[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.

Planning Commission Meeting || 06/11/2026

Agenda

Transcript