[0:09] To order the Queen Annes County Planning Commission
[0:12] for Thursday, June 11th, 2026.
[0:15] And we'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance.
[0:19] I pledge allegiance to the flag
[0:21] of the United States of America
[0:24] to the Republic for which it stands.
[0:27] One nation under God, indivisible, liberty,
[0:31] and justice for all.
[0:42] Okay. Public comment
[0:47] there being none.
[0:48] You have anything? No. Okay.
[0:51] Updates, legislation and legal matters. Amy and Stephanie.
[1:05] All right, Good morning. Good
[1:07] Morning. Morning. So
[1:08] I have quite a few updates for you
[1:10] regarding text amendments that you've seen yourself.
[1:12] Stephanie Jones, long range principle planner, sorry,
[1:15] text amendments that you've seen in the last two months.
[1:17] So it might take a bit, but we'll get through it.
[1:20] The commissioners this past Tuesday did have many
[1:23] of those on there for actions.
[1:26] So 26 0 4, which was to add boat sales
[1:29] and repair to Mars to the list of uses
[1:32] that could occupy more than 65,000 square feet
[1:36] in the airport protection.
[1:37] Ken Island Gateway District, they did approve that
[1:40] and that will become effective July 25th also as well.
[1:45] And these next two as well were approved
[1:48] and will become effective.
[1:49] The same date as I just mentioned, 26 0 7,
[1:52] which was specific to the WVC, which was
[1:55] to increase the floor area ratio to 40% that was approved.
[1:59] And then also 26 0 8, also in the wfe WVC,
[2:04] which was to allow commercial apartments essentially to move
[2:07] that commercial apartment onto any other same floor
[2:11] was adopted and then will become effective on July 25th.
[2:14] So those were three that were voted on.
[2:17] Also 20 citizen sponsored text amendments.
[2:19] And then 26 12, which was the update to forest conservation,
[2:23] the commissioners did approve that.
[2:24] They also did approve it with an amendment.
[2:27] That amendment was to address, essentially
[2:30] to address solar projects that were to come in
[2:34] and essentially might be located on forested properties.
[2:37] That amendment specifically what it says is
[2:40] for properties larger than 25 acres that have 50%,
[2:43] that are 50% forested
[2:45] and include priority areas are not allowed
[2:48] to clear more than 20% of the, of the forest.
[2:52] All the A forestation is to be accomplished onsite
[2:54] or offsite fee and lie will not be accepted.
[2:57] And then a higher a forestation rate,
[2:59] which will be one and a half to one.
[3:01] So that was the amendment. Sorry,
[3:03] Stephanie, what's the, you said other proposals in there
[3:07] somewhere in mid-sentence, what
[3:10] Was it regarding what they can
[3:11] or their conditions or, yeah,
[3:13] You said there was other, there was a vague term in
[3:16] there. Sorry.
[3:18] From priority properties larger than 25 priority areas.
[3:21] What? What? Oh, priority areas. Okay.
[3:23] So those are listed in the code essentially.
[3:25] Those are some environmental, they include areas
[3:29] that might be your endangered species areas.
[3:31] Okay. Areas that kind of already,
[3:35] I designated forested interior dwelling birds.
[3:38] So if there's two or more of those on the property,
[3:40] then this would be subject as long as it's over 25 acres
[3:44] and 50% forested.
[3:45] Thanks. So essentially this is to assist with
[3:48] what would be those properties that might be solar.
[3:50] Correct. And have forested lands that is,
[3:56] was adopted and it will beco become effective July one as
[4:00] that's the date of the effective for forest conservation.
[4:04] The commissioners, that was the legislative actions
[4:08] that were approved on Tuesday night.
[4:11] There were two that will be sent back to you.
[4:14] This was the 26 0 9 and 26 10.
[4:17] This was the non-contiguous
[4:19] and TDR administrative subdivision specific to open space.
[4:24] The commissioners proposed an amendment
[4:26] and that essentially is to prohibit those uses
[4:29] that are non-agricultural on those properties
[4:32] that would come in and basically have an
[4:35] approved lot line adjustment.
[4:36] And those uses are specific to minor extractions,
[4:39] public recreation, shooting clubs, and outdoor recreation.
[4:43] So those are uses
[4:44] that are permitted in open space at this time.
[4:46] But if a property owner was to have a lot line adjustment
[4:50] approved, if this amendment is to go forward,
[4:54] then it would be, they would not be able
[4:56] to do those uses on those, those that open space property.
[5:00] So it'll come back to you for your July meeting
[5:02] for a recommendation back to the county commissioners.
[5:06] And then two more, there'll be a public hearing,
[5:10] two public hearings on June 30th, and that is for 26 0 6.
[5:14] And that's the suburban commercial of impervious up to 80%
[5:18] for your commercial and industrial uses.
[5:21] That exists as, as of December 31st.
[5:23] And then 26 0 5, which is the gas station tax amendment
[5:28] to change the measurement
[5:29] and where the measurement is taken.
[5:31] That public hearing will also be on June 30th.
[5:35] That meeting is a week following the, the normal date
[5:39] because the committee, they've moved that meeting
[5:40] because of the primary election, which was
[5:43] to take place on that same day.
[5:45] Sure. One other thing, I wanted to address these, that's all
[5:49] for text amendments,
[5:50] but we did talk a little bit last time about bills
[5:55] that were passed, essentially this past session.
[5:59] One, I wanted to bring up that
[6:01] and kind of clarify a little bit, is the one
[6:03] that was specific to the comp plan.
[6:05] We did have some questions over what really
[6:07] that meant for the comp plan.
[6:10] I kind of wanna take a step backwards
[6:11] to the 25 general session.
[6:15] General assembly session.
[6:17] There was a bill passed essentially that changed the outline
[6:22] of a comp plan from 12 visions to eight principles.
[6:25] And those principles are land, transportation,
[6:28] housing economy, equity, resilience, resilience
[6:32] and place in ecology.
[6:35] So the one question was specific to equity
[6:37] and what that kind of meant for the comp plan.
[6:41] That 25 bill basically identifies equity
[6:44] as engage all sectors of the community in plan development
[6:48] to ensure diverse voices are heard
[6:50] and that needs of undeserved,
[6:52] underserved populations are prioritized.
[6:55] So then in this past 26 session, they kind of went on
[6:59] and elaborated on what had
[7:01] to be put into the comprehensive plan, specific
[7:04] to all of those principles.
[7:06] And then specific to the equity portion,
[7:10] what it says is that the needs of overburdened
[7:15] and underserved communities need to be addressed as well
[7:17] as interest of populations in the county
[7:19] that typically have not
[7:21] participated in the planning process.
[7:22] So they want to try to have more people essentially
[7:25] kind of involved in the process.
[7:28] The equity element also shall include report,
[7:32] shall include information from the report
[7:34] of the Commission on Environmental Justice
[7:36] and Sustainable Communities, which is a report
[7:38] that's completed every year through MDE as well.
[7:44] MDP, Maryland Department of Planning is required
[7:46] to provide information to the county, which we kind
[7:50] of already go out and grab the information that's needed.
[7:53] But this is them kind of saying we have
[7:55] to provide you with that information.
[7:57] And then there's also a portion that indicates
[8:00] what the element may include.
[8:02] So those are essentially aren't a,
[8:04] that's not a shall statement, it's a may,
[8:06] but that includes promote a broader civic engagement in the
[8:09] public decision making process, address health risk
[8:13] and environmental problems in overburden
[8:15] and underserved communities and prioritize improvements
[8:18] and programs that address the needs of overburdened
[8:20] and underserved communities.
[8:21] So this past bill really what it says, this is
[8:26] what we have to do, and then a portion
[8:28] of this is kind of a may statement.
[8:30] So that's kind of where the equity portion is.
[8:33] If you have any other questions, I can answer them now.
[8:38] What, what if any impact does
[8:40] that have in in the comprehensive plan that we've already,
[8:44] The one that's been completed, formulated
[8:45] And, and So we don't have to go in
[8:48] and change our comp plan right now.
[8:50] We would have to address it with the next comp plan next.
[8:53] Okay. Yep. Wanna make
[8:54] Sure within the next comp plan or bef
[8:56] or at the next comp plan at the next, when,
[8:59] when we do the next Okay.
[9:00] Comp plan. Yep. Thanks. Thank you.
[9:04] Just like 10 years out, no less than that. It's
[9:07] Closer than you think.
[9:08] It was approved in 22, so come on.
[9:12] I I, I, I know. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
[9:17] And it's like it was a year ago. Yeah, right. Exactly.
[9:22] Yeah. Yep.
[9:24] So I have lighter updates.
[9:25] I wanna let you know about some of the initiatives
[9:29] that staff is involved in.
[9:31] One is I've been really excited about,
[9:33] and it's pertinent to our update
[9:37] to the forest conservation plan.
[9:39] Just to let you know that we have traditionally collected
[9:43] fee in lieu for forest conservation,
[9:45] but it's very difficult to find projects where we can spend
[9:48] that fee in lie money
[9:50] because it has to be on public land. So what
[9:53] Are you doing with it?
[9:54] So here's what we're doing with it.
[9:56] We have collaborated with the town of Centerville.
[10:01] Mike Whitehill is, was working with the YMCA
[10:06] on the, their and their buffer enhancement plan.
[10:10] That was a part of their site plan update and approval.
[10:16] We have collaborated with them
[10:18] to utilize our forest conservation funding to create
[10:24] a, a forested area on the YMCA property,
[10:28] which is public property.
[10:31] And at the same time we're working with the Department
[10:34] of Parks and Rec
[10:35] and DPW to implement a trail system
[10:40] that will run through county properties.
[10:44] Certainly we're going to start with the YMCA property within
[10:47] that forested area,
[10:49] but as a part of that project, we're going to expand that
[10:55] walking trail to include all of the county properties
[10:59] and the Board of ed property.
[11:01] And while the annexation project has been approved,
[11:06] and as that project comes to fruition, being mindful
[11:11] of connectivity between that new development
[11:16] and hopefully connecting
[11:17] with the town's Millstream Trail Mill Street Trail.
[11:22] So that is a project that Rob Gunter
[11:25] and Doug Summers have been managing
[11:29] and then expanding that management
[11:31] to include other agencies when
[11:33] the trail system was added to the project.
[11:36] So that is one of the best case scenarios
[11:39] for implementing our forest conservation fee and lie dollars
[11:44] because it really will serve the, the community.
[11:46] So I don't know when we're going to start that.
[11:52] We are going To attempt to have trees in the ground
[11:57] before or by December.
[12:01] They gotta get at least the base of the trail in.
[12:04] So that trail work doesn't destroy trees
[12:07] that we just put in the ground
[12:08] and then we have to replant them.
[12:11] That timeline's pretty tight, but we're
[12:14] Moving forward.
[12:15] Who's doing the construction
[12:18] Parks is gonna hire somebody out?
[12:19] I'm not sure. Okay.
[12:20] No, but they're managing that,
[12:21] that portion of the project. They
[12:22] Better get started pretty quick.
[12:24] Yeah, they're gonna put it out.
[12:26] It's been a very fast turnaround.
[12:28] Barrel's doing a great job.
[12:30] I appreciate the help that parks has given us,
[12:33] but it's, it's a very tight timeline.
[12:36] Good. So, excuse me,
[12:40] Are these trails going through neighboring farms?
[12:43] No. Okay. Yeah, they're all on public land. Okay. Yeah.
[12:47] Thanks. Now, once, once the Ann, once the
[12:52] Providence farm development occurs, it will connect
[12:56] with private lands,
[12:58] but that should be within the area that has been zoned t
[13:02] and d traditional neighborhood.
[13:04] Yeah. That should be within the town's residential
[13:07] and commercial district.
[13:09] Got it. A couple of other, we're,
[13:14] we're sitting on a lot of task forces,
[13:16] so I thought I'd let you know about them.
[13:18] We're currently participating in the Marlin Farm Dominion
[13:22] Task Force, which is working on the project that
[13:27] water and wastewater is managing to bring Marlin Farm
[13:31] and Dominion into the wastewater,
[13:34] the comprehensive water and sewer plan.
[13:37] That amendment was just approved to re-designate
[13:42] the Marlin Farm Dominion area to future service
[13:45] as we're looking to take those parcels
[13:50] with failing septic systems offline
[13:52] and bring them into the county's sewer system.
[13:58] So that task force continues to meet,
[14:00] to evaluate that project. We're also, is there
[14:04] A timeline on that?
[14:12] It is. It is happening now.
[14:15] I mean, just because they're looking to, well,
[14:18] They're meeting now.
[14:19] They're meeting now, but they're also taking definitive
[14:21] action by amending the wastewater, the water
[14:25] and sewer plan.
[14:27] So the feasibility study is
[14:31] what will be the next step.
[14:33] So it will be not fast tracked,
[14:35] but cont a priority project moving forward.
[14:39] So should be happening
[14:43] pretty expeditiously.
[14:45] Amy, is that already built into our sewer allocation
[14:48] that we have capacity?
[14:49] It is hooking up failing septic systems in
[14:54] Southern Kent Island and Dominion
[14:57] and Marlin Farm has long been identified in the plan
[15:02] and also in the sewer allocation policy
[15:05] where all the allocations are outlined.
[15:07] Which treatment plant will take that effluent?
[15:10] It's the, the Kent Island wastewater treatment plant.
[15:14] Okay. Down Route eight. That down Route eight up, yes.
[15:18] Terrapin Park. Yeah. By the high school.
[15:21] That's the only wastewater treatment plant
[15:23] that the county Okay.
[15:25] Operates. Yeah. That's our growth area. Yep.
[15:28] Like, and one more thing, Amy, do you, do we know,
[15:31] do you know if that's to be constructed in similar fashion
[15:35] to the Southern can island extension with the step
[15:38] septic tank effluent pumping rather
[15:40] than a dedicated hard line? Do we know?
[15:42] I think that is what is being discussed
[15:44] Still being on.
[15:45] Okay, fantastic. Thank you.
[15:47] And in, in the same vein,
[15:49] I'll update you on the moratorium task force,
[15:52] which does continue to meet as a part
[15:55] of the county commissioner's resolution to
[15:59] evaluate the comp, the comprehensive water and sewer plan,
[16:02] but specifically the sewer allocation policy.
[16:07] Looking at how the county is going to designate the
[16:12] rerated flow of 300,000 gallons
[16:15] that is still currently being discussed.
[16:19] It is complicated and the task force is
[16:24] working hard to put the commissioners in the best possible
[16:27] position to make sure that there's equity
[16:30] and that those allocation pots are very clearly
[16:35] identified and that the process to apply for
[16:38] especially residential projects is just clearly
[16:44] identified and in a way that will maximize
[16:48] what is left of our capacity for the best projects.
[16:53] Additionally, there's one last task force
[16:56] that is being managed by the Department of Public Works,
[16:59] and that is the MIDSHORE three task force, which is
[17:03] the Queen Annes County Landfill.
[17:09] Talbot County has taken its turn,
[17:11] Caroline County has taken its turn
[17:13] and has extended its commitment
[17:15] and Queen Annes County is next.
[17:18] And then Kent County is the last
[17:21] in our MIDSHORE three re in our Midshore region.
[17:26] That task force is looking at the current site
[17:30] and potential alternate sites for
[17:36] the landfill in Queen Annes County.
[17:41] So they're talking about moving it from considering Okay,
[17:45] there's been, there was a lot of concern
[17:47] that should make a lot of people happy.
[17:49] And then a new neighborhood that's, I'm happy
[17:52] Depends on where plan B is.
[17:56] Pardon? Data center moratorium.
[17:58] Oh, I forgot about the Mor Moratorium. Yeah.
[18:01] There's also another moratorium
[18:03] that the county commissioners enacted
[18:05] and that is the data center moratorium
[18:09] to give staff a year to investigate
[18:14] and draft a text, a text amendment
[18:18] to address more data center development.
[18:21] Staff had already been working on this,
[18:24] but it is a, a very pressing planning issue.
[18:28] So we'll be working on that proposal
[18:33] and bringing it forward.
[18:35] Currently we are not preempted in terms
[18:39] of the sighting of data centers.
[18:41] So there's a great fear
[18:43] that the data centers may be cited in
[18:48] our agricultural district.
[18:50] And as of right now, clearly they're not permitted
[18:54] and there is not a preemptive process to cite a data center
[18:59] in our agricultural zoning district right now.
[19:03] We would consider them materially similar
[19:06] to warehousing uses,
[19:07] which would be permitted in our industrial areas.
[19:12] And that development would be limited to 65,000 square feet.
[19:16] So that is how our code currently addresses a data center.
[19:20] But having a materially similar use isn't as strong
[19:25] as a strong a position
[19:27] as having a very specific standard for a data center.
[19:31] So we have never had an application to date.
[19:34] If we did have an application,
[19:36] the standard I just cited would be the
[19:38] standard that would apply.
[19:41] Are we aware of anybody that's pondering submission?
[19:45] I, I haven't heard anything
[19:46] Unaware.
[19:47] Okay. We haven't been contacted, yeah. Yet.
[19:51] But it's good to get ahead of these things. Yes, it is.
[19:53] Be proactive rather than reactive.
[19:55] And the preemptive piece that you spoke about
[19:57] that's analogous to the solar
[19:59] and that would go through the Public Service commission
[20:02] or what body would manage
[20:04] That?
[20:05] No, this is not a public utility.
[20:05] It's just, I think there is concern that
[20:08] because of so many uses that we have seen in recent years
[20:13] where the state has taken a preemptive approach.
[20:17] Cannabis is a good example, that isn't a utility like solar.
[20:23] That has been a concern in a lot of jurisdictions
[20:27] that if we don't get specific standards on the books, that
[20:32] we could be going in that direction at a,
[20:34] So that would be done legislatively motion likely Correct.
[20:36] At the state level. Gotcha.
[20:40] And the last item that I have for you is,
[20:43] we have a conflict this year
[20:45] with the August Planning Commission meeting.
[20:50] It coincides with the Summer
[20:53] MACO conference and over
[20:55] MACO is the acronym For, oh, Maryland Association
[20:58] of County Governments.
[21:00] There's a fall and winter conference every year.
[21:04] This year we, half of our, over half
[21:07] of our staff planning staff will be attending
[21:10] the Mako Conference.
[21:12] So we are going to cancel our August meeting
[21:16] and let any applicants know who may be getting close
[21:20] to their 25 day submittal that
[21:23] we have some July potential for agenda items,
[21:27] but that anyone who's queuing up will be placed on the
[21:30] September agenda.
[21:33] So we have a vacation in August.
[21:37] Okay. Anything else? That's
[21:39] Everything.
[21:40] Thanks. Any questions? Okay.
[21:44] Let's go to public hearings
[21:48] concept plan for the ER material.
[21:52] Don't forget the annual report.
[21:55] Oh, I'm sorry. She picked it up.
[21:58] Wanted to make sure the annual report going. Good.
[22:12] I'll be pleased.
[22:14] Good morning, Mary Ellen Gray.
[22:15] Senior Planner, as you know, at this time, every year the
[22:19] Maryland Department of Planning requires an annual report be
[22:22] submitted regarding our activities, the goal
[22:28] regarding annual development, permitting
[22:32] and planning related activities taking
[22:34] place in Queen S County.
[22:36] Before I talk about some salient data points
[22:40] that in this report, I wanna thank specifically Doug Summers
[22:44] who did a lot of the number crunching for this report,
[22:47] as well as a lot of staff across Queen Anne County,
[22:51] IT finance, department of Environment, mental Services,
[22:55] parks and Rec, public Works
[22:59] housing, economic tourism.
[23:01] And Jeff Frank also from finance,
[23:05] supplied some new information that was
[23:09] per a new reporting requirement this year
[23:12] regarding the reporting of impact fees.
[23:15] This is a new requirement that the county,
[23:20] that the, the state required the per
[23:25] our, our Our
[23:29] we to.
[23:31] We administer a program for the development of impact fees
[23:35] for essential public services, including schools, parks
[23:38] and recreation and fire protection.
[23:39] So as a result, we need to report how we,
[23:44] how much we collect and how we implement
[23:47] and the amount of fees
[23:50] that are implemented.
[23:53] So regarding impact fees, the total amount
[23:56] of impact fees collected from both, both residential and non
[23:59] and non-residential.
[24:01] And 2025 was
[24:03] $1,876,367
[24:07] and 7 cents.
[24:09] And of that 46% or $864,340
[24:13] and 14 cents was in the priority funding area.
[24:18] The bulk of the impact fees collected were for schools
[24:21] which totaled $1,531,101 and 75 cents.
[24:27] The schools utilized $2 million,
[24:29] 167,290 90,000
[24:34] of impact fee funds.
[24:35] And the fire districts utilized
[24:36] four hundred forty thousand eight hundred seventy seven thousand and twenty
[24:40] 25.
[24:42] Moving on to residential, 808 out
[24:46] of 160 units
[24:47] or 68%
[24:49] of the total residential units approved were located within
[24:52] the priority funding area.
[24:55] The number of a lots approved within the major subdivisions
[24:59] have been relatively consistent since 2022.
[25:03] A total of three hundred seventy three hundred and seventeen
[25:06] residential units were constructed within
[25:09] with 233 located within the priority funding area.
[25:14] And 84 outside of the priority funding area
[25:18] of these units within the PFA 109 units were located in
[25:22] age restricted community.
[25:24] Moving on to commercial,
[25:26] commercial growth data showed an increase in the number
[25:29] of approved, approved commercial sites,
[25:32] site plans over the past couple years from total
[25:35] of four in the calendar year, 2023 to six in 2024,
[25:40] and then eight in 2025.
[25:42] However, the gross building area constructed has remained
[25:45] fairly steady since 2024,
[25:48] which had 770,739
[25:52] to 67,739.
[25:54] 2025. And finally I'll conclude
[25:57] with agricultural preservation as of 2025,
[26:01] the county has permanently preserved 92,630 acres of land
[26:06] through various programs.
[26:09] So the planning staff recommends
[26:10] that the Planning Commission approve this report
[26:13] and request that staff send the 2025 Quin Anns County annual
[26:17] report to the Maryland Department of Planning
[26:19] and file a copy with the county commissioners.
[26:23] I will ask if anybody has any questions.
[26:28] No, ma'am. You sure gave us a lot of numbers. There's
[26:31] A lot of data.
[26:34] Thank you Mary Ellen. You're
[26:35] welcome. Any questions, recommendations?
[26:37] Yeah, I do have one. How many
[26:38] lots are available in the county? Do you know
[26:40] How many lots are available?
[26:41] There is, there's some charts in the, in this report
[26:47] I have to give back to you on that.
[26:49] I think we have the,
[26:52] there was a development capacity analysis
[26:56] to look in the appendix here
[26:59] About Appendix five.
[27:00] Appendix five, thank you. Yeah.
[27:05] 16,000 2 97. Thank you.
[27:09] 16,000 lots.
[27:11] Number, number of potential lots. Yes.
[27:13] Lot 16,297
[27:17] of potential lots.
[27:18] The potential lots for development.
[27:21] That's fine. Okay, fine.
[27:24] Do we have any statistics that tell us
[27:26] how many acres came out of agriculture in any given year
[27:31] Came out of agriculture?
[27:33] Not specifically.
[27:35] We, I, we could do a a, an analysis that of
[27:38] that looking at agriculture and break that down.
[27:43] We, I don't have that broken broken, we don't have
[27:46] that broken down specifically, but certainly we,
[27:48] It's more of a philosophical question than anything else,
[27:51] but something I'd personally be interested in. Sure.
[27:55] We, I, we could work with GIS on that, on
[27:57] that, on that data point. Yeah.
[27:59] Thank you. You're welcome. Yes ma'am.
[28:01] I would, we can sort of bring
[28:04] that information if you look at the development tables Yeah.
[28:07] For priority funding area versus non-priority funding area.
[28:12] Yeah. If it's a non-priority funding area,
[28:14] it's likely that it's
[28:15] Likely in agriculture. Yeah,
[28:17] Fair point. Yeah.
[28:18] Okay. So the 16,000 lots on
[28:23] the back, that, that's not approved lots
[28:26] or is that, is that a calculated amount based on the farms
[28:29] seven acres per parcel if the maximum, I guess.
[28:33] Correct. These are, these are lots
[28:35] that are available for development, right?
[28:37] They are, they are approved. They are approved. And
[28:39] These are, these are pot, these No, these are potential,
[28:43] these are lots that on appendix five, these are lots
[28:47] that are available for development.
[28:49] They have not been approved for development. Do
[28:50] They have their SRAs already?
[28:53] I mean I assume how many of them are, are
[28:56] to Ben's point on agricultural land farmland?
[29:00] So Them are in the pfas.
[29:03] Okay. So we looking at this chart, so they,
[29:07] we do have a broken down on which ones are pfas.
[29:10] I don't have that total. We don't have a broken down.
[29:16] I would have to total that out.
[29:17] Which, how many lots are in pfas?
[29:20] Let, let's look, look at the, hold on, on
[29:25] the chart.
[29:29] Okay, on page five,
[29:37] within pfas we have residential zoned acres with capacity.
[29:42] We have in, in the PFA 730 lots
[29:47] and residential parcel and lots with capacity.
[29:52] And in the PFA 545 inside
[29:57] and outside the PFA,
[30:03] oh, I'm getting a assistance from Stephanie.
[30:05] Sorry, because she has, she has more,
[30:08] I just wanna add a detail experience with that.
[30:10] Yeah, yeah. Detail about the development capacity analysis.
[30:12] Yeah. So this is analysis that is run by GIS by any means.
[30:17] It's not survey grade.
[30:19] It doesn't look in the details of, you know exactly
[30:22] where wetlands are.
[30:24] So it's not taking a fair point survey grade
[30:27] of the entire county in addressing
[30:29] how many lots can be created.
[30:31] So it's the best available technology
[30:35] that the GIS department has to understand potentially
[30:39] how many lots could be available
[30:41] to the best of their ability.
[30:43] So really it's not the number of lots
[30:45] that have been created, right.
[30:47] It's potential. Right.
[30:48] But definitely not to anything that has been done looked at
[30:53] for a subdivision.
[30:54] So let's add that
[30:56] Detail, right?
[30:58] Yeah, it's a, it's a development capacity, right?
[31:01] It's, it's what could potentially be, yeah,
[31:05] But By all means is the timeframe.
[31:07] I mean certainly so capacity would limit
[31:09] Development.
[31:10] So those things, things like that aren't looked at
[31:12] because I mean those things can't be baked into the
[31:15] GIS analysis.
[31:16] Right. And I think there's an explanation in here that says,
[31:19] you know, this is the best of ability
[31:22] that analysis could be done.
[31:24] It's not by any means exact,
[31:27] Well, I guess the concern I would voice is
[31:29] that you show 16,000, you know lots And for people
[31:33] that don't wanna see a great deal
[31:35] of growth at one point in time, that's a scary number.
[31:38] Yes. I, I realize that
[31:39] And without a qualifier to say
[31:42] no this isn't coming online next week.
[31:45] Right. No, and it's not. They're not Right.
[31:47] Proposals haven't been received. It's not
[31:49] that we've taken those applications
[31:51] or anything, it's just an analysis that has been run.
[31:56] The JIS, they're required to do it every three years.
[31:59] That's what's required of the annual report.
[32:02] So it's a number that has to be run at that point
[32:06] In the 2010 comp plan,
[32:08] I think there was a development capacity analysis run with
[32:13] that comp plan
[32:15] and then we tried to use the same as much as we could get
[32:19] as close as we could get that same analysis.
[32:22] Yeah. That they had used in 2010. 10. What was the number
[32:24] Back then? Do
[32:24] You know?
[32:25] I don't know. I do not have it on. Okay.
[32:28] But I can look it up. You just did. Okay.
[32:32] So the reason I asked the question was
[32:35] because according to your numbers,
[32:37] and I'm gonna oversimplify this
[32:39] and then, you know, hopefully you'll understand that,
[32:41] but your lots constructed are outpacing your
[32:45] lots approved by about 70.
[32:47] Right? So at some point on a over simplistic view,
[32:51] those two numbers are gonna converge
[32:53] where there's no lots available, that'll never happen
[32:57] because the market will change the value lot.
[32:59] The value of the lots will go up exponentially if need be.
[33:03] And, and there'll be more lots that come online.
[33:07] But the reason I ask this, I just read an article
[33:10] and I say the other day, I'm saying it use
[33:12] that term loosely, that the average home price in this
[33:16] county is like over half a million dollars.
[33:18] Now, now I dunno about you guys.
[33:21] I have children, I have grandchildren.
[33:23] Now we, luckily we have a farmer, children are on farms,
[33:26] but the average person, their kids are gonna leave here.
[33:32] And is this county looking at that to say, do we want
[33:37] to make everybody that already
[33:39] has a home wealthier 'cause their home goes up?
[33:42] Or do we want to try to make a place where it's affordable
[33:44] for many, including their children?
[33:50] Yeah, I could, I there
[33:51] Is that question ever been asked?
[33:54] Yes. The state really also has been asking
[33:57] that question more of on a statewide level, not not just
[34:01] Queen Anne specific.
[34:04] So it is something that is contemplated or
[34:08] Yeah, but I don't know that their ideals mesh with mine.
[34:13] What, which, where are they leaning?
[34:14] Are they trying to find to make housing more affordable?
[34:17] Are we to become California? You know,
[34:20] Agree.
[34:21] No, I mean, I mean the state, but
[34:24] You know where I'm Coming from,
[34:25] right? What I'm saying? Right.
[34:27] And the county obviously,
[34:28] I think in the comp plan we talk about looking at density
[34:32] and essentially size of lots.
[34:35] So that's gonna change your affordability
[34:37] essentially of a lot.
[34:39] So there are things in the comp plan
[34:41] that have been designated to look at affordability
[34:45] Of property.
[34:46] Well not discounting arts comment about the 16,000 lots.
[34:48] And that's scaring people. One way to lower the price
[34:51] of real estate is to increase the volume,
[34:53] increase the amount available, right, the supply. Right.
[34:56] That's Okay. Yep.
[35:00] Nope. The, the housing chapter and the but
[35:02] Don't touch the farms. Correct?
[35:04] I never said that. Never said that.
[35:06] Ask the farmer first though. Okay. It's up to the farmer.
[35:14] We're not mandating that they,
[35:16] they develop never have never.
[35:18] And I've never promoted that for certain. Okay.
[35:24] Okay. That it? Yes ma'am. Alright, anything else?
[35:30] Any other questions? Madam
[35:32] Chair, I would like to take staff's recommendation
[35:34] that the planning center, planning center planning,
[35:37] having reviewed now approve
[35:39] and request that the staff send the 2025 Queens County
[35:41] annual report to the Maryland Department of Planning
[35:44] and file a copy with county commissioners.
[35:47] Second, second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?
[35:51] Okay, second. Thank you Job
[35:54] Ll Thank you.
[35:55] We're gonna take a five minute break.
[36:05] Let's get back to session. Okay.
[36:10] Okay. Concept plan, Byler materials.
[36:17] Madam chair, I wanna first note for the record
[36:20] that notice containing the necessary info information
[36:23] regarding the application
[36:25] and notice of the public hearing was advertised in the Bay
[36:28] Times record observer on May 29th and June 5th.
[36:32] And it was posted on the website
[36:33] and notice of such is within the application file. Okay,
[36:38] Thank you.
[36:40] This may do we usually have a Yeah, I know.
[36:44] Well who's, who's presenting today? I am
[36:48] Steve's, Steve's outta the office.
[36:50] So I'm, I'm the pinch hitter today.
[36:52] Oh, okay. Good morning everybody.
[36:55] Rob Gunter Development Review Principle Planner.
[36:59] As mentioned, we have the folks from
[37:01] Byler Materials here this morning.
[37:04] They are proposing a 215.5 acre expansion
[37:08] of the existing Merrick Farm major extraction operation.
[37:12] This will be phase five of their project this morning.
[37:15] They are requesting concept plan approval
[37:18] and a favorable recommendation to the board of appeals.
[37:23] The project is located on the eastern side of the county in
[37:26] between Ingleside and Barclay outlined in black.
[37:31] You can see the 348 acre parcel is located at the corner of
[37:37] three 13 and Merrick Corner Road
[37:40] back in May of 26th.
[37:42] The zoning department did their annual inspection
[37:46] of the site and at
[37:47] that time it was determined, sorry about that.
[37:50] Everything was in compliance.
[37:56] The property resides in the agricultural zoning district
[38:00] and major extractions are conditional use in that district
[38:03] and require approval from the board of appeals.
[38:09] The phase five LOD limits
[38:11] of disturbance includes 215 acres of mining expansion area.
[38:17] That area is shown in the red dash line.
[38:20] It also includes 3.88 acres of road improvements
[38:24] along Merrick Corner Road.
[38:26] And that area is generally shown
[38:29] by the yellow dash line at the top.
[38:32] The yellow circle on the map is the approximate location
[38:35] of the existing site entrance
[38:37] and that entrance will remain
[38:40] with the future expansions if approved.
[38:43] The overall LED for the project
[38:46] would be 339 acres in total.
[38:50] So that would include this phase In all previous phases
[38:54] the project is proposing no new impr impervious area
[38:58] and no new floor area complies with the mining setbacks.
[39:03] And phase five will also comply with those setbacks.
[39:06] It's currently served by well and septic
[39:08] and will continue to be on average a hundred trucks a day,
[39:13] visit the site or truck trips a day, visit the site.
[39:16] That's to remain the same even with the expansion area.
[39:20] Those trucks remove approximately 343,000 cubic yards
[39:24] of material per year.
[39:26] The estimated lifespan of the project is just over 49 years
[39:31] and 17 million cubic yards
[39:34] of material will be removed.
[39:39] Excuse me, at the conclusion of the project,
[39:41] the depth will vary between 67 and 70 feet.
[39:47] Phase five proposes landscaping
[39:49] and berms around the entire expansion area,
[39:52] which will meet up with existing landscaping and bi.
[39:55] Those berms will be 62 feet wide and 10 feet tall
[39:59] and they'll be planted with two rows of evergreens
[40:02] that will be six to eight feet tall at the time of planting.
[40:08] The site's not located within the Chesapeake Bay critical
[40:11] area or the a hundred year floodplain.
[40:13] There are no erosion hazards, streams, wetlands,
[40:16] or threatened endangered species on site.
[40:19] The southern portion of the site does have 39.6
[40:22] acres of woodlands.
[40:24] Department of Natural Resources has indicated that
[40:27] this area contains fizz habitat mainly
[40:29] for nesting nesting birds
[40:33] shown in green dashed outline on the map.
[40:36] This project phase five does propose just over 32 acres
[40:40] of woodland clearing just
[40:42] above the green in the white dash line
[40:44] or previously approved clearing with earlier phasing.
[40:50] This project, just like all major extractions,
[40:52] are exempt from the regulations established
[40:55] by the Forest Conservation Act.
[40:58] There is a tax ditch that runs through this property
[41:00] shown in the solid blue line bisects roughly the middle.
[41:05] That tax ditch will be relocated
[41:08] to the area shown on the blue dash line.
[41:11] The Caroline County Soil Conservation District manages these
[41:14] tax ditches and they have reviewed this project
[41:17] and approved it with three minor conditions.
[41:20] Those are outlined in your staff report.
[41:24] There's no proposed changes to the hours of operation.
[41:28] The applicant did submit a sound study completed by vibrate.
[41:33] That study concluded
[41:34] that the noise will not exceed residential, nighttime
[41:37] or daytime limits at the property line.
[41:40] Provided that the standoff distances
[41:42] outlined in the report are met.
[41:47] Trucks will continue to use the existing haul route,
[41:50] which is Merrick Corner Road to Maryland three 13.
[41:54] I mentioned the road improvements to Merrick Corner Road.
[41:56] There are approximately 3,350 linear feet
[42:01] of improvements and they will start at the intersection
[42:04] of three 13 and move east along Merrick Corner Road.
[42:08] They'll include some widening, res striping
[42:10] and some shoulder work.
[42:14] At the conclusion of the project,
[42:16] there'll be a 259 acre pond
[42:19] and a location for a future house that's a little bit
[42:22] of pasture area or tillable area for the resident.
[42:27] And with that I have a colleague Eric Miller from the
[42:30] Department of Public Works here
[42:32] and he can elaborate a little bit on the road.
[42:34] Improvements that have been done are proposed currently
[42:38] and he can answer any stormwater questions if you have any.
[42:41] So with that, this is Eric this
[42:45] Good morning.
[42:46] Eric Miller, department
[42:47] of Public Works. Can everyone hear me all right?
[42:49] Yep. So Robin asked me here today, we had,
[42:53] I'm gonna segue slightly,
[42:55] but in our comment memo there was an item Can you,
[42:57] can you speak up a little?
[42:58] I can. Is this better? Yes. There you go. Maybe there.
[43:02] There you go. That's better. All right,
[43:04] so I'm gonna segue a little.
[43:06] There is in the most recent DPW comment memo,
[43:10] a line item indicating a public works agreement.
[43:13] The Department of Public Works is still in the process
[43:16] of coordinating with the
[43:17] applicant the terms of the agreement.
[43:19] We were contacted the department yesterday
[43:21] that the applicant did not agree with the terms.
[43:24] And so as such, we just wanted to bring
[43:26] that to the board's attention.
[43:27] Now that we would like to, when Rob gives his final summary,
[43:33] add a condition that we, the DPW Department of Public Works
[43:38] and the applicant by
[43:39] or mind agree to the terms of the public works agreement
[43:43] prior to the applicant submitting an
[43:46] application for Board of Appeals.
[43:48] What did they disagree with?
[43:49] So what we're disagreeing over is money.
[43:52] Now we have this, mine has been in operation
[43:55] for approximately 20 years
[43:56] and we're looking at, I'm speaking in round numbers,
[43:59] I can be more specific at your request.
[44:01] A 50 year lifespan.
[44:03] So the department is looking at projecting,
[44:05] as Rob pointed out, it'll their time to mine out.
[44:09] This property will take 50 years.
[44:11] So we're looking at 50 years
[44:12] of road maintenance built into an agreement
[44:14] that we're deciding upon today as part of this application.
[44:17] Now I'd like to be perfectly clear,
[44:19] we are not in opposition to this.
[44:21] We are just not prepared to give a favorable recommendation
[44:25] because we haven't come to terms with the applicant.
[44:28] So what we're trying
[44:30] to do is project based upon our last 20 years of experience,
[44:34] a 50 year lifecycle for this road.
[44:36] Now they are providing, as part of their application,
[44:39] substantial road improvements
[44:40] and upgrades as Rob identified in his report,
[44:45] we are simply trying to plan for the next 50.
[44:48] Now what we are proposing is an identical agreement
[44:52] to a neighboring mine, which is Bridgetown Stone
[44:56] and Gravel, which assesses a 12 cent per ton royalty.
[45:00] And that money will go to the cost of road maintenance.
[45:06] What's adequate to, well on their projection,
[45:11] their projected numbers
[45:12] Using their projected numbers.
[45:14] When you get 12 cents,
[45:16] and again we are using some approximate math here,
[45:19] but we're looking at roughly $62,000 a year.
[45:24] So if you compare that to the current maintenance are,
[45:29] I should say road upgrades that are being performed,
[45:32] that is a project that is costing, I believe the estimate.
[45:36] And there are representatives from Lane Engineering here
[45:38] who can correct me is $845,000
[45:42] or as Jonathan
[45:43] and I were speaking yesterday when he contacted me. How
[45:46] How long is that $840,000 rejected to last?
[45:51] Well, and that's what I'm getting to.
[45:53] So if you look at the 60,000 that we are assessing per year,
[45:58] and we look at this cost now it'll take roughly 16
[46:03] and a half years and that's using a round number
[46:06] of a million dollars because that was an estimate.
[46:09] We don't actually know the cost
[46:11] of construction until it's built.
[46:13] So using a round number of a million with the 61,000,
[46:16] which is based upon what they're on their plan, identifying
[46:19] as removal 16
[46:20] and a half years is how long it would take to get to
[46:24] that sum of money again.
[46:26] But the trucks are the trucks. Okay.
[46:28] What is your span for that type of road with all
[46:32] that truck truck traffic?
[46:33] Exactly. So what we're hoping is that
[46:36] because essentially we're trying to predict the future here
[46:38] with the widening of the road
[46:40] and the reinforcement of the road,
[46:41] that the $60,000 a year will be sufficient
[46:44] to perform annual maintenance or maintenance on demand.
[46:47] That is not the department's intent
[46:49] to have major road rehabilitations when it becomes
[46:53] sufficiently damaged to require it,
[46:54] but simply to perform routine maintenance.
[46:57] So we are not anticipating letting the road degrade
[47:01] to such a condition that it's in.
[47:02] Now again, we'd like to avoid that, we'd like to be able
[47:05] to maintain it as necessary.
[47:06] The last time it was upgraded,
[47:09] I believe 2014.
[47:11] Now when you say upgrade, I don't mean to split hair, it's
[47:14] Only like 12 years.
[47:15] Correct. And you're talking that the 60,000 will take you
[47:19] to 16 years.
[47:21] Right. So what I'm doing is comparing that amount,
[47:25] I mean you haven't maintained it the last 12
[47:30] I thought we were comparing major renovation
[47:31] to major renovation, right.
[47:33] So the last major renovation was 12 years ago.
[47:35] As I understand it right now they're going
[47:37] to perform a current major renovation.
[47:39] We're looking to avoid the major renovations
[47:42] and fund continuous maintenance.
[47:45] So you haven't done the continuous maintenance
[47:47] over the last 12?
[47:48] No, we do. I understand what you're asking.
[47:52] Unfortunately I don't have those numbers in front of me
[47:54] because this issue was raised yesterday by the applicant.
[47:57] So hence why we are not prepared to give
[47:59] that recommendation.
[48:00] Now I need to go back, do the research,
[48:02] look at the numbers you're asking for, see
[48:04] how much we spent per year
[48:06] and then look into all these other things we had hoped the
[48:09] department we that using an agreement identical
[48:12] to a neighboring mine would be, you know, applicable
[48:16] to use a pithy term.
[48:17] Apples to apples. Mine to mind, we use an agreement,
[48:19] one is agreed to, we agree with it here,
[48:24] But I'm sure the applicant is looking for that price
[48:27] to be lowered, not increased. Right.
[48:30] Well I'll let the applicant speak to what they want,
[48:32] but yes, I would imagine so.
[48:34] I would imagine that's why it got turned down. Okay.
[48:38] All right. Do you have any questions at this point?
[48:42] Okay, so I do so that the, as I understand it, dump trucks
[48:48] probably paying somewhere between five
[48:49] and $6,000 a year in road use taxes specifically
[48:53] because of the damage that they do the roads.
[48:56] Do you not get any of the money from the state, from those
[48:59] road use taxes that are paid and,
[49:01] and you know, maybe I, no, I'll, I'll get
[49:04] to you later ask you the same question.
[49:08] Sure. So as of the most recent legislative session,
[49:12] I am not sure exactly
[49:13] what the funding stream is from the state.
[49:15] I can tell you it's very turbulent
[49:17] and that there are proposing changes on the highway user
[49:19] revenue, which I believe is different from
[49:21] what you're talking about.
[49:23] I don't have the state funding numbers in front of me to see
[49:25] what proportion of tax dollars from heavy vehicles comes
[49:29] to road maintenance, if you like. I can look into that. I
[49:32] Know, I know that under O'Malley, you know,
[49:34] he stole a bunch as far as I'm concerned, he stole a bunch
[49:36] of tax revenue to county back during that, I think
[49:39] during recession with it.
[49:42] And I don't know if he's given it back yet or not.
[49:44] Last time I talked to one
[49:45] of the commissioners he said they had not,
[49:47] that was several years ago.
[49:49] Bill, we're having trouble hearing you. Oh,
[49:51] I'm sorry. I'm, I'm getting lazy
[49:52] But you're, Pardon
[49:54] Me?
[49:55] Microphone's not close to you?
[49:56] No, it's 'cause I'm leaning back and
[49:59] Oh, taking a nap.
[50:00] Sorry. Do you want me to repeat what I was saying?
[50:03] No, would you, so all I was asking was don't these dump
[50:07] trucks at five, $6,000 per year in road use taxes,
[50:10] fuel taxes, does that any of that money come back
[50:14] to the county for the maintenance of these roads?
[50:18] Do they not get anything for their investment?
[50:20] Those, those independent drivers and small businessmen
[50:25] and everything else that, that have these things?
[50:27] We've had this discussion
[50:28] before about road use taxes and everything else.
[50:32] I know that O'Malley stole, I use that word stole
[50:36] road use taxes from the county back during the recession.
[50:39] I don't know that the state's ever
[50:40] given them back like they should.
[50:42] At the last conversation I had with one
[50:44] of the commissioners, he said they had,
[50:45] they had given some back
[50:47] but weren't up to what they used to be historically.
[50:50] Right. Okay. So that's all I'm asking.
[50:53] You know, sounds to me like
[50:54] 'cause 50 years, $60,000 a year, that's 3 million bucks.
[50:57] That ain't, that's not chump change, right?
[51:00] Correct. How
[51:01] Much did it cost to build a road
[51:02] for goodness sake level road?
[51:06] Are we building a state spec road?
[51:08] I'm sorry, what was the second
[51:09] One?
[51:10] Are we building a county spec road
[51:11] or a state spec road
[51:12] with three $3 million in maintenance over over 50 years?
[51:15] That's not a small chunk of change.
[51:18] No, absolutely not. I'd be like him argue
[51:23] And that's fair.
[51:25] We're not opposed to the discussion.
[51:26] We're not opposed looking at the numbers.
[51:28] It's strictly a matter of timing.
[51:30] The objection was raised yesterday
[51:32] so we need to look at this.
[51:33] So your questions are legitimate and appropriate,
[51:36] but I don't have the answers now.
[51:38] Okay, fair.
[51:41] Can I, can I ask, are you done Bill? Yes. Okay.
[51:45] It's just a question of process
[51:46] because when in reviewing these materials prior
[51:49] to the meeting delivered to us a week
[51:51] or more ahead of time, typically my eyes always go to the
[51:56] no agencies that have reviewed
[51:58] the concept plan have offered objections.
[52:00] So I'm wondering at what time, at what point in the process
[52:04] was, is an issue like this supposed to be resolved?
[52:08] Like I'm not sure why it's okay, why it's,
[52:11] it's only why is this coming up at this time
[52:15] when I based my review
[52:18] and thoughts on these projects by what, what is before me
[52:22] and, and then sometimes subsequent updates
[52:25] from John as needed.
[52:27] So I'm trying to figure out where, when is this supposed
[52:30] to be resolved?
[52:32] Like 'cause we're, we're here for final
[52:34] approval of this concept plan. So
[52:36] Yeah, the concept plan will allow them to move forward
[52:39] and seek additional use location.
[52:43] Okay, so excuse me.
[52:46] The major extractions are unique.
[52:49] They require public hearings which no other
[52:52] development projects required.
[52:54] So there are advertisement deadlines.
[52:57] So this project had to be advertised in the paper prior
[53:01] to the comments coming back to the department.
[53:04] And that overlap is when that comment that Eric referenced
[53:10] came in and that comment says that DPW
[53:14] is okay with the project coming to planning commission
[53:17] as long as the applicant agrees in principle
[53:20] to the public works agreement.
[53:23] PWA prior to planning commission,
[53:26] well prior to planning commission
[53:29] Ag This morning,
[53:31] eight o'clock was prior to planning commission.
[53:33] So in lieu of not stopping the project
[53:36] and keeping things moving forward, it was our intent to here
[53:39] and here we are And that's
[53:41] where Eric mentioned his condition
[53:44] that they can work things out, whatever that may be prior
[53:49] to the applicant making board of appeals application
[53:52] to keep the process moving forward for the applicant.
[53:55] Not But isn't that normally already completed
[53:57] before we get the paperwork to review?
[54:02] No, not necessarily things like forest conservation.
[54:04] If this project had forest conservation,
[54:07] they would usually tell us this is our idea,
[54:10] but we don't have definitive legal documents
[54:13] and everything finalized yet until site plan.
[54:15] So in this case we wouldn't have,
[54:18] they don't require site plan
[54:20] 'cause there's no more floor area.
[54:21] So their final step would be board of appeals
[54:24] and then they'd go straight to permit.
[54:25] So by board of appeals anything has to be determined
[54:30] and figured out and finalized.
[54:31] Okay. In this step, no, for us, for DPW,
[54:36] they would like a principal figured out in a draft
[54:40] accomplished prior to court appeals.
[54:43] Okay. Madam Chair? Yes, sir.
[54:48] In a, in a situation like this,
[54:49] my immediate reaction is disapprove.
[54:53] You know, we don't have agreement
[54:54] and we're asked to render an opinion on something
[54:57] that's not agreed to by both parties.
[55:00] But I sense that staff is comfortable
[55:04] proceeding with conditions.
[55:06] Am I understanding this correctly?
[55:09] I will defer to Eric on their condition,
[55:13] the conditions we outlined, which brings me to another,
[55:16] if you turn to page six of seven in your staff
[55:18] Report, that's quite quite a few
[55:19] 17.
[55:20] There are, there are 17.
[55:21] Well they are not labeled conditions,
[55:23] but those are the conditions.
[55:24] So once we get to that, if we get to that,
[55:26] those are the conditions.
[55:27] Plus number 18, no, 18,
[55:29] The staff is planning staff is comfortable with 17.
[55:33] If the condition that Eric suggested were to go through
[55:37] planning would be okay with that as well.
[55:40] But as long as DPW was fine with that, if they weren't fine
[55:43] with that, staff would support that as well.
[55:46] And you're fine with that.
[55:47] And to answer the question, yes, the Department
[55:49] of Public Works is fine with the
[55:50] condition as I presented it.
[55:53] Can you give us a a written
[55:57] or can you, can you
[55:59] I think I can assist with that again.
[56:01] So I I think it would be inclusion of condition 18, which,
[56:05] and correct me if I'm wrong,
[56:07] but the condition would be that the applicant
[56:09] and public works department enter into a mutually
[56:12] satisfactory public works agreement prior to
[56:16] making the application to the board
[56:18] of appeals for conditional use.
[56:20] Does that work for you? Yes. Okay, good. Okay.
[56:25] Now anything else Rob?
[56:28] No ma'am. Okay. I have one more question.
[56:31] Madam Chairman, why did it take this long again to get,
[56:34] you had a meeting this morning, why didn't, why is it,
[56:39] why is it this long in the process?
[56:41] Why wouldn't it have done before?
[56:44] Seems to me that maybe you could have
[56:46] having an eight o'clock meeting
[56:48] that had a planning commission
[56:49] Doesn't seem like good planning.
[56:50] There was no meeting at eight o'clock.
[56:52] The, the comment said they needed to agree prior to
[56:55] Oh, okay.
[56:56] I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I said
[56:57] Up to o Alright. Alright.
[57:00] And there was that comment came out 25 day review was at
[57:04] least two weeks ago and as I understand it,
[57:06] there were some email exchanges yesterday.
[57:09] Okay. I Was not privy to that.
[57:13] And to clarify with your question,
[57:14] yesterday was not the first attempt at communication.
[57:17] There were phone calls and emails back
[57:18] and forth between the applicant
[57:20] and the Department of Public Works.
[57:21] The objection to the Public works agreement was raised
[57:24] by the applicant yesterday, which is different from,
[57:27] there was no communication until yesterday.
[57:30] Okay. Yeah, that's okay. Thank you for the clarifying.
[57:34] Alright. Yes ma'am.
[57:38] My name is Cheryl Tomi with Lane Engineering.
[57:41] I'm the project drafter for this project.
[57:45] I've, I've worked on it throughout the years with us today.
[57:49] We also have our project engineer Brittany Wallace,
[57:52] who can answer any technical questions you may have.
[57:54] The owner, Jonathan Bier and Byler
[57:57] and our attorney Steve Mehan.
[58:00] Rob Gunther gave a great overview of the project
[58:02] and I would be happy to ask, answer any questions
[58:05] that you have, just give a brief overview of
[58:09] generally what we're proposing
[58:11] and what he had said already is that the,
[58:16] it's an existing mine, it's there.
[58:19] We have an entrance that's already in place
[58:21] and the office, the different,
[58:28] the different plants that are there,
[58:30] those are all gonna stay in place
[58:31] and those are gonna be continued to be used.
[58:33] We're not proposing anything new for that.
[58:36] The trucks per day is gonna stay at a
[58:39] hundred trucks per day.
[58:40] We're not proposing any increases in the trucks
[58:44] or the hours of operation.
[58:46] So you're not going to see a change in the,
[58:49] an increase in the traffic going to and from the site.
[58:53] It's just we're proposing an expansion of the mining pond
[58:58] so that the mine can continue to stay in business
[59:02] and expand the life of the mine by about 50 years
[59:06] as market conditions allow.
[59:10] As a part of this expansion, as he had shown, you know,
[59:15] the, we're proposing the road improvements
[59:17] to Merri Corner Road, we've also proposed to
[59:22] reroute the tax ditch that does go through the middle
[59:25] of the site to go around the exterior
[59:29] of the mining pond.
[59:30] And then inside of that we'll have a,
[59:33] a visual screening berm with plantings on top
[59:36] and then even, you know, further interior
[59:40] to the site will have an access road
[59:41] and then it will be the expansion pond.
[59:44] Everything will expand towards the west
[59:48] and it'll slowly happen over those 50 years.
[59:51] What you'll see initially are the berms being established
[59:55] as well as the rerouted public
[1:00:00] drainage association tax ditch.
[1:00:04] Do you have any questions for us at this time?
[1:00:06] Any road improvement questions or storm water?
[1:00:10] We'd be happy to answer them.
[1:00:13] Yes. Tony, I have a question.
[1:00:14] You, you suggested the, you know, the slow walk east? Yes.
[1:00:18] Or sorry, west and and south of the property when,
[1:00:22] with the exception of the rerouting of the tax disc, when
[1:00:26] would we expect to see the tree clearing?
[1:00:28] The tree clearing At this time they're in their phase
[1:00:33] four, so they've been approved for 119 acres.
[1:00:37] So they're, they're working in that additional 19 acres
[1:00:40] that they were approved last year.
[1:00:43] So eventually, you know, as we go through this process
[1:00:46] for approvals for this phase five, they'll continue
[1:00:49] to work westward for the removal
[1:00:54] of those trees to the south.
[1:00:56] It's really as they grow the mining pit,
[1:00:58] and it depends on what direction they're going to start
[1:01:01] to grow the mining pit, it's gonna be a combination of
[1:01:05] dry mining and then, you know, as they get down
[1:01:08] to the water level, then the, the
[1:01:10] dredge will continue the mining.
[1:01:13] So really it's when they want to
[1:01:18] expand to the south to to be able to to,
[1:01:22] So it's not necessary for initial berm construction
[1:01:24] or no rerouting of the tactics. What you'll
[1:01:27] See initially for the berm construction
[1:01:30] as you've brought up, is they will need
[1:01:32] to strip some topsoil
[1:01:34] and other material in order to construct those berms.
[1:01:37] And they have some room to be able to do that with,
[1:01:40] you know, the existing farm fields
[1:01:42] that you see open at this time.
[1:01:46] So over years, years out, yes.
[1:01:48] Over years without having you
[1:01:49] to put a number on it, that's fine.
[1:01:50] Yeah,
[1:01:52] Yeah.
[1:01:53] We, we, when it was approved last May
[1:01:57] for the nine additional 19 acres, we approximated
[1:02:02] that they had about five years left of material,
[1:02:05] maybe a little bit more than that
[1:02:08] and this will be the slow walk over.
[1:02:09] But you still one schedule with that.
[1:02:11] Yeah, that schedule would still be appropriate. Yes.
[1:02:14] Yeah. And then this mining expansion will give them an
[1:02:17] additional 50 as market
[1:02:18] allows 50 years.
[1:02:28] You guys have always done a nice job of,
[1:02:31] of your berms and everything.
[1:02:34] Thank you. Okay, any other questions?
[1:02:42] Can I get a public hearing?
[1:02:46] Oh, public comment comments?
[1:02:50] We're gonna bring the Yes ma'am,
[1:02:59] I introduce yourself.
[1:03:00] Yes, good morning. I'm Kelly Ireland.
[1:03:04] I am an adjoining property owner.
[1:03:06] I own both the lot that is across the street as well
[1:03:10] as the an owner
[1:03:12] of the 200 acre agricultural farm across the street.
[1:03:17] I have no illusions that there'll be any stopping this
[1:03:19] project and I do respect that property owners have the right
[1:03:23] to do things within reason with their properties,
[1:03:27] but adjoining property owners should also have the right
[1:03:30] to not be negatively impacted by those activities.
[1:03:34] My ask is that there's a potential condition
[1:03:36] that there be an honest assessment of the, that
[1:03:41] actively engages adjoining landowners of the current
[1:03:45] and potential impacts of the plan.
[1:03:47] So we can look at ways to minimize those impacts
[1:03:50] and potential risk with more in-depth considerations.
[1:03:53] Specifically for noise
[1:03:55] and vibrations, light pollution,
[1:03:58] local air quality impacts related to dust
[1:04:01] and exhaust groundwater.
[1:04:04] It's a large amount of groundwater
[1:04:07] that would potentially be exposed with this full expansion.
[1:04:11] The impacts to our wells.
[1:04:13] Looking at the long history of Biosolid application
[1:04:17] on these agricultural fields
[1:04:19] and any potential impacts of making that
[1:04:25] exposed to groundwater.
[1:04:27] We'd also like to look at the entrances,
[1:04:29] both the number and location.
[1:04:31] We've been talking about one entrance,
[1:04:33] but there are actually more than one place that the pit is
[1:04:37] accessed currently.
[1:04:39] I'd also like to ask that there be impacts, attempts
[1:04:44] to minimize the impacts while installing
[1:04:47] the berms around the area.
[1:04:49] Currently there's a significant amount of dust
[1:04:52] and sediment along the roads
[1:04:56] and my fear is that even just installing the measures
[1:04:59] for mitigation, if we don't look at that further,
[1:05:01] will create additional impacts.
[1:05:05] I saw that some of the core values of Byers was
[1:05:08] to always do the right thing.
[1:05:09] I hope that we will have an opportunity to engage.
[1:05:13] Thank you for your time and consideration.
[1:05:16] Thank you.
[1:05:21] Any other public comment?
[1:05:24] You have anything and you didn't have anything else? I got.
[1:05:28] Okay. Do
[1:05:33] the commissioners have any questions?
[1:05:41] Okay, Madam Chair. Yes.
[1:05:45] Having considered the testimony presented
[1:05:47] and having reviewed the findings outlined in the staff
[1:05:50] report, be it hereby resolved that the planning commission
[1:05:53] regarding the request by by Byler materials LLC
[1:05:57] for concept plan approval for a
[1:06:00] 215.555 acre expansion
[1:06:03] of an existing major extraction operation in the
[1:06:06] agricultural zoning district,
[1:06:08] which is more particularly described in planning
[1:06:10] and zoning file SP number 26 dash oh one dash oh one seven
[1:06:15] oh here finds the concept plan is consistent with the goals
[1:06:19] and objectives of the Queenan County 22 comprehensive plan.
[1:06:24] The concept plan is consistent with the Queen County zoning
[1:06:28] and subdivision regulations.
[1:06:30] I'd also like to incorporate the findings from the staff
[1:06:33] report into this motion.
[1:06:36] And here are the conditions. One.
[1:06:37] Proper controls
[1:06:38] and methods are maintained to minimize truck mud, tracting,
[1:06:42] or dust plumes in dry times with wind swift suppression.
[1:06:47] Two. The facilities continue to be adequately designed
[1:06:49] and maintained to free dirt and debris from the wheels
[1:06:53] and undercarriage of trucks prior
[1:06:55] to entering Merrick Corner Road.
[1:06:58] Three. All soil conservation district
[1:07:00] approvals are maintained.
[1:07:02] Four. The hours of operation will be consistent
[1:07:05] with the approval of condition use case number B OA dash
[1:07:10] one nine dash 0 4 9.
[1:07:14] Any changes require, require additional approvals.
[1:07:18] Five Haul trucks shall adhere to the approved haul route
[1:07:22] as discussed and presented.
[1:07:24] Six. The use of dredge loader haul truck
[1:07:27] and excavator during daytime
[1:07:29] and nighttime hours must adhere
[1:07:31] to the standoff distances outlined in the outlined in the
[1:07:34] staff report and in the sound study dated March 5th, 2026.
[1:07:40] Number seven, material storage piles cannot exceed
[1:07:43] 45 feet in height.
[1:07:44] Number eight, the applicant submits as-built updates
[1:07:48] to the Board of Appeals and Department of Planning
[1:07:51] and Zoning yearly on the anniversary of Board
[1:07:54] of Appeals approval or on a schedule determined
[1:07:56] by the Board of Appeals.
[1:07:59] Number nine. The applicant agrees
[1:08:01] to an annual inspection 10.
[1:08:03] All State permits are in place prior
[1:08:06] to final permitting by Queen Ens County.
[1:08:08] 11. Any document, any legal documents are approved
[1:08:13] and reviewed by the Planning commission attorney.
[1:08:16] 12. Any future mining phases
[1:08:19] or changes to the end use plan must return
[1:08:22] to the planning Commission for a recommendation to the Board
[1:08:25] of Appeals for an amendment to the conditional use.
[1:08:28] 13. Any and all financial assurities for reclamation
[1:08:32] landscaping, stormwater management
[1:08:35] and enforcement, et cetera, are in place
[1:08:37] before final permits are granted.
[1:08:40] 14. There shall be no truck parking on Merrick Corner Road,
[1:08:44] no stacking or parking outside of the gate.
[1:08:47] No Jake brakes and no tailgate slamming either on onsite
[1:08:51] or on the public road.
[1:08:53] The applicant shall post a sign with a notice
[1:08:55] regarding these restrictions.
[1:08:57] 15. Any requirements
[1:08:59] by the Queen Anne's County Roads Department must be
[1:09:02] satisfactorily addressed.
[1:09:05] 16 Conditions of approval for the relocation
[1:09:08] of the tax ditch found in the letter from the Caroline Soil
[1:09:11] Conservation District dated November 10th, 2025 and
[1:09:16] provided in the staff report must be
[1:09:18] satisfactorily addressed.
[1:09:20] 17. Any outstanding documentation
[1:09:22] or comments stemming from agency reviews are addressed prior
[1:09:26] to Board of Appeals submittal.
[1:09:31] 18. The applicant
[1:09:32] and the Department of Public Works must reach a satisfactory
[1:09:35] public works agreement prior to Board
[1:09:38] of Appeals application.
[1:09:41] And having considered the testimony presented
[1:09:43] and having reviewed the findings outlined in the staff
[1:09:46] report, be it hereby resolve that the planning commission
[1:09:50] regarding the request by Byler materials LLC
[1:09:53] for a 215.555 acre expansion
[1:09:57] of an existing major extraction operation in agricultural
[1:10:01] zoning district, which is more particularly described
[1:10:03] in planning and zoning file.
[1:10:05] SP 26 dash oh one dash oh one seven oh hereby
[1:10:10] forwards a favorable recommendation, recommendation
[1:10:13] to the Board of Appeals under sections 18, one dash 14
[1:10:18] C seven and 18 one dash 95 E.
[1:10:23] Second We have a first, the second.
[1:10:29] All in favor. Excuse me, Madam Chair, under
[1:10:32] Discussion?
[1:10:33] Yes. Discussion. First in light of Ms.
[1:10:37] Ireland, was it public comments?
[1:10:40] I'd like to suggest an, an additional
[1:10:44] condition onto Commissioner de Otis's motion
[1:10:48] that the applicant engaged the surrounding citizens
[1:10:51] to address any potential concerns to their,
[1:10:55] to their, to their, to.
[1:10:58] Let's see what I wanna phrase this to, to, to hear the,
[1:11:03] to meet with local citizens,
[1:11:05] adjoining neighbors specifically
[1:11:07] to understand their concerns
[1:11:09] and do their best to address them.
[1:11:12] So could we get a motion to amend the motion on the floor
[1:11:15] to include that additional condition?
[1:11:18] We can accept that as a friendly amendment.
[1:11:20] Can we not do what?
[1:11:21] Accept that as a friendly amendment under Robert's rules?
[1:11:24] Well, you should still, because there's a motion on the
[1:11:26] floor that hasn't been voted on yet.
[1:11:29] Move to amend that motion and then you could all vote on it.
[1:11:33] I, if I may inject, I I listen to the citizen's
[1:11:38] testimony, you know, adequate,
[1:11:40] but I'm, my thought was going to, that would be more
[1:11:43] of a planning and zoning requirement across the board,
[1:11:45] not just to this particular project.
[1:11:47] Like I'm, I'm not really sure I should, that I'm,
[1:11:51] I I would be willing to make it a condition
[1:11:53] of this particular project, rather.
[1:11:56] I think it's a discussion with planning and zoning
[1:11:58] or the county on, on projects of this type
[1:12:01] or magnitude across the board.
[1:12:04] So that's my feeling on this.
[1:12:08] And most of her, my thoughts were that most of her
[1:12:13] concerns appear to have been handled in the 17th
[1:12:16] Place.
[1:12:17] I I was thinking about that as I was
[1:12:18] reading them as well and 18
[1:12:19] Point. Some of them,
[1:12:20] I'm, I'm sorry.
[1:12:21] I'm sure not allowed to speak,
[1:12:22] but I think that the reports were done without any,
[1:12:26] any engagement or the ability to ground truth.
[1:12:30] Some of those findings.
[1:12:31] I wanna be a good neighbor, I wanna have good neighbors.
[1:12:36] The sound report, for example,
[1:12:38] we can hear the sounds at night.
[1:12:40] So it being 50 decibels,
[1:12:43] just a conversation at the property line,
[1:12:46] depending on weather conditions cannot be true.
[1:12:50] I'm sure that it was tested
[1:12:51] and that was the case at some amount of operation,
[1:12:54] but there's lights and sounds throughout the night
[1:12:58] and just an opportunity
[1:12:59] to engage the way the process is currently set up.
[1:13:03] The public notice at the end
[1:13:05] of the road was my first opportunity
[1:13:07] to know this could be engaged with,
[1:13:09] and the stamp report was already directed by that point.
[1:13:13] So, and I apologize for being
[1:13:19] No, and I think it was clear Ms.
[1:13:20] Ar, Ms. Ms. Ireland, when you made your testimony
[1:13:22] that you are not necessarily opposed
[1:13:24] to this from a property rights perspective,
[1:13:26] it's just you'd like to be included
[1:13:28] in progress as it's made.
[1:13:31] We've definitely impacted my property
[1:13:33] and my property use are impacted by this
[1:13:36] Project.
[1:13:37] Yeah. I'm sorry, we're not really supposed to be q
[1:13:38] and a with you, but appreciate your testimony.
[1:13:41] Okay. Have you ever made any complaints to the
[1:13:47] zoning department or has anyone
[1:13:49] ever made any, say opinion and
[1:13:50] Zoning?
[1:13:51] No. Since we're engaging, I said I want it to be a good
[1:13:55] No, I understand.
[1:13:56] And that I'm not trying to be argument my intention,
[1:14:00] But there is a difference between, you know,
[1:14:03] this is gonna be 17 years initially, unless Brent
[1:14:07] and Barrett and it'll be over
[1:14:09] and now expanding to 49 years additional,
[1:14:14] it's a lot of water on top of a lake is 60 acres.
[1:14:18] This is gonna be 3 28. I'm,
[1:14:22] I'm concerned that The impacts
[1:14:24] Haven't.
[1:14:25] Okay. We've heard, we've heard. Thank you have, well,
[1:14:27] Can I ask one question in the same vein,
[1:14:31] do you allow tailgate slamming in on your property?
[1:14:34] Do you have people that violate it?
[1:14:36] Not to my knowledge. I mean, I'm not saying not,
[1:14:39] it's not ever happened, but certainly we will get rid of it
[1:14:42] Every effort To make sure it doesn't happen.
[1:14:44] Absolutely. Absolutely. It was trapped
[1:14:45] On the road.
[1:14:46] Sounds like it might be happening. Sorry, I have a question.
[1:14:50] How long has Byler been in,
[1:14:52] in existence
[1:14:56] In the, as far as in Queen Anne County?
[1:14:58] At the mine or in total? In,
[1:14:59] In, in Queen Anne County.
[1:15:01] So we bought into the mine in 2013.
[1:15:07] Was the mine there prior to it? Was there prior? Yes.
[1:15:10] Okay. Do you know when it started?
[1:15:12] I believe it was 2007. It was around there.
[1:15:15] That's when it was created? Yeah. Correct.
[1:15:20] Okay.
[1:15:25] So
[1:15:26] Right now, just procedure, there's a motion on the floor.
[1:15:30] There was a motion to amend. It sounds like it wasn't
[1:15:32] Seconded.
[1:15:33] So I get a second to the amend.
[1:15:38] Okay, let's go back with the motion.
[1:15:41] Can I, I have a first and a second.
[1:15:45] Can we vote please? All in favor? Oh, wait a minute.
[1:15:48] Rob, you have something? There's
[1:15:52] Two things you have to vote on.
[1:15:53] Just FYI, the concept plan approval
[1:15:57] and then separately recommendations.
[1:16:00] Ms. De Otis,
[1:16:02] She combined, if I read right, I
[1:16:03] Just think you need to vote on both
[1:16:05] of those separately. Okay.
[1:16:06] Alright, we're gonna go with the first one, okay? Okay.
[1:16:10] For the 18. Okay, so I have to read
[1:16:15] All of that again?
[1:16:16] No, just the last one. We'll, we'll do that separately.
[1:16:19] Okay.
[1:16:21] No, I think just to clarify, you can keep your motion to
[1:16:26] find the con concept plan consistent with the
[1:16:31] comprehensive plan and Queen AIDS county zoning
[1:16:33] and subdivision regulations subject to the 18 conditions.
[1:16:36] Vote on that and then make a motion on the favorable
[1:16:40] or unfavorable recommendation to the Board of Appeals.
[1:16:42] Okay. You don't have to read it. Okay. Thank, thank you.
[1:16:44] Correct. Okay. So we have a motion, we second
[1:16:49] Motion we have a second for the 18. Correct.
[1:16:52] With con concept Plan approval.
[1:16:54] You have a motion right now for concept plan approval
[1:16:56] with the 18 conditions and a second. Okay.
[1:16:59] All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? A Okay.
[1:17:04] And lemme just read this again. Okay.
[1:17:05] So we'll you gonna read that for second one.
[1:17:08] Having considered the testimony presented
[1:17:10] and having reviewed the findings outlined in the staff
[1:17:12] report, be it hereby resolved that the planning commission
[1:17:15] regarding the request by Byler materials LLC
[1:17:18] for a 215.555 acre expansion
[1:17:22] of an existing major extraction operation in the
[1:17:25] agricultural zoning district,
[1:17:27] which is more particularly described
[1:17:29] in planning and zoning file.
[1:17:30] SP number 26 dash zero one dash 0 1 7 0
[1:17:35] hereby four is a favorable recommendation to the Board
[1:17:38] of Appeals under sections 18 1 14 C seven
[1:17:42] and 18 one dash 95 E
[1:17:47] Second.
[1:17:48] All in favor? Aye. Aye.
[1:17:51] And just as a FYI
[1:17:53] or for you, it would be nice if you talk to your neighbors.
[1:17:57] We'll certainly do that. Absolutely. We'll engage with that.
[1:17:59] That's great. Yeah, that's great. Any opposed? Opposed?
[1:18:03] Okay with that Ben was opposed too, just so you
[1:18:08] Know. Not opposed
[1:18:10] Oh, are you?
[1:18:11] Yeah. To go to the Board of Appeals to go to the Board of
[1:18:13] Appeals to make a, to make a favorable
[1:18:15] recommendation to the Board of Appeals.
[1:18:16] There's already a condition on the application
[1:18:18] that they can't have the Board of Appeals hearing
[1:18:20] until this agreement is resolved. Did
[1:18:24] This Say that again?
[1:18:26] There is already a condition on the concept plan
[1:18:29] application that they cannot proceed to the Board of Appeals
[1:18:31] until the Public Works agreement matter is
[1:18:34] mutually resolved.
[1:18:36] I understand that, but I was under the impression
[1:18:40] that at some point we're gonna include this acknowledgement
[1:18:43] of the citizens' observations in a more formal fashion.
[1:18:48] And perhaps procedurally I've made a mistake
[1:18:51] and didn't get that in, in the original motion.
[1:18:55] There was a motion to amend my motion to add that.
[1:18:58] And it, it didn't get,
[1:18:59] it didn't pass. It didn't get a second.
[1:19:01] We didn't get a second. We didn't get a second. Okay.
[1:19:03] You, you could certainly on your vote
[1:19:06] for the favorable consideration to the Board
[1:19:08] of Appeals express some of your concerns.
[1:19:11] Well, I'd like to do that, please.
[1:19:14] In that I would hope that we could
[1:19:19] in the future include wording
[1:19:22] that makes it clear in these approvals that the
[1:19:26] applicant has to speak to the neighbors
[1:19:29] when this has been raised.
[1:19:30] Now this is for futures.
[1:19:31] I don't see it as a condition on this approval,
[1:19:33] but I support Commissioner Lay in
[1:19:38] making sure that the citizens' comments are acknowledged
[1:19:41] by the planning commission
[1:19:44] And, and I I express in, in declining to amend my emotion.
[1:19:47] I I feel like it's not something
[1:19:49] that should be case specific to this project,
[1:19:51] but rather a broader planning
[1:19:53] and zoning. Do you know what I'm saying?
[1:19:56] I understand that. I would've gone
[1:19:57] with both saying it's okay to do it here
[1:19:59] and let's get to work on a underlying
[1:20:01] Understood.
[1:20:03] So just to clarify for the record,
[1:20:05] we have favorable concept plan approval, which was a vote
[1:20:09] of four to one and a favorable recommendation to the Board
[1:20:13] of Appeals, which was a vote of three to two. Yes.
[1:20:16] Correct. Right. Okay.
[1:20:23] Four, four to two. Say four to two. Okay.
[1:20:26] Yeah, I was gonna say, yeah, I was gonna say,
[1:20:29] let me count that again.
[1:20:31] I don't do math. You know, Five isn't
[1:20:36] Five to one and four to two.
[1:20:39] The seven people. Well you I don't vote.
[1:20:42] I don't Unless over time chair
[1:20:43] because it shouldn't need to break a talk.
[1:20:45] Right, right. At least that's
[1:20:47] What she told me last Meeting.
[1:20:48] Right. Going off that premise.
[1:20:50] That's what it's any public comment.
[1:20:56] Nothing. Okay. Well
[1:20:58] Just, just to be clear, that was, so that was the end.
[1:21:00] The public comment you just asked for was
[1:21:02] for generic public comment
[1:21:03] At the end of the meeting.
[1:21:04] Yes. Generic public comment. So
[1:21:06] I, I actually would like to comment on Ben's comment.
[1:21:09] You know, I look at this forum here,
[1:21:12] this venue here right now, to be the opportunity
[1:21:15] for the people to engage with the owners of the properties.
[1:21:19] I question, I'm not saying it's
[1:21:22] bad to meet with the community.
[1:21:23] I think you should maybe, but to what end,
[1:21:26] you know, miss Island.
[1:21:30] Nice, nice lady. Right. Very respectful.
[1:21:32] I mean, I, and I, I know your family, who you are,
[1:21:37] but all the
[1:21:40] jabber John in the world isn't probably gonna change her
[1:21:42] mind about what's going on there.
[1:21:45] And I'm not trying to put words in your
[1:21:47] mouth, that's all I understand.
[1:21:49] I'm just, I just question to what end.
[1:21:52] Those things really work.
[1:21:53] You know, here's the venue right now, we're all sitting here
[1:21:58] taking this stuff in.
[1:22:00] You have an opportunity to speak your
[1:22:01] mind, bring your friends in.
[1:22:03] Quantity counts. Apparently.
[1:22:05] I'm the only one at, yeah. Yeah. Okay.
[1:22:09] That's all I'm gonna say. I guess I'd see it the other side
[1:22:14] saying it can't possibly hurt.
[1:22:16] Right? Yeah. Okay.
[1:22:22] Alright. Can I get a motion? You have a motion to adjourn?
[1:22:27] Can I get a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye.
[1:22:32] So moved.