To order the Queen Annes County Planning Commission
for Thursday, June 11th, 2026.
And we'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
to the Republic for which it stands.
One nation under God, indivisible, liberty,
and justice for all.
Okay. Public comment
there being none.
You have anything? No. Okay.
Updates, legislation and legal matters. Amy and Stephanie.
All right, Good morning. Good
Morning. Morning. So
I have quite a few updates for you
regarding text amendments that you've seen yourself.
Stephanie Jones, long range principle planner, sorry,
text amendments that you've seen in the last two months.
So it might take a bit, but we'll get through it.
The commissioners this past Tuesday did have many
of those on there for actions.
So 26 0 4, which was to add boat sales
and repair to Mars to the list of uses
that could occupy more than 65,000 square feet
in the airport protection.
Ken Island Gateway District, they did approve that
and that will become effective July 25th also as well.
And these next two as well were approved
and will become effective.
The same date as I just mentioned, 26 0 7,
which was specific to the WVC, which was
to increase the floor area ratio to 40% that was approved.
And then also 26 0 8, also in the wfe WVC,
which was to allow commercial apartments essentially to move
that commercial apartment onto any other same floor
was adopted and then will become effective on July 25th.
So those were three that were voted on.
Also 20 citizen sponsored text amendments.
And then 26 12, which was the update to forest conservation,
the commissioners did approve that.
They also did approve it with an amendment.
That amendment was to address, essentially
to address solar projects that were to come in
and essentially might be located on forested properties.
That amendment specifically what it says is
for properties larger than 25 acres that have 50%,
that are 50% forested
and include priority areas are not allowed
to clear more than 20% of the, of the forest.
All the A forestation is to be accomplished onsite
or offsite fee and lie will not be accepted.
And then a higher a forestation rate,
which will be one and a half to one.
So that was the amendment. Sorry,
Stephanie, what's the, you said other proposals in there
somewhere in mid-sentence, what
Was it regarding what they can
or their conditions or, yeah,
You said there was other, there was a vague term in
there. Sorry.
From priority properties larger than 25 priority areas.
What? What? Oh, priority areas. Okay.
So those are listed in the code essentially.
Those are some environmental, they include areas
that might be your endangered species areas.
Okay. Areas that kind of already,
I designated forested interior dwelling birds.
So if there's two or more of those on the property,
then this would be subject as long as it's over 25 acres
and 50% forested.
Thanks. So essentially this is to assist with
what would be those properties that might be solar.
Correct. And have forested lands that is,
was adopted and it will beco become effective July one as
that's the date of the effective for forest conservation.
The commissioners, that was the legislative actions
that were approved on Tuesday night.
There were two that will be sent back to you.
This was the 26 0 9 and 26 10.
This was the non-contiguous
and TDR administrative subdivision specific to open space.
The commissioners proposed an amendment
and that essentially is to prohibit those uses
that are non-agricultural on those properties
that would come in and basically have an
approved lot line adjustment.
And those uses are specific to minor extractions,
public recreation, shooting clubs, and outdoor recreation.
So those are uses
that are permitted in open space at this time.
But if a property owner was to have a lot line adjustment
approved, if this amendment is to go forward,
then it would be, they would not be able
to do those uses on those, those that open space property.
So it'll come back to you for your July meeting
for a recommendation back to the county commissioners.
And then two more, there'll be a public hearing,
two public hearings on June 30th, and that is for 26 0 6.
And that's the suburban commercial of impervious up to 80%
for your commercial and industrial uses.
That exists as, as of December 31st.
And then 26 0 5, which is the gas station tax amendment
to change the measurement
and where the measurement is taken.
That public hearing will also be on June 30th.
That meeting is a week following the, the normal date
because the committee, they've moved that meeting
because of the primary election, which was
to take place on that same day.
Sure. One other thing, I wanted to address these, that's all
for text amendments,
but we did talk a little bit last time about bills
that were passed, essentially this past session.
One, I wanted to bring up that
and kind of clarify a little bit, is the one
that was specific to the comp plan.
We did have some questions over what really
that meant for the comp plan.
I kind of wanna take a step backwards
to the 25 general session.
General assembly session.
There was a bill passed essentially that changed the outline
of a comp plan from 12 visions to eight principles.
And those principles are land, transportation,
housing economy, equity, resilience, resilience
and place in ecology.
So the one question was specific to equity
and what that kind of meant for the comp plan.
That 25 bill basically identifies equity
as engage all sectors of the community in plan development
to ensure diverse voices are heard
and that needs of undeserved,
underserved populations are prioritized.
So then in this past 26 session, they kind of went on
and elaborated on what had
to be put into the comprehensive plan, specific
to all of those principles.
And then specific to the equity portion,
what it says is that the needs of overburdened
and underserved communities need to be addressed as well
as interest of populations in the county
that typically have not
participated in the planning process.
So they want to try to have more people essentially
kind of involved in the process.
The equity element also shall include report,
shall include information from the report
of the Commission on Environmental Justice
and Sustainable Communities, which is a report
that's completed every year through MDE as well.
MDP, Maryland Department of Planning is required
to provide information to the county, which we kind
of already go out and grab the information that's needed.
But this is them kind of saying we have
to provide you with that information.
And then there's also a portion that indicates
what the element may include.
So those are essentially aren't a,
that's not a shall statement, it's a may,
but that includes promote a broader civic engagement in the
public decision making process, address health risk
and environmental problems in overburden
and underserved communities and prioritize improvements
and programs that address the needs of overburdened
and underserved communities.
So this past bill really what it says, this is
what we have to do, and then a portion
of this is kind of a may statement.
So that's kind of where the equity portion is.
If you have any other questions, I can answer them now.
What, what if any impact does
that have in in the comprehensive plan that we've already,
The one that's been completed, formulated
And, and So we don't have to go in
and change our comp plan right now.
We would have to address it with the next comp plan next.
Okay. Yep. Wanna make
Sure within the next comp plan or bef
or at the next comp plan at the next, when,
when we do the next Okay.
Comp plan. Yep. Thanks. Thank you.
Just like 10 years out, no less than that. It's
Closer than you think.
It was approved in 22, so come on.
I I, I, I know. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
And it's like it was a year ago. Yeah, right. Exactly.
Yeah. Yep.
So I have lighter updates.
I wanna let you know about some of the initiatives
that staff is involved in.
One is I've been really excited about,
and it's pertinent to our update
to the forest conservation plan.
Just to let you know that we have traditionally collected
fee in lieu for forest conservation,
but it's very difficult to find projects where we can spend
that fee in lie money
because it has to be on public land. So what
Are you doing with it?
So here's what we're doing with it.
We have collaborated with the town of Centerville.
Mike Whitehill is, was working with the YMCA
on the, their and their buffer enhancement plan.
That was a part of their site plan update and approval.
We have collaborated with them
to utilize our forest conservation funding to create
a, a forested area on the YMCA property,
which is public property.
And at the same time we're working with the Department
of Parks and Rec
and DPW to implement a trail system
that will run through county properties.
Certainly we're going to start with the YMCA property within
that forested area,
but as a part of that project, we're going to expand that
walking trail to include all of the county properties
and the Board of ed property.
And while the annexation project has been approved,
and as that project comes to fruition, being mindful
of connectivity between that new development
and hopefully connecting
with the town's Millstream Trail Mill Street Trail.
So that is a project that Rob Gunter
and Doug Summers have been managing
and then expanding that management
to include other agencies when
the trail system was added to the project.
So that is one of the best case scenarios
for implementing our forest conservation fee and lie dollars
because it really will serve the, the community.
So I don't know when we're going to start that.
We are going To attempt to have trees in the ground
before or by December.
They gotta get at least the base of the trail in.
So that trail work doesn't destroy trees
that we just put in the ground
and then we have to replant them.
That timeline's pretty tight, but we're
Moving forward.
Who's doing the construction
Parks is gonna hire somebody out?
I'm not sure. Okay.
No, but they're managing that,
that portion of the project. They
Better get started pretty quick.
Yeah, they're gonna put it out.
It's been a very fast turnaround.
Barrel's doing a great job.
I appreciate the help that parks has given us,
but it's, it's a very tight timeline.
Good. So, excuse me,
Are these trails going through neighboring farms?
No. Okay. Yeah, they're all on public land. Okay. Yeah.
Thanks. Now, once, once the Ann, once the
Providence farm development occurs, it will connect
with private lands,
but that should be within the area that has been zoned t
and d traditional neighborhood.
Yeah. That should be within the town's residential
and commercial district.
Got it. A couple of other, we're,
we're sitting on a lot of task forces,
so I thought I'd let you know about them.
We're currently participating in the Marlin Farm Dominion
Task Force, which is working on the project that
water and wastewater is managing to bring Marlin Farm
and Dominion into the wastewater,
the comprehensive water and sewer plan.
That amendment was just approved to re-designate
the Marlin Farm Dominion area to future service
as we're looking to take those parcels
with failing septic systems offline
and bring them into the county's sewer system.
So that task force continues to meet,
to evaluate that project. We're also, is there
A timeline on that?
It is. It is happening now.
I mean, just because they're looking to, well,
They're meeting now.
They're meeting now, but they're also taking definitive
action by amending the wastewater, the water
and sewer plan.
So the feasibility study is
what will be the next step.
So it will be not fast tracked,
but cont a priority project moving forward.
So should be happening
pretty expeditiously.
Amy, is that already built into our sewer allocation
that we have capacity?
It is hooking up failing septic systems in
Southern Kent Island and Dominion
and Marlin Farm has long been identified in the plan
and also in the sewer allocation policy
where all the allocations are outlined.
Which treatment plant will take that effluent?
It's the, the Kent Island wastewater treatment plant.
Okay. Down Route eight. That down Route eight up, yes.
Terrapin Park. Yeah. By the high school.
That's the only wastewater treatment plant
that the county Okay.
Operates. Yeah. That's our growth area. Yep.
Like, and one more thing, Amy, do you, do we know,
do you know if that's to be constructed in similar fashion
to the Southern can island extension with the step
septic tank effluent pumping rather
than a dedicated hard line? Do we know?
I think that is what is being discussed
Still being on.
Okay, fantastic. Thank you.
And in, in the same vein,
I'll update you on the moratorium task force,
which does continue to meet as a part
of the county commissioner's resolution to
evaluate the comp, the comprehensive water and sewer plan,
but specifically the sewer allocation policy.
Looking at how the county is going to designate the
rerated flow of 300,000 gallons
that is still currently being discussed.
It is complicated and the task force is
working hard to put the commissioners in the best possible
position to make sure that there's equity
and that those allocation pots are very clearly
identified and that the process to apply for
especially residential projects is just clearly
identified and in a way that will maximize
what is left of our capacity for the best projects.
Additionally, there's one last task force
that is being managed by the Department of Public Works,
and that is the MIDSHORE three task force, which is
the Queen Annes County Landfill.
Talbot County has taken its turn,
Caroline County has taken its turn
and has extended its commitment
and Queen Annes County is next.
And then Kent County is the last
in our MIDSHORE three re in our Midshore region.
That task force is looking at the current site
and potential alternate sites for
the landfill in Queen Annes County.
So they're talking about moving it from considering Okay,
there's been, there was a lot of concern
that should make a lot of people happy.
And then a new neighborhood that's, I'm happy
Depends on where plan B is.
Pardon? Data center moratorium.
Oh, I forgot about the Mor Moratorium. Yeah.
There's also another moratorium
that the county commissioners enacted
and that is the data center moratorium
to give staff a year to investigate
and draft a text, a text amendment
to address more data center development.
Staff had already been working on this,
but it is a, a very pressing planning issue.
So we'll be working on that proposal
and bringing it forward.
Currently we are not preempted in terms
of the sighting of data centers.
So there's a great fear
that the data centers may be cited in
our agricultural district.
And as of right now, clearly they're not permitted
and there is not a preemptive process to cite a data center
in our agricultural zoning district right now.
We would consider them materially similar
to warehousing uses,
which would be permitted in our industrial areas.
And that development would be limited to 65,000 square feet.
So that is how our code currently addresses a data center.
But having a materially similar use isn't as strong
as a strong a position
as having a very specific standard for a data center.
So we have never had an application to date.
If we did have an application,
the standard I just cited would be the
standard that would apply.
Are we aware of anybody that's pondering submission?
I, I haven't heard anything
Unaware.
Okay. We haven't been contacted, yeah. Yet.
But it's good to get ahead of these things. Yes, it is.
Be proactive rather than reactive.
And the preemptive piece that you spoke about
that's analogous to the solar
and that would go through the Public Service commission
or what body would manage
That?
No, this is not a public utility.
It's just, I think there is concern that
because of so many uses that we have seen in recent years
where the state has taken a preemptive approach.
Cannabis is a good example, that isn't a utility like solar.
That has been a concern in a lot of jurisdictions
that if we don't get specific standards on the books, that
we could be going in that direction at a,
So that would be done legislatively motion likely Correct.
At the state level. Gotcha.
And the last item that I have for you is,
we have a conflict this year
with the August Planning Commission meeting.
It coincides with the Summer
MACO conference and over
MACO is the acronym For, oh, Maryland Association
of County Governments.
There's a fall and winter conference every year.
This year we, half of our, over half
of our staff planning staff will be attending
the Mako Conference.
So we are going to cancel our August meeting
and let any applicants know who may be getting close
to their 25 day submittal that
we have some July potential for agenda items,
but that anyone who's queuing up will be placed on the
September agenda.
So we have a vacation in August.
Okay. Anything else? That's
Everything.
Thanks. Any questions? Okay.
Let's go to public hearings
concept plan for the ER material.
Don't forget the annual report.
Oh, I'm sorry. She picked it up.
Wanted to make sure the annual report going. Good.
I'll be pleased.
Good morning, Mary Ellen Gray.
Senior Planner, as you know, at this time, every year the
Maryland Department of Planning requires an annual report be
submitted regarding our activities, the goal
regarding annual development, permitting
and planning related activities taking
place in Queen S County.
Before I talk about some salient data points
that in this report, I wanna thank specifically Doug Summers
who did a lot of the number crunching for this report,
as well as a lot of staff across Queen Anne County,
IT finance, department of Environment, mental Services,
parks and Rec, public Works
housing, economic tourism.
And Jeff Frank also from finance,
supplied some new information that was
per a new reporting requirement this year
regarding the reporting of impact fees.
This is a new requirement that the county,
that the, the state required the per
our, our Our
we to.
We administer a program for the development of impact fees
for essential public services, including schools, parks
and recreation and fire protection.
So as a result, we need to report how we,
how much we collect and how we implement
and the amount of fees
that are implemented.
So regarding impact fees, the total amount
of impact fees collected from both, both residential and non
and non-residential.
And 2025 was
$1,876,367
and 7 cents.
And of that 46% or $864,340
and 14 cents was in the priority funding area.
The bulk of the impact fees collected were for schools
which totaled $1,531,101 and 75 cents.
The schools utilized $2 million,
167,290 90,000
of impact fee funds.
And the fire districts utilized
four hundred forty thousand eight hundred seventy seven thousand and twenty
25.
Moving on to residential, 808 out
of 160 units
or 68%
of the total residential units approved were located within
the priority funding area.
The number of a lots approved within the major subdivisions
have been relatively consistent since 2022.
A total of three hundred seventy three hundred and seventeen
residential units were constructed within
with 233 located within the priority funding area.
And 84 outside of the priority funding area
of these units within the PFA 109 units were located in
age restricted community.
Moving on to commercial,
commercial growth data showed an increase in the number
of approved, approved commercial sites,
site plans over the past couple years from total
of four in the calendar year, 2023 to six in 2024,
and then eight in 2025.
However, the gross building area constructed has remained
fairly steady since 2024,
which had 770,739
to 67,739.
2025. And finally I'll conclude
with agricultural preservation as of 2025,
the county has permanently preserved 92,630 acres of land
through various programs.
So the planning staff recommends
that the Planning Commission approve this report
and request that staff send the 2025 Quin Anns County annual
report to the Maryland Department of Planning
and file a copy with the county commissioners.
I will ask if anybody has any questions.
No, ma'am. You sure gave us a lot of numbers. There's
A lot of data.
Thank you Mary Ellen. You're
welcome. Any questions, recommendations?
Yeah, I do have one. How many
lots are available in the county? Do you know
How many lots are available?
There is, there's some charts in the, in this report
I have to give back to you on that.
I think we have the,
there was a development capacity analysis
to look in the appendix here
About Appendix five.
Appendix five, thank you. Yeah.
16,000 2 97. Thank you.
16,000 lots.
Number, number of potential lots. Yes.
Lot 16,297
of potential lots.
The potential lots for development.
That's fine. Okay, fine.
Do we have any statistics that tell us
how many acres came out of agriculture in any given year
Came out of agriculture?
Not specifically.
We, I, we could do a a, an analysis that of
that looking at agriculture and break that down.
We, I don't have that broken broken, we don't have
that broken down specifically, but certainly we,
It's more of a philosophical question than anything else,
but something I'd personally be interested in. Sure.
We, I, we could work with GIS on that, on
that, on that data point. Yeah.
Thank you. You're welcome. Yes ma'am.
I would, we can sort of bring
that information if you look at the development tables Yeah.
For priority funding area versus non-priority funding area.
Yeah. If it's a non-priority funding area,
it's likely that it's
Likely in agriculture. Yeah,
Fair point. Yeah.
Okay. So the 16,000 lots on
the back, that, that's not approved lots
or is that, is that a calculated amount based on the farms
seven acres per parcel if the maximum, I guess.
Correct. These are, these are lots
that are available for development, right?
They are, they are approved. They are approved. And
These are, these are pot, these No, these are potential,
these are lots that on appendix five, these are lots
that are available for development.
They have not been approved for development. Do
They have their SRAs already?
I mean I assume how many of them are, are
to Ben's point on agricultural land farmland?
So Them are in the pfas.
Okay. So we looking at this chart, so they,
we do have a broken down on which ones are pfas.
I don't have that total. We don't have a broken down.
I would have to total that out.
Which, how many lots are in pfas?
Let, let's look, look at the, hold on, on
the chart.
Okay, on page five,
within pfas we have residential zoned acres with capacity.
We have in, in the PFA 730 lots
and residential parcel and lots with capacity.
And in the PFA 545 inside
and outside the PFA,
oh, I'm getting a assistance from Stephanie.
Sorry, because she has, she has more,
I just wanna add a detail experience with that.
Yeah, yeah. Detail about the development capacity analysis.
Yeah. So this is analysis that is run by GIS by any means.
It's not survey grade.
It doesn't look in the details of, you know exactly
where wetlands are.
So it's not taking a fair point survey grade
of the entire county in addressing
how many lots can be created.
So it's the best available technology
that the GIS department has to understand potentially
how many lots could be available
to the best of their ability.
So really it's not the number of lots
that have been created, right.
It's potential. Right.
But definitely not to anything that has been done looked at
for a subdivision.
So let's add that
Detail, right?
Yeah, it's a, it's a development capacity, right?
It's, it's what could potentially be, yeah,
But By all means is the timeframe.
I mean certainly so capacity would limit
Development.
So those things, things like that aren't looked at
because I mean those things can't be baked into the
GIS analysis.
Right. And I think there's an explanation in here that says,
you know, this is the best of ability
that analysis could be done.
It's not by any means exact,
Well, I guess the concern I would voice is
that you show 16,000, you know lots And for people
that don't wanna see a great deal
of growth at one point in time, that's a scary number.
Yes. I, I realize that
And without a qualifier to say
no this isn't coming online next week.
Right. No, and it's not. They're not Right.
Proposals haven't been received. It's not
that we've taken those applications
or anything, it's just an analysis that has been run.
The JIS, they're required to do it every three years.
That's what's required of the annual report.
So it's a number that has to be run at that point
In the 2010 comp plan,
I think there was a development capacity analysis run with
that comp plan
and then we tried to use the same as much as we could get
as close as we could get that same analysis.
Yeah. That they had used in 2010. 10. What was the number
Back then? Do
You know?
I don't know. I do not have it on. Okay.
But I can look it up. You just did. Okay.
So the reason I asked the question was
because according to your numbers,
and I'm gonna oversimplify this
and then, you know, hopefully you'll understand that,
but your lots constructed are outpacing your
lots approved by about 70.
Right? So at some point on a over simplistic view,
those two numbers are gonna converge
where there's no lots available, that'll never happen
because the market will change the value lot.
The value of the lots will go up exponentially if need be.
And, and there'll be more lots that come online.
But the reason I ask this, I just read an article
and I say the other day, I'm saying it use
that term loosely, that the average home price in this
county is like over half a million dollars.
Now, now I dunno about you guys.
I have children, I have grandchildren.
Now we, luckily we have a farmer, children are on farms,
but the average person, their kids are gonna leave here.
And is this county looking at that to say, do we want
to make everybody that already
has a home wealthier 'cause their home goes up?
Or do we want to try to make a place where it's affordable
for many, including their children?
Yeah, I could, I there
Is that question ever been asked?
Yes. The state really also has been asking
that question more of on a statewide level, not not just
Queen Anne specific.
So it is something that is contemplated or
Yeah, but I don't know that their ideals mesh with mine.
What, which, where are they leaning?
Are they trying to find to make housing more affordable?
Are we to become California? You know,
Agree.
No, I mean, I mean the state, but
You know where I'm Coming from,
right? What I'm saying? Right.
And the county obviously,
I think in the comp plan we talk about looking at density
and essentially size of lots.
So that's gonna change your affordability
essentially of a lot.
So there are things in the comp plan
that have been designated to look at affordability
Of property.
Well not discounting arts comment about the 16,000 lots.
And that's scaring people. One way to lower the price
of real estate is to increase the volume,
increase the amount available, right, the supply. Right.
That's Okay. Yep.
Nope. The, the housing chapter and the but
Don't touch the farms. Correct?
I never said that. Never said that.
Ask the farmer first though. Okay. It's up to the farmer.
We're not mandating that they,
they develop never have never.
And I've never promoted that for certain. Okay.
Okay. That it? Yes ma'am. Alright, anything else?
Any other questions? Madam
Chair, I would like to take staff's recommendation
that the planning center, planning center planning,
having reviewed now approve
and request that the staff send the 2025 Queens County
annual report to the Maryland Department of Planning
and file a copy with county commissioners.
Second, second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?
Okay, second. Thank you Job
Ll Thank you.
We're gonna take a five minute break.
Let's get back to session. Okay.
Okay. Concept plan, Byler materials.
Madam chair, I wanna first note for the record
that notice containing the necessary info information
regarding the application
and notice of the public hearing was advertised in the Bay
Times record observer on May 29th and June 5th.
And it was posted on the website
and notice of such is within the application file. Okay,
Thank you.
This may do we usually have a Yeah, I know.
Well who's, who's presenting today? I am
Steve's, Steve's outta the office.
So I'm, I'm the pinch hitter today.
Oh, okay. Good morning everybody.
Rob Gunter Development Review Principle Planner.
As mentioned, we have the folks from
Byler Materials here this morning.
They are proposing a 215.5 acre expansion
of the existing Merrick Farm major extraction operation.
This will be phase five of their project this morning.
They are requesting concept plan approval
and a favorable recommendation to the board of appeals.
The project is located on the eastern side of the county in
between Ingleside and Barclay outlined in black.
You can see the 348 acre parcel is located at the corner of
three 13 and Merrick Corner Road
back in May of 26th.
The zoning department did their annual inspection
of the site and at
that time it was determined, sorry about that.
Everything was in compliance.
The property resides in the agricultural zoning district
and major extractions are conditional use in that district
and require approval from the board of appeals.
The phase five LOD limits
of disturbance includes 215 acres of mining expansion area.
That area is shown in the red dash line.
It also includes 3.88 acres of road improvements
along Merrick Corner Road.
And that area is generally shown
by the yellow dash line at the top.
The yellow circle on the map is the approximate location
of the existing site entrance
and that entrance will remain
with the future expansions if approved.
The overall LED for the project
would be 339 acres in total.
So that would include this phase In all previous phases
the project is proposing no new impr impervious area
and no new floor area complies with the mining setbacks.
And phase five will also comply with those setbacks.
It's currently served by well and septic
and will continue to be on average a hundred trucks a day,
visit the site or truck trips a day, visit the site.
That's to remain the same even with the expansion area.
Those trucks remove approximately 343,000 cubic yards
of material per year.
The estimated lifespan of the project is just over 49 years
and 17 million cubic yards
of material will be removed.
Excuse me, at the conclusion of the project,
the depth will vary between 67 and 70 feet.
Phase five proposes landscaping
and berms around the entire expansion area,
which will meet up with existing landscaping and bi.
Those berms will be 62 feet wide and 10 feet tall
and they'll be planted with two rows of evergreens
that will be six to eight feet tall at the time of planting.
The site's not located within the Chesapeake Bay critical
area or the a hundred year floodplain.
There are no erosion hazards, streams, wetlands,
or threatened endangered species on site.
The southern portion of the site does have 39.6
acres of woodlands.
Department of Natural Resources has indicated that
this area contains fizz habitat mainly
for nesting nesting birds
shown in green dashed outline on the map.
This project phase five does propose just over 32 acres
of woodland clearing just
above the green in the white dash line
or previously approved clearing with earlier phasing.
This project, just like all major extractions,
are exempt from the regulations established
by the Forest Conservation Act.
There is a tax ditch that runs through this property
shown in the solid blue line bisects roughly the middle.
That tax ditch will be relocated
to the area shown on the blue dash line.
The Caroline County Soil Conservation District manages these
tax ditches and they have reviewed this project
and approved it with three minor conditions.
Those are outlined in your staff report.
There's no proposed changes to the hours of operation.
The applicant did submit a sound study completed by vibrate.
That study concluded
that the noise will not exceed residential, nighttime
or daytime limits at the property line.
Provided that the standoff distances
outlined in the report are met.
Trucks will continue to use the existing haul route,
which is Merrick Corner Road to Maryland three 13.
I mentioned the road improvements to Merrick Corner Road.
There are approximately 3,350 linear feet
of improvements and they will start at the intersection
of three 13 and move east along Merrick Corner Road.
They'll include some widening, res striping
and some shoulder work.
At the conclusion of the project,
there'll be a 259 acre pond
and a location for a future house that's a little bit
of pasture area or tillable area for the resident.
And with that I have a colleague Eric Miller from the
Department of Public Works here
and he can elaborate a little bit on the road.
Improvements that have been done are proposed currently
and he can answer any stormwater questions if you have any.
So with that, this is Eric this
Good morning.
Eric Miller, department
of Public Works. Can everyone hear me all right?
Yep. So Robin asked me here today, we had,
I'm gonna segue slightly,
but in our comment memo there was an item Can you,
can you speak up a little?
I can. Is this better? Yes. There you go. Maybe there.
There you go. That's better. All right,
so I'm gonna segue a little.
There is in the most recent DPW comment memo,
a line item indicating a public works agreement.
The Department of Public Works is still in the process
of coordinating with the
applicant the terms of the agreement.
We were contacted the department yesterday
that the applicant did not agree with the terms.
And so as such, we just wanted to bring
that to the board's attention.
Now that we would like to, when Rob gives his final summary,
add a condition that we, the DPW Department of Public Works
and the applicant by
or mind agree to the terms of the public works agreement
prior to the applicant submitting an
application for Board of Appeals.
What did they disagree with?
So what we're disagreeing over is money.
Now we have this, mine has been in operation
for approximately 20 years
and we're looking at, I'm speaking in round numbers,
I can be more specific at your request.
A 50 year lifespan.
So the department is looking at projecting,
as Rob pointed out, it'll their time to mine out.
This property will take 50 years.
So we're looking at 50 years
of road maintenance built into an agreement
that we're deciding upon today as part of this application.
Now I'd like to be perfectly clear,
we are not in opposition to this.
We are just not prepared to give a favorable recommendation
because we haven't come to terms with the applicant.
So what we're trying
to do is project based upon our last 20 years of experience,
a 50 year lifecycle for this road.
Now they are providing, as part of their application,
substantial road improvements
and upgrades as Rob identified in his report,
we are simply trying to plan for the next 50.
Now what we are proposing is an identical agreement
to a neighboring mine, which is Bridgetown Stone
and Gravel, which assesses a 12 cent per ton royalty.
And that money will go to the cost of road maintenance.
What's adequate to, well on their projection,
their projected numbers
Using their projected numbers.
When you get 12 cents,
and again we are using some approximate math here,
but we're looking at roughly $62,000 a year.
So if you compare that to the current maintenance are,
I should say road upgrades that are being performed,
that is a project that is costing, I believe the estimate.
And there are representatives from Lane Engineering here
who can correct me is $845,000
or as Jonathan
and I were speaking yesterday when he contacted me. How
How long is that $840,000 rejected to last?
Well, and that's what I'm getting to.
So if you look at the 60,000 that we are assessing per year,
and we look at this cost now it'll take roughly 16
and a half years and that's using a round number
of a million dollars because that was an estimate.
We don't actually know the cost
of construction until it's built.
So using a round number of a million with the 61,000,
which is based upon what they're on their plan, identifying
as removal 16
and a half years is how long it would take to get to
that sum of money again.
But the trucks are the trucks. Okay.
What is your span for that type of road with all
that truck truck traffic?
Exactly. So what we're hoping is that
because essentially we're trying to predict the future here
with the widening of the road
and the reinforcement of the road,
that the $60,000 a year will be sufficient
to perform annual maintenance or maintenance on demand.
That is not the department's intent
to have major road rehabilitations when it becomes
sufficiently damaged to require it,
but simply to perform routine maintenance.
So we are not anticipating letting the road degrade
to such a condition that it's in.
Now again, we'd like to avoid that, we'd like to be able
to maintain it as necessary.
The last time it was upgraded,
I believe 2014.
Now when you say upgrade, I don't mean to split hair, it's
Only like 12 years.
Correct. And you're talking that the 60,000 will take you
to 16 years.
Right. So what I'm doing is comparing that amount,
I mean you haven't maintained it the last 12
I thought we were comparing major renovation
to major renovation, right.
So the last major renovation was 12 years ago.
As I understand it right now they're going
to perform a current major renovation.
We're looking to avoid the major renovations
and fund continuous maintenance.
So you haven't done the continuous maintenance
over the last 12?
No, we do. I understand what you're asking.
Unfortunately I don't have those numbers in front of me
because this issue was raised yesterday by the applicant.
So hence why we are not prepared to give
that recommendation.
Now I need to go back, do the research,
look at the numbers you're asking for, see
how much we spent per year
and then look into all these other things we had hoped the
department we that using an agreement identical
to a neighboring mine would be, you know, applicable
to use a pithy term.
Apples to apples. Mine to mind, we use an agreement,
one is agreed to, we agree with it here,
But I'm sure the applicant is looking for that price
to be lowered, not increased. Right.
Well I'll let the applicant speak to what they want,
but yes, I would imagine so.
I would imagine that's why it got turned down. Okay.
All right. Do you have any questions at this point?
Okay, so I do so that the, as I understand it, dump trucks
probably paying somewhere between five
and $6,000 a year in road use taxes specifically
because of the damage that they do the roads.
Do you not get any of the money from the state, from those
road use taxes that are paid and,
and you know, maybe I, no, I'll, I'll get
to you later ask you the same question.
Sure. So as of the most recent legislative session,
I am not sure exactly
what the funding stream is from the state.
I can tell you it's very turbulent
and that there are proposing changes on the highway user
revenue, which I believe is different from
what you're talking about.
I don't have the state funding numbers in front of me to see
what proportion of tax dollars from heavy vehicles comes
to road maintenance, if you like. I can look into that. I
Know, I know that under O'Malley, you know,
he stole a bunch as far as I'm concerned, he stole a bunch
of tax revenue to county back during that, I think
during recession with it.
And I don't know if he's given it back yet or not.
Last time I talked to one
of the commissioners he said they had not,
that was several years ago.
Bill, we're having trouble hearing you. Oh,
I'm sorry. I'm, I'm getting lazy
But you're, Pardon
Me?
Microphone's not close to you?
No, it's 'cause I'm leaning back and
Oh, taking a nap.
Sorry. Do you want me to repeat what I was saying?
No, would you, so all I was asking was don't these dump
trucks at five, $6,000 per year in road use taxes,
fuel taxes, does that any of that money come back
to the county for the maintenance of these roads?
Do they not get anything for their investment?
Those, those independent drivers and small businessmen
and everything else that, that have these things?
We've had this discussion
before about road use taxes and everything else.
I know that O'Malley stole, I use that word stole
road use taxes from the county back during the recession.
I don't know that the state's ever
given them back like they should.
At the last conversation I had with one
of the commissioners, he said they had,
they had given some back
but weren't up to what they used to be historically.
Right. Okay. So that's all I'm asking.
You know, sounds to me like
'cause 50 years, $60,000 a year, that's 3 million bucks.
That ain't, that's not chump change, right?
Correct. How
Much did it cost to build a road
for goodness sake level road?
Are we building a state spec road?
I'm sorry, what was the second
One?
Are we building a county spec road
or a state spec road
with three $3 million in maintenance over over 50 years?
That's not a small chunk of change.
No, absolutely not. I'd be like him argue
And that's fair.
We're not opposed to the discussion.
We're not opposed looking at the numbers.
It's strictly a matter of timing.
The objection was raised yesterday
so we need to look at this.
So your questions are legitimate and appropriate,
but I don't have the answers now.
Okay, fair.
Can I, can I ask, are you done Bill? Yes. Okay.
It's just a question of process
because when in reviewing these materials prior
to the meeting delivered to us a week
or more ahead of time, typically my eyes always go to the
no agencies that have reviewed
the concept plan have offered objections.
So I'm wondering at what time, at what point in the process
was, is an issue like this supposed to be resolved?
Like I'm not sure why it's okay, why it's,
it's only why is this coming up at this time
when I based my review
and thoughts on these projects by what, what is before me
and, and then sometimes subsequent updates
from John as needed.
So I'm trying to figure out where, when is this supposed
to be resolved?
Like 'cause we're, we're here for final
approval of this concept plan. So
Yeah, the concept plan will allow them to move forward
and seek additional use location.
Okay, so excuse me.
The major extractions are unique.
They require public hearings which no other
development projects required.
So there are advertisement deadlines.
So this project had to be advertised in the paper prior
to the comments coming back to the department.
And that overlap is when that comment that Eric referenced
came in and that comment says that DPW
is okay with the project coming to planning commission
as long as the applicant agrees in principle
to the public works agreement.
PWA prior to planning commission,
well prior to planning commission
Ag This morning,
eight o'clock was prior to planning commission.
So in lieu of not stopping the project
and keeping things moving forward, it was our intent to here
and here we are And that's
where Eric mentioned his condition
that they can work things out, whatever that may be prior
to the applicant making board of appeals application
to keep the process moving forward for the applicant.
Not But isn't that normally already completed
before we get the paperwork to review?
No, not necessarily things like forest conservation.
If this project had forest conservation,
they would usually tell us this is our idea,
but we don't have definitive legal documents
and everything finalized yet until site plan.
So in this case we wouldn't have,
they don't require site plan
'cause there's no more floor area.
So their final step would be board of appeals
and then they'd go straight to permit.
So by board of appeals anything has to be determined
and figured out and finalized.
Okay. In this step, no, for us, for DPW,
they would like a principal figured out in a draft
accomplished prior to court appeals.
Okay. Madam Chair? Yes, sir.
In a, in a situation like this,
my immediate reaction is disapprove.
You know, we don't have agreement
and we're asked to render an opinion on something
that's not agreed to by both parties.
But I sense that staff is comfortable
proceeding with conditions.
Am I understanding this correctly?
I will defer to Eric on their condition,
the conditions we outlined, which brings me to another,
if you turn to page six of seven in your staff
Report, that's quite quite a few
17.
There are, there are 17.
Well they are not labeled conditions,
but those are the conditions.
So once we get to that, if we get to that,
those are the conditions.
Plus number 18, no, 18,
The staff is planning staff is comfortable with 17.
If the condition that Eric suggested were to go through
planning would be okay with that as well.
But as long as DPW was fine with that, if they weren't fine
with that, staff would support that as well.
And you're fine with that.
And to answer the question, yes, the Department
of Public Works is fine with the
condition as I presented it.
Can you give us a a written
or can you, can you
I think I can assist with that again.
So I I think it would be inclusion of condition 18, which,
and correct me if I'm wrong,
but the condition would be that the applicant
and public works department enter into a mutually
satisfactory public works agreement prior to
making the application to the board
of appeals for conditional use.
Does that work for you? Yes. Okay, good. Okay.
Now anything else Rob?
No ma'am. Okay. I have one more question.
Madam Chairman, why did it take this long again to get,
you had a meeting this morning, why didn't, why is it,
why is it this long in the process?
Why wouldn't it have done before?
Seems to me that maybe you could have
having an eight o'clock meeting
that had a planning commission
Doesn't seem like good planning.
There was no meeting at eight o'clock.
The, the comment said they needed to agree prior to
Oh, okay.
I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I said
Up to o Alright. Alright.
And there was that comment came out 25 day review was at
least two weeks ago and as I understand it,
there were some email exchanges yesterday.
Okay. I Was not privy to that.
And to clarify with your question,
yesterday was not the first attempt at communication.
There were phone calls and emails back
and forth between the applicant
and the Department of Public Works.
The objection to the Public works agreement was raised
by the applicant yesterday, which is different from,
there was no communication until yesterday.
Okay. Yeah, that's okay. Thank you for the clarifying.
Alright. Yes ma'am.
My name is Cheryl Tomi with Lane Engineering.
I'm the project drafter for this project.
I've, I've worked on it throughout the years with us today.
We also have our project engineer Brittany Wallace,
who can answer any technical questions you may have.
The owner, Jonathan Bier and Byler
and our attorney Steve Mehan.
Rob Gunther gave a great overview of the project
and I would be happy to ask, answer any questions
that you have, just give a brief overview of
generally what we're proposing
and what he had said already is that the,
it's an existing mine, it's there.
We have an entrance that's already in place
and the office, the different,
the different plants that are there,
those are all gonna stay in place
and those are gonna be continued to be used.
We're not proposing anything new for that.
The trucks per day is gonna stay at a
hundred trucks per day.
We're not proposing any increases in the trucks
or the hours of operation.
So you're not going to see a change in the,
an increase in the traffic going to and from the site.
It's just we're proposing an expansion of the mining pond
so that the mine can continue to stay in business
and expand the life of the mine by about 50 years
as market conditions allow.
As a part of this expansion, as he had shown, you know,
the, we're proposing the road improvements
to Merri Corner Road, we've also proposed to
reroute the tax ditch that does go through the middle
of the site to go around the exterior
of the mining pond.
And then inside of that we'll have a,
a visual screening berm with plantings on top
and then even, you know, further interior
to the site will have an access road
and then it will be the expansion pond.
Everything will expand towards the west
and it'll slowly happen over those 50 years.
What you'll see initially are the berms being established
as well as the rerouted public
drainage association tax ditch.
Do you have any questions for us at this time?
Any road improvement questions or storm water?
We'd be happy to answer them.
Yes. Tony, I have a question.
You, you suggested the, you know, the slow walk east? Yes.
Or sorry, west and and south of the property when,
with the exception of the rerouting of the tax disc, when
would we expect to see the tree clearing?
The tree clearing At this time they're in their phase
four, so they've been approved for 119 acres.
So they're, they're working in that additional 19 acres
that they were approved last year.
So eventually, you know, as we go through this process
for approvals for this phase five, they'll continue
to work westward for the removal
of those trees to the south.
It's really as they grow the mining pit,
and it depends on what direction they're going to start
to grow the mining pit, it's gonna be a combination of
dry mining and then, you know, as they get down
to the water level, then the, the
dredge will continue the mining.
So really it's when they want to
expand to the south to to be able to to,
So it's not necessary for initial berm construction
or no rerouting of the tactics. What you'll
See initially for the berm construction
as you've brought up, is they will need
to strip some topsoil
and other material in order to construct those berms.
And they have some room to be able to do that with,
you know, the existing farm fields
that you see open at this time.
So over years, years out, yes.
Over years without having you
to put a number on it, that's fine.
Yeah,
Yeah.
We, we, when it was approved last May
for the nine additional 19 acres, we approximated
that they had about five years left of material,
maybe a little bit more than that
and this will be the slow walk over.
But you still one schedule with that.
Yeah, that schedule would still be appropriate. Yes.
Yeah. And then this mining expansion will give them an
additional 50 as market
allows 50 years.
You guys have always done a nice job of,
of your berms and everything.
Thank you. Okay, any other questions?
Can I get a public hearing?
Oh, public comment comments?
We're gonna bring the Yes ma'am,
I introduce yourself.
Yes, good morning. I'm Kelly Ireland.
I am an adjoining property owner.
I own both the lot that is across the street as well
as the an owner
of the 200 acre agricultural farm across the street.
I have no illusions that there'll be any stopping this
project and I do respect that property owners have the right
to do things within reason with their properties,
but adjoining property owners should also have the right
to not be negatively impacted by those activities.
My ask is that there's a potential condition
that there be an honest assessment of the, that
actively engages adjoining landowners of the current
and potential impacts of the plan.
So we can look at ways to minimize those impacts
and potential risk with more in-depth considerations.
Specifically for noise
and vibrations, light pollution,
local air quality impacts related to dust
and exhaust groundwater.
It's a large amount of groundwater
that would potentially be exposed with this full expansion.
The impacts to our wells.
Looking at the long history of Biosolid application
on these agricultural fields
and any potential impacts of making that
exposed to groundwater.
We'd also like to look at the entrances,
both the number and location.
We've been talking about one entrance,
but there are actually more than one place that the pit is
accessed currently.
I'd also like to ask that there be impacts, attempts
to minimize the impacts while installing
the berms around the area.
Currently there's a significant amount of dust
and sediment along the roads
and my fear is that even just installing the measures
for mitigation, if we don't look at that further,
will create additional impacts.
I saw that some of the core values of Byers was
to always do the right thing.
I hope that we will have an opportunity to engage.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you.
Any other public comment?
You have anything and you didn't have anything else? I got.
Okay. Do
the commissioners have any questions?
Okay, Madam Chair. Yes.
Having considered the testimony presented
and having reviewed the findings outlined in the staff
report, be it hereby resolved that the planning commission
regarding the request by by Byler materials LLC
for concept plan approval for a
215.555 acre expansion
of an existing major extraction operation in the
agricultural zoning district,
which is more particularly described in planning
and zoning file SP number 26 dash oh one dash oh one seven
oh here finds the concept plan is consistent with the goals
and objectives of the Queenan County 22 comprehensive plan.
The concept plan is consistent with the Queen County zoning
and subdivision regulations.
I'd also like to incorporate the findings from the staff
report into this motion.
And here are the conditions. One.
Proper controls
and methods are maintained to minimize truck mud, tracting,
or dust plumes in dry times with wind swift suppression.
Two. The facilities continue to be adequately designed
and maintained to free dirt and debris from the wheels
and undercarriage of trucks prior
to entering Merrick Corner Road.
Three. All soil conservation district
approvals are maintained.
Four. The hours of operation will be consistent
with the approval of condition use case number B OA dash
one nine dash 0 4 9.
Any changes require, require additional approvals.
Five Haul trucks shall adhere to the approved haul route
as discussed and presented.
Six. The use of dredge loader haul truck
and excavator during daytime
and nighttime hours must adhere
to the standoff distances outlined in the outlined in the
staff report and in the sound study dated March 5th, 2026.
Number seven, material storage piles cannot exceed
45 feet in height.
Number eight, the applicant submits as-built updates
to the Board of Appeals and Department of Planning
and Zoning yearly on the anniversary of Board
of Appeals approval or on a schedule determined
by the Board of Appeals.
Number nine. The applicant agrees
to an annual inspection 10.
All State permits are in place prior
to final permitting by Queen Ens County.
11. Any document, any legal documents are approved
and reviewed by the Planning commission attorney.
12. Any future mining phases
or changes to the end use plan must return
to the planning Commission for a recommendation to the Board
of Appeals for an amendment to the conditional use.
13. Any and all financial assurities for reclamation
landscaping, stormwater management
and enforcement, et cetera, are in place
before final permits are granted.
14. There shall be no truck parking on Merrick Corner Road,
no stacking or parking outside of the gate.
No Jake brakes and no tailgate slamming either on onsite
or on the public road.
The applicant shall post a sign with a notice
regarding these restrictions.
15. Any requirements
by the Queen Anne's County Roads Department must be
satisfactorily addressed.
16 Conditions of approval for the relocation
of the tax ditch found in the letter from the Caroline Soil
Conservation District dated November 10th, 2025 and
provided in the staff report must be
satisfactorily addressed.
17. Any outstanding documentation
or comments stemming from agency reviews are addressed prior
to Board of Appeals submittal.
18. The applicant
and the Department of Public Works must reach a satisfactory
public works agreement prior to Board
of Appeals application.
And having considered the testimony presented
and having reviewed the findings outlined in the staff
report, be it hereby resolve that the planning commission
regarding the request by Byler materials LLC
for a 215.555 acre expansion
of an existing major extraction operation in agricultural
zoning district, which is more particularly described
in planning and zoning file.
SP 26 dash oh one dash oh one seven oh hereby
forwards a favorable recommendation, recommendation
to the Board of Appeals under sections 18, one dash 14
C seven and 18 one dash 95 E.
Second We have a first, the second.
All in favor. Excuse me, Madam Chair, under
Discussion?
Yes. Discussion. First in light of Ms.
Ireland, was it public comments?
I'd like to suggest an, an additional
condition onto Commissioner de Otis's motion
that the applicant engaged the surrounding citizens
to address any potential concerns to their,
to their, to their, to.
Let's see what I wanna phrase this to, to, to hear the,
to meet with local citizens,
adjoining neighbors specifically
to understand their concerns
and do their best to address them.
So could we get a motion to amend the motion on the floor
to include that additional condition?
We can accept that as a friendly amendment.
Can we not do what?
Accept that as a friendly amendment under Robert's rules?
Well, you should still, because there's a motion on the
floor that hasn't been voted on yet.
Move to amend that motion and then you could all vote on it.
I, if I may inject, I I listen to the citizen's
testimony, you know, adequate,
but I'm, my thought was going to, that would be more
of a planning and zoning requirement across the board,
not just to this particular project.
Like I'm, I'm not really sure I should, that I'm,
I I would be willing to make it a condition
of this particular project, rather.
I think it's a discussion with planning and zoning
or the county on, on projects of this type
or magnitude across the board.
So that's my feeling on this.
And most of her, my thoughts were that most of her
concerns appear to have been handled in the 17th
Place.
I I was thinking about that as I was
reading them as well and 18
Point. Some of them,
I'm, I'm sorry.
I'm sure not allowed to speak,
but I think that the reports were done without any,
any engagement or the ability to ground truth.
Some of those findings.
I wanna be a good neighbor, I wanna have good neighbors.
The sound report, for example,
we can hear the sounds at night.
So it being 50 decibels,
just a conversation at the property line,
depending on weather conditions cannot be true.
I'm sure that it was tested
and that was the case at some amount of operation,
but there's lights and sounds throughout the night
and just an opportunity
to engage the way the process is currently set up.
The public notice at the end
of the road was my first opportunity
to know this could be engaged with,
and the stamp report was already directed by that point.
So, and I apologize for being
No, and I think it was clear Ms.
Ar, Ms. Ms. Ireland, when you made your testimony
that you are not necessarily opposed
to this from a property rights perspective,
it's just you'd like to be included
in progress as it's made.
We've definitely impacted my property
and my property use are impacted by this
Project.
Yeah. I'm sorry, we're not really supposed to be q
and a with you, but appreciate your testimony.
Okay. Have you ever made any complaints to the
zoning department or has anyone
ever made any, say opinion and
Zoning?
No. Since we're engaging, I said I want it to be a good
No, I understand.
And that I'm not trying to be argument my intention,
But there is a difference between, you know,
this is gonna be 17 years initially, unless Brent
and Barrett and it'll be over
and now expanding to 49 years additional,
it's a lot of water on top of a lake is 60 acres.
This is gonna be 3 28. I'm,
I'm concerned that The impacts
Haven't.
Okay. We've heard, we've heard. Thank you have, well,
Can I ask one question in the same vein,
do you allow tailgate slamming in on your property?
Do you have people that violate it?
Not to my knowledge. I mean, I'm not saying not,
it's not ever happened, but certainly we will get rid of it
Every effort To make sure it doesn't happen.
Absolutely. Absolutely. It was trapped
On the road.
Sounds like it might be happening. Sorry, I have a question.
How long has Byler been in,
in existence
In the, as far as in Queen Anne County?
At the mine or in total? In,
In, in Queen Anne County.
So we bought into the mine in 2013.
Was the mine there prior to it? Was there prior? Yes.
Okay. Do you know when it started?
I believe it was 2007. It was around there.
That's when it was created? Yeah. Correct.
Okay.
So
Right now, just procedure, there's a motion on the floor.
There was a motion to amend. It sounds like it wasn't
Seconded.
So I get a second to the amend.
Okay, let's go back with the motion.
Can I, I have a first and a second.
Can we vote please? All in favor? Oh, wait a minute.
Rob, you have something? There's
Two things you have to vote on.
Just FYI, the concept plan approval
and then separately recommendations.
Ms. De Otis,
She combined, if I read right, I
Just think you need to vote on both
of those separately. Okay.
Alright, we're gonna go with the first one, okay? Okay.
For the 18. Okay, so I have to read
All of that again?
No, just the last one. We'll, we'll do that separately.
Okay.
No, I think just to clarify, you can keep your motion to
find the con concept plan consistent with the
comprehensive plan and Queen AIDS county zoning
and subdivision regulations subject to the 18 conditions.
Vote on that and then make a motion on the favorable
or unfavorable recommendation to the Board of Appeals.
Okay. You don't have to read it. Okay. Thank, thank you.
Correct. Okay. So we have a motion, we second
Motion we have a second for the 18. Correct.
With con concept Plan approval.
You have a motion right now for concept plan approval
with the 18 conditions and a second. Okay.
All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? A Okay.
And lemme just read this again. Okay.
So we'll you gonna read that for second one.
Having considered the testimony presented
and having reviewed the findings outlined in the staff
report, be it hereby resolved that the planning commission
regarding the request by Byler materials LLC
for a 215.555 acre expansion
of an existing major extraction operation in the
agricultural zoning district,
which is more particularly described
in planning and zoning file.
SP number 26 dash zero one dash 0 1 7 0
hereby four is a favorable recommendation to the Board
of Appeals under sections 18 1 14 C seven
and 18 one dash 95 E
Second.
All in favor? Aye. Aye.
And just as a FYI
or for you, it would be nice if you talk to your neighbors.
We'll certainly do that. Absolutely. We'll engage with that.
That's great. Yeah, that's great. Any opposed? Opposed?
Okay with that Ben was opposed too, just so you
Know. Not opposed
Oh, are you?
Yeah. To go to the Board of Appeals to go to the Board of
Appeals to make a, to make a favorable
recommendation to the Board of Appeals.
There's already a condition on the application
that they can't have the Board of Appeals hearing
until this agreement is resolved. Did
This Say that again?
There is already a condition on the concept plan
application that they cannot proceed to the Board of Appeals
until the Public Works agreement matter is
mutually resolved.
I understand that, but I was under the impression
that at some point we're gonna include this acknowledgement
of the citizens' observations in a more formal fashion.
And perhaps procedurally I've made a mistake
and didn't get that in, in the original motion.
There was a motion to amend my motion to add that.
And it, it didn't get,
it didn't pass. It didn't get a second.
We didn't get a second. We didn't get a second. Okay.
You, you could certainly on your vote
for the favorable consideration to the Board
of Appeals express some of your concerns.
Well, I'd like to do that, please.
In that I would hope that we could
in the future include wording
that makes it clear in these approvals that the
applicant has to speak to the neighbors
when this has been raised.
Now this is for futures.
I don't see it as a condition on this approval,
but I support Commissioner Lay in
making sure that the citizens' comments are acknowledged
by the planning commission
And, and I I express in, in declining to amend my emotion.
I I feel like it's not something
that should be case specific to this project,
but rather a broader planning
and zoning. Do you know what I'm saying?
I understand that. I would've gone
with both saying it's okay to do it here
and let's get to work on a underlying
Understood.
So just to clarify for the record,
we have favorable concept plan approval, which was a vote
of four to one and a favorable recommendation to the Board
of Appeals, which was a vote of three to two. Yes.
Correct. Right. Okay.
Four, four to two. Say four to two. Okay.
Yeah, I was gonna say, yeah, I was gonna say,
let me count that again.
I don't do math. You know, Five isn't
Five to one and four to two.
The seven people. Well you I don't vote.
I don't Unless over time chair
because it shouldn't need to break a talk.
Right, right. At least that's
What she told me last Meeting.
Right. Going off that premise.
That's what it's any public comment.
Nothing. Okay. Well
Just, just to be clear, that was, so that was the end.
The public comment you just asked for was
for generic public comment
At the end of the meeting.
Yes. Generic public comment. So
I, I actually would like to comment on Ben's comment.
You know, I look at this forum here,
this venue here right now, to be the opportunity
for the people to engage with the owners of the properties.
I question, I'm not saying it's
bad to meet with the community.
I think you should maybe, but to what end,
you know, miss Island.
Nice, nice lady. Right. Very respectful.
I mean, I, and I, I know your family, who you are,
but all the
jabber John in the world isn't probably gonna change her
mind about what's going on there.
And I'm not trying to put words in your
mouth, that's all I understand.
I'm just, I just question to what end.
Those things really work.
You know, here's the venue right now, we're all sitting here
taking this stuff in.
You have an opportunity to speak your
mind, bring your friends in.
Quantity counts. Apparently.
I'm the only one at, yeah. Yeah. Okay.
That's all I'm gonna say. I guess I'd see it the other side
saying it can't possibly hurt.
Right? Yeah. Okay.
Alright. Can I get a motion? You have a motion to adjourn?
Can I get a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye.
So moved.