue to go to the school.

[1:43:02] But for that reason, I'll support the staff's recommendations.

[1:43:08] That's the second question.

[1:43:09] at Spring Propagly.

[1:43:11] Moving in the second, I will now call the roll by

[1:43:13] chair, the roll.

[1:43:14] I'm sorry.

[1:43:17] Thank you so much.

[1:43:19] We will now move onto the next and then item item number nine county

[1:43:22] via planning division.

[1:43:26] MRMF-H025-H010 Liberty Sports Park phase 2 parking lot expansion.

[1:43:34] We will now hear from Mr. Ryan.

[1:44:10] I'm Ann Barnes and members of the board for the record.

[1:44:12] This is Benjamin Ryan with special project section.

[1:44:15] Before the board today is mandatory referral MRF-2025-010 Liberty Sports Park phase 2 parking

[1:44:24] up. This project proposes to construct a parking facility with one thousand and six new spaces

[1:44:30] to support the existing Prince George's County Liberty Sports Park. The Liberty Sports Park

[1:44:36] has become one of the pre-eminent multi-purpose sports facilities in Prince George's County.

[1:44:41] It is a multi-purpose facility for sports and education consisting of 10 athletic fields with

[1:44:48] Project proposals 1,6 new spaces to support the sports park.

[1:44:54] The proposed parking associated with this application ensures that neither of the existing industrial

[1:44:59] Thank you.

[1:45:00] Start to the south, nor the south lake residential and commercial development to the north, would be adversely impacted, while events are being held at the sports park.

[1:45:10] Project also proposes improved bicycle and pedestrian features, including a crosswalk crossing French Georgia's Boulevard, sidewalks and bicycle parking.

[1:45:20] Can we move to slide 14, please, staff recommendations?

[1:45:29] Staff are also recommending 5% of spaces be reserved for electric vehicle charging stations, as well as continued coordination with the Prince George's County Department of Public Works and Transportation regarding future road improvements.

[1:45:49] Next slide, please.

[1:45:54] Lastly, staff recommendations also include providing additional bicycle parking, formalizing

[1:45:59] the maintenance of traffic plan, widening the proposed shared use path along the site's

[1:46:04] frontage, and providing a street light or other means to highlight the pedestrian crossing

[1:46:09] of printstorges Boulevard, and this concludes staff presentation.

[1:46:13] Are there any questions from staff?

[1:46:15] I don't know.

[1:46:16] I don't know.

[1:46:17] Okay.

[1:46:18] See you now.

[1:46:21] Mr. Hurr.

[1:46:23] I've got a few instances.

[1:46:24] Kevin Kennedy from the Michael companies.

[1:46:27] We're an advisor to Green Branch Sports Management, which is the LSE and Operator of Liberty Sports Park.

[1:46:32] You don't want to take too much of your time.

[1:46:34] We just wanted to thank the staff for their efforts and say that the applicant is generally in agreement with their findings and recommendations and we look forward to continuing to work with you all.

[1:46:42] There are any questions.

[1:46:44] You support the recommendations.

[1:46:46] Is there a motion?

[1:46:50] We have to go in.

[1:46:52] That we move.

[1:46:54] Okay.

[1:46:55] Move the adoption of the recommendations and findings of staff for MRF 2025 to 0 0 1.

[1:47:02] A second vote.

[1:47:03] It's not like moving a second.

[1:47:04] I would now follow the road by the chair of the road.

[1:47:07] It's a vote aye.

[1:47:07] Commissioner for you.

[1:47:09] I vote aye.

[1:47:10] Thank you, guys.

[1:47:11] So much.

[1:47:11] That concludes all items on today's agenda.

[1:47:15] We'd like to thank staff for all the hard work.

[1:47:18] It's time is down, we're 11.37, meeting the manager.

[1:47:22] We'll be late.

The Prince George's County Planning Board

Agenda

Transcript