Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

e e e e

e e all right let's call the meeting to order first order of business is the approval of minutes motion move the minutes of the December 5th 2024 meeting be approved as submitted second uh I found some typos oh okay discussion um in the intendance Mr chismar was not present he was absent and on page two last first second third fourth fifth paragraph down last sentence where it says Mr small said extend from September I I would assume that should say said it

would extend from September 2nd to so which paragraph are you on uh what's that the fifth paragraph under item a on page two the last sentence in the top part Mr Sher wanted further clarification on the extension date Mr small said it extend it's just a small and then u under miscellaneous under a Mr Hayes is me Mr Hines everywhere it says Mr Hayes one of those two pages is all me okay that's all I had okay good catches all all right and U motion to approve the minutes is so amended okay second all those in favor I Iain one exstension okay we're going to move on to the election of officers but I think move the election of officers be tabled until the next meeting of the Planning Commission second okay any further discussion okay hi hi Phil I I so under new business and um Kevin as you introduce these and as Liz may be speaking to these two later on is in simple as possible English okay okay that's why I did I kind of after uh talking with you this afternoon I um uh put it onto a

PowerPoint to make it hopefully a little bit more straightforward and easier to understand what you have is is two um uh ordinances that have been proposed in were proposed in December and were tabled uh in order to get comments from the Planning Commission and comments from the economic and Community Development commission which will happen tonight and next week um the just just to kind of take a step back and as part of kind of little education process and I provided you a little section uh for under amendments there are three ways that a the town code can be amended one is that the town board which is in this case Town board has proposed these amendments and the town board may or may not if it's up to their choosing refer it to the Planning Commission for um comment and recommendation um second one is for the Planning Commission themselves to propose amendments to the code that is typically done when you have comprehensive plan amendments because that because the comprehensive plan originates with this body it uh any changes to the code are somewhat tightly related to that and so that is why uh it typically starts here and then moves on to the town board and during the comprehensive plan process ecdc and other uh agencies uh and committees boards are also consulted the last is when a property

owner uh decides that they want to propose uh amendments to the code and they have to fill out a petition that petition then goes to the town board the town board then refers it may refer it they don't have to but they typically do refer for to the Planning Commission here for review hold a public hearing and recommendation um that and it goes back to town board for them to decide whether or not that's appropriate I just wanted to kind of give you that background so there was an understanding of of the process a little bit um the first item that uh we'll review is mixed use this uh somewhat came from your original decision uh concerning Harford Mall uh I think that folks on the town board looked at that and kind and looked at their existing definition and said we need to clarify the definition so one of the things that that was done is the is or what is proposed in front of you is that 50% requirement regarding the existing comprehensive plan land use designation you may recall you required 50% commercial on the Harford Mall and that related very well to the existing comprehensive plan land use designation because they're designating commercial it made sense there's the you don't want something that's designated as in the comp plan as commercial and it's all apartments so um the town board kind of took that ran ran with it and put that

in the the changes and that's really the um the big part of what uh these changes to mixed use are about it's changing the definition so that it requires that it has to have that 50% and that it clarifies a few other minor things that that um um and you can read that in in in what you've have but basically is is uh including a space for 50% and the um keeps most of the rest of the definition intact 50% commercial 50% of the underlying land use designation nine times out of 10 it will be commercial in the town of belir could be residential huh could be could be residential it could be residential is it has to be more than 50% residential the where that goes and I can go to the next slide here is the only place most of the of the zoning uh districts match the underlying land use designation in the comprehensive plan and the only one that is residential is the RO District all the rest are all commercial so the only one that would have to have more than 50% residential would be something that's developed in the RO or for some reason has a commercial zoning but has a land use designation that's residential and I can't think of any I've looked it up and I can't find anywhere where there is a um uh where is there is that kind of a disconnect um many back in 2016 I think when we went through the process of res zoning after that comp plan uh update we corrected a lot of uh not

correct it but changed a lot of the um land use designations so they they matched the existing zoning um so that is what I what we would be saying is nine times out of 10 to be commercial would be the majority could be in the future the town board decides that they want to change the code so or change the comp plan so that some of these places are not commercial but I I don't see that happening giving most everything's developed now in the code there is you will find the performance standards under retail I'm sorry under service that's for a mixed use but when you look in the permitted use tables it's listed under retail and residential so in order to have them coordinate with each other better what we did was we decided to remove the um uh the mixed use designation use designation from retail and add it to service and we also expanded the residential to into R and this what this does is kind of cleans up the code makes it easier for somebody to understand where some of these restrictions and regulations are located in the code and make them match up to each other and Kevin there's just say there was Al that 40% with PC approval planing commission approval you can go to 40%

and yeah that's and in under the performance standards so the last thing we changed and Steve will be able to expand on this is uh um when I'm done is um we changed the performance standards one change is to require that they share the parking amongst all the parking spots that is an inherent benefit of having mixed use why would you have mixed use if you're not able to share all the parking together and reduce those number of spaces appropriately as opposed to standard on bond now it has designated parking for residential and well you're required under the code to have at least one space designated for each residential unit so that would still remain I was more referring to the Harford Mall um Apartments because they put all of their parking in structured parking and none of its there's no ability for it to be shared and I think that kind of it's not uh in harmony with what a mixed use development would be the components for a mixed use development would would have um now we don't have to do that but right now every single time one comes in and we've had to do this do this with standard on Bond and we're going to have to do this with uh Harford Mall is we're going to have them create a shared parking agreement uh between all the different users if this was in here we wouldn't have to do that because it would be part of the code but from a security standpoint if I'm residential I don't know that I want people going into Harford Mall for

commercial purposes paring where I live true so I don't necessarily agree with this particular item I me I think I think there's a security the security issue here that lends itself to having people in your area that may or may not have your best interest in mind right but of course there's always choice that you would have if you didn't want that you wouldn't want to be located in a mixed use development may not have a choice if you need an apartment and that's where your apartment is right there's lots of Apartments but yeah I can see your point I got a question K sure all this parking uh that's been one of my big concerns in Bel Air for any project but uh as far as parking goes you have an agreement say over on bond stre we got uh the insurance company over there they come in agreement Hamilton comes into agreement all of a sudden Hamilton changes the way they want to do business they need the extra parking now they may uh the insurance company might decide that they're going to change hands or whatever and move out another business comes in how would those agreements hold up at that point go ahead okay everything that we do as part of the development process um development agreements um parking agreements easements anything like that is recorded in the land records and it is binding on and runs what's called binding and runs with the land so taking your consideration your your hypothetical and in consideration that parking agreement would bind successor owners so until and what we've also done

is these agreements include the town of Bair that was something that I noticed very quickly was a problem with previous development documents is that they were amongst the parties which is great that's great but the problem is is that is it relates to your approval we have no control over what they do so you guys are saying Yep this is what you will do you will enter into an agreement and they'll enter into an agreement turn around and change it right in the flying in the face of your agreement so as you things are coming through I'm reviewing it and saying the town of Belair must be a party to this agreement so if you want to revoke it if you want to change it then I have to know about it because otherwise it's not going anywhere and then if once we get wind of it Kevin and I find out this is what they want to do and we say well whoa whoa whoa this was part of your agreement or your approval with Planning Commission you have to go back to the Planning Commission that's kind of the sort of the catch all that we've sort of developed does that help maybe because they can't do it and it's I'm going from sort of planning to title but when you record something in the land records it impacts their title that's not going anywhere because someone else now has the right to use their land and and or vice versa so they would have to come back to the town to get that remove ored or amended come back actually to this BL body yeah like I I came across a recent agreement I can't remember where which one it was um but the parties that entered into it they got an approval this was years ago from the Planning Commission and we weren't named in it I read through the entire agreement and there was one sentence that says you can we we we agree we won't amend this without letting the town know well that's fabulous you know and I'm sure you're going to abide by it right when you want to change something so we've kind of

been a little stricter with them about that we've gotten pushed back but it's just like no that's okay this is what how it's going to be now so does that that agreement's a legal binding passed on to new other correct so when they go to sell or if they want to change their business there say Hamil didn't want to expand ter again build a nice big building there anything that would impact that parking agreement whether it's to expand it whether it's to eliminate it amend it whatever moving forward they would have to come to the town and they would notify us first and then we I always build it in like if you guys I did this with Harford Mall so when you guys issued the opinion for the Planning Commission for the Harford Mall when we did the development agreement I specifically referenced your decision in that development agreement and that will be recorded in the land records for the world to see you know what I mean that that there is this agreement so if they want to amend it they got to come back to the town is that help Jimmy okay thank you sure I was just curious about U take Clines in the Shabbat I said did I say that correctly Shabbat I mean we approved everything with with the understanding that Klein is going to provide I think 20 spaces to the Shabbat is that something that this would help because I mean clients could remake is that correct no because that's actually we did that one that was a parking agreement or parking license agreement um and that's recorded in the land records okay so there that property is encumbered by that license agreement in the favor of chaban across the street but I'm not sure that that example would really impact that because that's not a mixed use okay is it well no I know it's not a mixed use I know but it's it's um oh just is another example how yeah we

got that recorded in the land records with Colgate Investments assistance and you know so everybody did what they were supposed to do right if this if this change wasn't Inc incorporated it would somewhat F to the Planning Commission to decide whether or not the you know what parking should be shared and what it should not be shared um so it would be something that you would weigh in on whereas if it was in there then there wouldn't be they wouldn't make it to you until they actually proved that all the parking was shared yeah my first um inclination is to I think the U the 50% I I I understand that and I I'm inclined to support that uh would preclude say Harford Mall from okay we're ready to bulldo the all the mall now and build a whole Farm of Apartments they couldn't do that with this change right they could not no and in fact it it's it actually changes how they would pursue that because before if this change wasn't Incorporated they would come back to you and they would ask you hey we don't like this 50% we want you to get rid of it and here's the reasons why and then it would be up to you to decide whether you're not we wanted to keep that condition as part of that previous approval the this puts it into code and takes that decision away from you and I'm good with that I'm I'm with Don on the the um shared parking um that just doesn't seem like good public policy to me to say well we're going to build these high-end apartments and they're ready to spring for a garage and security for the apartment dwellers um but now we're saying if if we passed it as submitted oh well just got to let

anybody go into the mall come use that parking right they would be in a way all the remaining it wouldn't affect that existing development because if it was one like that or if that one grew and did more of this any future ones would all have to share parking I just don't think that's good um good policy where the parking is so different you know you've got a garage that can provide security for people's residents and over here you got people coming in to go to the mall to do whatever's whatever's uh um going on in the mall could be a pool hall could be anything not the knock pool halls we've had them before how do we how do we how do we reconcile I think I'm on okay how do we reconcile like the mall spun off however many acres of property to build a spec building and which is probably 80% empty because the grocery store never showed up but they have other retails don't be saying that they have other retails that are coming in but how do how do we how do we reconcile this if somebody after the apartments are built and Harford Mall wants to spin off the retail portion that would still be under that same development agreement because it didn't matter who owns what they can't spin off the mall to somebody else and keep the apartments they can the mall and the apartments stay together all together but it can be different ownerships they can spend it off to somebody else but they just it would still be controlled under this approval the 50% would still apply yes so it's just like just like in in where call the Taco Bell rule right

right I'm just saying so just like just like what's happening where that everybody there has to make sure that everybody's in the same boat I just agreed they have all agreed all haven't gotten sign all the CDP is buying the your point is buying the subid where the apartments are going to be and part to that development agement but they got getat recorded they settle on it and then sign off does that make sense well no I guess I I you know heard talk that you know Macy's may not be around to much longer so you know there's there could be another potential you know retail retailer right um and then you look at it and say we're going to spend this off and maybe you know you have the Avenue Front I you know I don't know how they could slice and dice it I'm just thinking what if they decide to say they need but they they still need 50% retail in order to make everything then I'm yeah they couldn't play with and they come back to you and I are say you got am develop agreement everybody is to continue to come in I don't ifs or five or we not so that's how we okay I just want to make sure that there's not a u an out so to speak yeah I mean if we're going to make this work then we make it work how about a sports

venue say uh Sports venue went into Macy's or into the mall you guys are are reading the the social media here okay I'm reading um what would that be considered that would still be part of mixed use and that would be considered commercial would be considered commercial as long as they're asking for money y the only one that would probably not be considered commercial would be if somebody located a church in one of these spaces that would be institutional and we would probably consider that more residential than commercial um there is one more item before we Kevin before we move on with that okay the um want to get your thoughts on I understand your concern and valid concern about security with the with the residents and stuff what would you suggest do you have a a recommendation for how you might want to word that how do we you know what I mean the shared parking not shared parking to to me it it it's it's it's one thing when you have a flat open space in other words like if they built if they built the apartments and didn't build a garage and everybody from togate to 924 or to 24 had a PL you know this is where you're going to park right um I don't know that I I could I could argue that but when you built when we when we approved the garage along with the apartments the garage for the residents and the apartments all all were one and the same um to me that was residential for those folks and that the commercial

aspect right was around for all the other um areas that were still open and I mean I I got that with the mall okay but I mean going forward in the future for for the next mixed use project how would we want the parking do you have ideas about what it how parking should be addressed why couldn't it be silent on the part of shared parking every use is going to generate its own own parking requirement right and where would be the public policy concern about whether it was shared at all or shared 100% as opposed to what the um I guess tenant wanted to do well I mean I I kind of agree with what you're saying there I I'm looking at the massing of the mall versus like we're talking here you know 10,000 square feet maybe two or three buildings together they could be on Bond Street they could be on Hickory you know 10,000 square fets is I almost say it's immaterial but it's immaterial to the size of the of the mall right so small with 10,000 square well let's say 10,000 square feet so that that's probably 10,000 square feet might be half of half of a loonies type situation because Looney that's that was probably 24,000 square feet think loonies itself is about 10,000 but I mean the the shopping center it's like the shopping center is over 20 okay so that's that's like so like if if somebody wanted to redevelop loonies and make it H or the Looney shopping center make it half uh residential half um retail I don't know that you have that situation that the mall presents because the mall's a lot bigger animal than than the 10,000 square feet that are there you know you're going to park in an open

area chances are nobody's going to build a g for you for a 10,000 foot area right um I again I'm just looking at from the mall aspect of things that maybe you have a larger retail establishment or retail um um ending point well I have a question to that end the performance standards provides that Center management shall be responsible for providing onsite security service do you think that would be sufficient to address any concs that doesn't sound like that doesn't sound like something that would preclude if they just the fact that they're required to provide security service doesn't mean that somebody couldn't come Park in my uh space in the garage if that was declared part of the policy I I I I guess I'm I'm just looking at it from the standpoint of them allall because the ball we separated it out um and again when you're looking at 10,000 20,000 square feet that's insignificant to the size of Mall when you're talking 33 Acres over there versus you know 20,000 square feet almost a half an acre and I don't know that it's could it be like Case by case then I mean it's like a scenario here you got the parking garage someone suggested and I I think it was you sir Mr I thought it was a great idea idea shareing the parking garage they make an agreement with the town they got like 70 spaces for this new apartment building across the street that's going to be deemed just for them certain parking spaces and the rest is public no how's that going to work they have a parking agreement with the town to utilize 70 spaces I think it's 70 spaces but they are not guaranteed any particular space

we're not allowed to because that parking garage is owned okay I misunderstood that yeah it's owned by the County in part and we just manage it so we're under a strict agreement with them only the counties maybe think in terms of the Bond Street project where he's got mixed use um he's got a parking requirement to to meet for the residences he's got a parking requirement to meet for square foot of commercial occupancy and why wouldn't that be good enough for us why why would we need to have a shared use agreement well he needs a shared use agreement or some sort of easement because if you recall with standard on bond he has double stack parking in some aspects or yes there's that but more important his parking spills out onto I'm sorry I'm gonna say the chef's Kitty Kitty chef's shopping center he's always yelling at me's not after gu but that parking was all calculated in that piece where that Chef's k C Chef's place is that's owned by somebody else so he owns the two lots on L way but somebody else owns the other lot he doesn't own that so you need that agreement to allow people from standard on bond to use that other parking lot and people from the other parking lot to use the standard on bond does that make sense so that is calculated if they calculate those spaces in and it is not owned by someone else the other owner is signing on so but standard on bind I mean to your point in comparing comparing the projects if you take the overall idea of what standard on bond did do you believe that it is okay the way it is as far as security because there's really not any I don't actually I guess I don't have a

I don't have a issue with the standard on bond because I voted for it and was a great project I guess when we were talking the mall and then all of a sudden I'm thinking okay the Mall commercial and I'm just again I'm just thinking about the mall and you have all these residential apartments that have been approved for that and then we're saying have at it use use their parking garage and I I that that to me oh I see your point okay is the security aspect of is the security aspect okay so the the you know when we're talking the folks over there at the standard on bond I mean I forget what they have 15 20 Apartments total 30 30 30 30 so I mean I don't know well I guess I would somewhat be concerned I don't know that I'm as as concerned for 30 as I am for 20 49 the sizing of them M and you just you know okay well if you think of any language that might um uh resolve your concerns or or helps provide DC to suggested earlier just remain silent on the shared parking and if that's if it's so remove that if it's essential if it's essential to a particular submission well then you can apply it okay if if you need it then you know we and ultimately the town board would have the authority to to say well you've got to have it in this particular case but to require it in general I don't know why we would do that and especially not with one like the um the one looking at us the most significantly is the Harford Mall and with um what seemed to be private um parking for the residences that would be separate uh from the U retail and the the other thing that would occur if you tied it in together wouldn't the um

wouldn't the mall get a better a better deal than we want them to get on um U parking requirement in general and therefore they wouldn't need to shutter any properties inside and they still meet the requirement yeah that why would we want why would we want that to happen right yeah that's impossible yeah so question if you changed must to may be provided which is not must as required the idea there is to say try to share because as Kevin said mixed juice is a way so you can share things and it puts that term shared parking in there when a developer is coming to look at a project maybe May at the discretion of the Planning Commission or something of that nature yeah I wouldn't want to say may provideed because then they're just going to and say which means you must do it versus a may may may at the discussion of the Planning Commission or the planning process I'm good with that yeah okay and do remember all of these uh performance standards are um at any time because it's a special velopment a mixed use of special development you can if something comes through and it doesn't make sense to you you can wave that requirement this is a special exception you couldn't but special development you can based on you know uh good good reason okay any more do we are we are we United on support then I think that's what we're supposed to come out of this discussion with right May well in in general we're supporting we're supporting the the town board has asked us to look at this proposed

ordinance and you know I would move that we support it um with the provision that um in the mixed juice um parking requirement um Shar shared parking requirement that would be um modified to say May at the discretion of the Planning Commission as opposed to must I'm good okay second second um are we going to take this point by point then it's up to you what I'll end up doing is taking your recommendation as a whole and I'll send it back out to you by email and make sure that you all an agreement with it and then that will be what goes to the town board were there other parts that we're concerned do you have concerns about just going going through I would say we're supporting we're supporting the whole thing as a is what I meant to say oh you didn't want to go through the rest of it Phil we got go through you didn't want to go through the rest of it there's more to it more to it I'm saying yeah it's on the second bottom of page two page two so let's uh guidelines yeah one thing that happens whenever you have a and this happens throughout the performance standards by by use you have performance standards which are you m you know this uh those items are are required guidelines are just guiding you to be able to require things of of folks when they come through the door um a good example might be um if you have a uh liquor store you may be concerned that that liquor store is open past midnight and you could put a restriction on their hours of operation provided it's in the

guidelines and that allows you to do that so that's just thought I'd kind of clarify that what I meant I hadn't heard any um disagreement with any of the rest of it I meant to support the entire document unless there's some objection to that I don't I don't think Kevin's going through the whole doc yeah if you want what we can do is under guidelines I had we had two items one is that the Planning Commission May wave require interior landscape buffers internal properties line setbacks and allow buildings to cross lot lines based on beneficial design you've actually done that in the past um but it hasn't been written into the code the way mixed use and shopping center work is that there are property lines that crisscross all over the place that people don't know about um because it's all one integrated scheme of development as uh Liz would say say and that is something that um this enables you to make that to to kind of wave those buffers and uh setbacks because they're within a shopping center or within a mixed use second item is when we place this 50% requirement one of the things that that kind of popped up is there's likely in the future you're going to be a situation where somebody is going to want to do less than 50% even though they're L use designation um says commercial they want they may say look we only want to do 45% commercial or whatever it may be what this does is it allows you to entertain that option um and but it requires them to

submit extra items to you um and those would be landscape design that would be expanded might include Foundation plantings it might include more plantings that are normally required um a separate plan indicating public amenities so where are they providing it and what are they're doing a lot of times what they do is they come in front of you and they say well we're going to put a gazebo over here well they have to actually show you what they're going to provide this has this starts to this takes the next step kind of Beyond preliminary and says show us what you've got uh an example I think I've always talked to Liz about is the um that master plan that they provided the Hartford Mall was vague at best and this would require them to become a much more detailed um number three a detailed set of architectural elevations and Engineering plans showing materials finishes and design so it takes that that architectural elevation that they provide now and says Okay I want to see exactly what you're going to do you're going to have to think ahead and um it it does get them past uh preliminary and takes them into what I would call Design development and then the last item is a written outline of the proposed mix of uses showing that the development provides for a community need and when we're talking about that is it has to be in the comp plan if you're if you uh uh pass a comp plan or recommend a comp plan is done and the town board

approves it and it says that there has to be a trail that goes through a particular particular property that trail has to be provided um and I'm using that as an example but there's dozens of different things it may be that that the comprehensive plan looks at certain mixes of uses and says this is what you know you need to provide so uh that uh there may be a need or desire and I think it was on the on the Planning Commission is that a community space provided at the Harford Mall well they showed you one but it's not exactly uh this would take that to the point where they would be dedicating that space you understand but their benefit is is they now can play with that percentage down to a minimum of 40% and um you they could never go below 40 you could never approve anything below below 40 and your your level of review might change or be adjusted based on what that percentage is if they just couldn't make 50% and they were like 48 that level of requirement might be relaxed versus if they were at 42% you know I'm going with that so that's kind of the thought I don't know Steve if you want to expand on that no that was because I thought you were also saying that if we don't put a lower a way to get to a lower limit they could actually petition to their their next step would be taking this to uh the board of appeals for a variance yeah and that's

lower they could go way down right yeah they go all the way down zero so this way that kind of you're saying that kind of prudes that so it's so on yes then you're going to have a substantial hardship argument and they always have the ability to go their inorder to say I have a hardship I can't use my property and this is the reason why so you're giving them comes before the Planning Commission with a little bit more flexibility and remember when they go to the board of appeals either you made it or you didn't you don't get anything yeah we've had discussions about whether or not they could actually prove the basis for variance uh yeah on you know what would be the um uh what would be the the basis you know yeah and it I think it would be a tough Hill to climb and and I think putting the limits on that lets the developer know exactly where they stand Ian I mean I think that's another aspect of it whereas they kind of don't have that now so this is codifying it and telling them what what's the extent what's because otherwise they can be going back and forth with you and wasting you know spending a lot of dollars doing redesigning and all that and this just this gives them that hard this is what it is you can go here but you got to do this and then you know but no no more than that so I'm a big fan of guidelines I help write guidelines in Harford County government and uh for developers and

guidelines for developers to me is very critical right so I'm all in favor of doing any type of guidelines and and developers like it yeah they don't want to go in kind of lost wanding around cost and everything right up front so it's a benefit to them as well and one of the things that could happen here is let's say they did come in and they want to get a variance well I don't want to say you're not going to get your pound of Flesh for a variance variance is either granted or not there's no extra items that would be good point yeah everybody okay with that M okay oh good I'm always surprised when I some things I think are going to be lots of discussion and then some parts are not okay that's we're done with mixed use so do you w to make a I'll reenter my I'll reenter the motion that I entered about 10 minutes ago with just the one CH I'm done good okay call for the question Jimmy I'm sorry recommend we're recommending this to the town board with one change 8 3724 okay Don i Phil I I very good okay so now the next one okay this one was was somewhat helpful

um because and I'll give you some a little bit of background uh and I think I spoke to you Pete uh about this when the town first brought forward um the uh form based codes back in like 200920 those form-based codes looked at zoning differently it wasn't based on use it was based on the form it was based on the architecture the Aesthetics and that's how B2 b2a and b3a were um were changed back in 2009 and 2010 they were revised so that that for the they were judged differently or are judged differently from the old what is commonly referred to as ukian zoning ukan zoning is um zoning that says singl homes here town houses over here commercial here you know it everything was separate everything was kind of siloed in a way um that has proven super inflexible over the years and it's also not real popular today with um a lot of the um federal and state requirements because they want to see mixing of uses they want to see mixing of uh uh development types and unit uh dwelling unit types so the existing code as you see it now has no density limits in the B2 b2a and b3a zones um

so what is being proposed is is to set those density limits in these zones and when that's done there's there's different changes that have to take place um some of these are more housekeeping than others but I did want to make sure that everybody kind of understood some of the proposed changes the um first few items here are again those um housekeeping changes if you notice on the illustration on the on the prompter here I can I've got a updated um PowerPoint now so I can I actually have a little laser pointer I can point to things there's a little area that says mixed use right below and it says SE permitted uses when the staff was looking at that we were like I think it's going to confuse people when we have a note there that says mixed use and now we have a Zone an actual use category that says mixed use it seems doesn't really doesn't really need to be there so we're proposing to remove mixed use from the three illustrations in these zones B2 b2a and b3a the um also the a couple of notes there was nothing ever in the in the B2 Zone that um uh referred you to the um lot uh the lot requirements charts in

the back so this adds that reference the top top item there basically saying if you want to look for density lot area and width this is where you go the same thing with General business Gateway except for General business Gateway had height and yard requirements and those are not found in the uh land use or the uh lot requirements in the back they are actually in that uh code section so there's this is more housekeeping but it's just a reference that we're correcting any questions on those before I go into the charts and this is something this next these next few items are something Steve and I have been going back and forth on I added these uh I mean this the Nexus of all this is about the density of B2 b2a and b3a but I kind of took advantage of that and added some restrictions in some of the other um uh zoning categories which may or may not be appropriate um one is if you're looking at R2 medium density the idea of adding a minimum lot size or parcel size in addition to the lot size so if you you look at town homes in the R2 there's an 1800 foot minimum lot size that's just for the town home that it sits on what we want to do is to be able to provide a minimum lot size for the entire development townhouse development if you look at several Town townhouse developments in the town of belir there's a lot of what I would call between

10 and 12 unit small developments that time has not been kind to uh the there's I'm not going to refer them specifically but you probably have one in mind I'm sure um these are small developments typically the HOA is not there or is not strong um they are kind of tucked in to single family house or on the edge of single family homes um they are um they're not significant enough to form any kind of community amongst the town homes because they're not large enough and this what this is doing is saying you got to have an acre and a half um and what we did was we created that on the R2 medium density and also on the R3 high density residential developments now we also corrected some uh of the and a lot of the stuff's repeated going from Zone to Zone semidetached dwellings and two family dwellings are basically the same thing if you saw them from if you stood in front of the house it would you would it would look exactly the same the only difference is is one designation is on two separate Lots so the lot line goes right through the middle of the of the building the other one is more one lot it would be kind of considered a condo in a way a condo regime basically two lots on one parcel well it doesn't make sense to have the density different they're all they're always going to be the same there's no reason not to um so we put

densities the same oh that was me or not uh just messing with me um so in the R2 we're saying eight units for semidetached 10 units for semi detached in the R3 they're just matching up to each other semi detached and two family um same with the rro 60,000 ft for town and 10 10 units or 10 units per acre for semidetached same with uh B1 although in B1 we did correct one item under multif family because multif family is permitted there and added 60,000 square feet instead of 20 and then I can I can stop there if you'd like how how would this Supply you reference and I think I know the some of the places you're talking about where history hasn't been kind how would this apply to them going forward what would they have to do where this would apply to them what what might they want to be doing where this would apply it wouldn't really affect them much but they would be considered considered existing non-conforming uses the only way that they could be expanded upon is to meet the 60,000 minimum lot size so you've got one I know one that's on alisanne I know one that's on Cressy I know one that's on um at the end of well it's on Hickory Avenue um there's two or three more that are doted around town there's one that's on um Kenmore so they would be declared

a non-conforming use which I guess the only downside there is that's probably not the best thing for your prospects of selling a property if you were attempting to do it right yes I would I'll defer to Liz but I I don't it would be less desirable to buy an uh use that's in existing non-conforming right no no but that's a good point so let's just say so let's just say you have property a that's nonconforming that somebody wants to come in and update but they don't have 60,000 square feet so they can't truly update in other words let's just say property a they want to tear down and rebuild make it nicer newer cleaner but without 60,000 Square ft they wouldn't be able to do that and therefore we would miss out on the opportunity to redevelop I I think the only way I I'll give you a good example um GD properties is is updating a group of tow houses on Broadway and doing a great job I don't think that development would be uh stopped by the town because it doesn't it's not sitting on 60,000 square feet because they're not expanding it they're not adding another unit um but I agree if somebody came in and said I want to add a unit here and at the same time I'm going to update all of these other ones they would probably have to go board of appeals for Vari yeah and say I can't meet the requirements of the code

I've been a non-conforming use for x amount of years right there there's a good point there's an Avenue for them to pursue to correct to try to okay yeah because that would be I mean think about it for a second that would be extremely unfair if they were they were built during the old version of the code and they wanted to say tear it down with the exactly the same number of units right right and upgrade that small community to something that would be better for the town right you know that you would want to encourage that right we would you're exactly right I I can certainly understand that so if they wanted to demolish one of these in its entirety and build the the same footprint back they could do that or would they without expanding the number yeah once you've demoed once you demo it you destroy the nonconformity even though you're coming back with the same number of units that you'd still okay well that's because if it's abandoned for a year I think it says under the code right you lose the nonconformity right yeah now does this tie into the proposed state legislation or there is a concern it's on it's really my concern but I think there's others might agree is that there is a concept of middle housing um that the state wants to incorporate into all the Zone all the residential zones um middle housing consists of town homes duplexes triplexes quad plexes uh Cottage clusters um I think that's it but the all of those could be incorporated into all

zones including R1 and um I've got an issue with and I can't I tell people that I I don't want to turn this into College Park if you go down to college Parks nice town but there's all these these Lots down there that were old single family lots that somebody came along and stuck a a uh uh most of the time they were Apartments but sometimes they're little tow houses that go in there I to me that's not it incorporates something in that doesn't support itself because it does it's not big enough to have its own HOA um it's I don't think they're necessarily I mean go around town they're not necessarily maintained very well but I can also understand your concerns I mean that that's just those get in the way especially for you want to make it easy for people to improve to do what G did yeah and the other thing that is showing to be something that is kind of inadvertently counteracting um the affordable housing act in the way that Kevin had sort of expressed a concern about is I know everybody hates Declarations of Covenant and restrictions and HOAs um but let's take Howard Park for example that's a big concern of the Commissioners is how that might impact the affordable housing act would impact old communities like Howard Park well Howard Park has declarations that have been on those properties since the 1950s and it says that you can only put in single family dwellings now the issue I've read it repeatedly and I do not see where the state law has nullified those Pro

provisions and the courts are very stringent about enforcing those declarations um so that is something that may I don't want to say undo the affordable housing act but I don't think they thought of that um same thing with like townhouse communities says this is a townhouse and the Declaration say you can't I can't tear down my townhouse and suddenly put a single family on it because my declaration say no you can't do that in this area so that's something that I kind of wanted to point out to you um because I did pull the Declarations for Howard Park and it clearly says only single family so you couldn't tear down a single family house and then put a duplex or a cluster Cottage Cottage Cottage cluster C Cottage cluster it's basically many homes yeah on like one lot within the center of Howard Park because that would at some point when you talk about density and I don't know what the average lot size is and how par but may tops about a quarter so quarter third you know you're not we have we have wide streets though wide Street Bill Bill lives at that one street they that that's the The Collector Street's going to be very narrow I can find you a mobile home and put on one of those quarter your lock I'm saying manufactured housing I forgot that's right I'm just saying the the um ability to put you know a cluster home on a quarter acre you're talking what's uh 42 so that's 12,000 square or 11 11,000 square feet I mean you're not you're not putting a lot in that yeah exactly yeah correct you're absolutely correct but the housing type would be in violation of the Declarations so you would still have all the setbacks too so

I mean if you have a 30 foot setback and a 10 foot yard side yard setback you know you're we do Al also have setbacks special setbacks off of single family yeah which also somewhat saves that I mean the only the only way something like that would happen is if somebody came in and said I'm buying the entire Street or they were going to buy multiple lots and then consolidate try to consolidate those lots and then put something else on there yeah right but then that would still go back to you need 60,000 square feet if you decide that this is appropriate yeah and you have to comply with declarations so and I I know Steve had brought up concerns on that same level of 60,000 sare feet where's that from you know that's something that is kind of been hanging around as far as what what's appropriate I'm waiting for the Declarations to hit that's what I'm waiting for I'm I'm waiting for affordable housing act someone to gets smart buy up a couple lots I'm not saying here could be anywhere in the state and there declarations and someone comes up and says uhuh you're not putting that here because that that's a real the courts in Maryland take those very seriously because it's considered protecting property rights of around the surrounding areas so well is there something um anticipated in the legislature this session to further take further action on this I mean I I get a sense that the state is interested in small or more affordable Lots not that I'm aware of or I've I've heard what they've passed um and which is going into effect now is I think it's as of yesterday I think it's as of yesterday it was January 1 yeah that's all I've heard but I'm sure um there are also supposed to be RS that are issued by that new Department

concerning affordable housing so that'll take some time for them to weed through um RS that basically set up the process for how people are going to use this affordable housing and we'll see what happens from there so so this may be premature yeah so I I don't want to hurry that process along I made that mistake with right so discussions we've had well Kevin and I have had about the the 60,000 the town homes it's like I'm not sure what 60,000 how many units would be on a typically on a 60,000 and it's like what Kevin says it's like what is the minimum number of units that makes a viable little Community okay type of thing and and that may be what we're kind of shooting for as opposed to just having two or four town homes on a small line and 60,000 may not be the right number it's kind of what we're saying that's what I'm saying at least and so it's coming down to what do we think is a viable town home Community size right I I wouldn't know to to say 40 is better than 60 or 50 or 70s better I I don't know right it's a it's an arbitrary number no matter where you pick it and I would initially when I looked through there's a nice little development actually off of Broadway between Broadway and Allendale um that seems to have done well uh there's one that's behind the American Legion that has done well they seem to be in that acre and a half to two acre range um and it uh there's potentially New Lots coming you know that could be coming that there's an undeveloped parcel that's of course been sitting undeveloped since I've been working here in town 30 years behind the

um the old egis building so um yeah that's a lot more um actually I think I it is 5.3 Acres you want me to continue uh let it percolate yeah keep going two and kind ofs like set off that's oh thank you for noticing that MTI yeah that's that it must have formatted wrong is that word problem that's a typo okay thank you for noticing that yeah two point yeah I think all right so um yeah I'll right now the the next um charts are more involved because we basically created a new category um I swear this is not me um we put a density category in there where there wasn't one before um and they uh the we took out the minimum building or use setback because it wasn't it wasn't really filled in with the exception of the

bottom two items so and we also added multi family dwellings and all of these Parcels that and and they all reference to the to the zoning um section of the code so it's that doesn't really change but what does change is the density limits in the B2 and um they basically match the density limits for multif family and all the other developments in town um and so do does the townhouse semi- detached two family and single family detached they're all the same now the um that can be said of b2a and and I'm skipping over the B3 because the B3 already has multif family there and has density limits and b3a so B2 b2a and b3a have in general the same changes and the density limits are listed there there only one that I think we became concerned about after this was kind of formulated was B2 would create a lot of non-conformities because you have very small properties that if you started to apply density limits it would create a lot of confusion now I think it's just the B2 I don't I didn't see anything in the b2a or the

b3a so that's the extent of uh the changes but basically you're at what's being proposed is to add density limits to those three areas those three districts staff supports yes I mean the one thing that uh um again we're concerned about is the B2 and that was something we didn't see until we started just talking it through then we started talking about looking at um maybe there would be the limits would only apply to a minimum lot size or maybe we take them out of B2 Al together those are options to play with right you know so it's most of the properties are on B2 are pretty narrow and long and you know so maybe the limits don't apply unless you've got 20, square fet or something like that or other we take it out all together because the only big lot left in and B2 is probably the fire lot only large lot partial land is the tire lck oh Tire which Kevin what's the calculation on the density for that uh tire lot again is B2 it is 2 Acres 2.04 Acres so You' get 40 units which is it's not going to be financially viable it's not going to happen that assumes that it's a um that it's entirely multif family if they go in and do mixed use they've got to have minimum 50% and then they can add to

that B2 is definitely a problem when you have a a continued area like when you have an entire area area like B2 that whole area suddenly becoming non-conforming you've got a serious problem that's that's a legal Minefield where I mean I've already discussed it with the Commissioners very briefly where you you need to you need to stop and pause because when you've just destroyed everybody's property rights I mean let's think about this for a second let's say something on Main Street burns down to the ground and they got to rebuild it's not their fault and suddenly they they can't comply those buildings have been there for some of them 100 years so you know that's been my concern and and Kevin's concern so I just wanted to point that out to you guys start discuss we yeah we didn't realize that until we started discussing it that's not that's not at least from my standpoint that's not what I want to do I don't want to make wholesale properties nonconform so that's why we started looking at those other two options minimum size are probably getting it all together to give you some good examples of other properties that are outside of B2 that um The belir Academy that has both apartments and town homes that's right at 20 units per acre they would be conforming um if you look at uh they're b2a right no they're B they're b2a it's B2 okay yeah um and if you look at the the town's always had the Hickory Tire the Hickory lot Hickory Avenue Lot which is across from the garage it's never really utilized and Town's always every now and then talked about selling it that would get 21

dwelling units at 20 units per acre which is not terrible so we we would apply this other than the B2 then well that's what we're talking about yeah the only zones that did not so you limit density in the b2a and b3a it this would not affect standard on bond because standard on bond is a mixed use development it's not multif family we're if we're excluding the B2 I don't have any reason to object to the legislation you want to make a motion for recommendation so we're talk just so I'm clear we're talking about ordinance 838 d24 correct yep yeah so at the bottom of page two uh we're going to add accept as otherwise noted in part all accessory structures shall be located within 3T of the property yeah that that was a a cleanup because when we added those categories we took out the three-foot uh setback for accessory units and I thought well we should the the way it applies in our code it's three feet for everything that's just keeping keeping your building off the property line um so what we did was we decided to to put that in a general uh note rather than trying to retain it in those in the uh lot requirements tables so from an accessory structure that would be like a shed yeah okay not not to pick on

courland because they've got them there but like shipping containers that but at least they have their screen they have the the screening of the Evergreens around the backside and things like that so what screening goes with with this there in other words if somebody wants to put a shipping container again I again it's commercial right but you know well if you're commercial up against Residential you would have a a screening requirement of 10 feet and I think you guys can reduce that if you'd like if somebody provides less but puts in you know uh Arbor or whatever the um I guess I guess what I'm saying is you have nice accessory dwellings and you have or structures and then you have not so nice well I mean you have commercial accessory structures and I mean I get it if it's commercial and Commercial it's this is what we're up against but you know at the same time just thinking outside the lines here that you know shipping containers B accessory structure are different than somebody putting up a shed or something along those lines right so if you had a shipping container that was up against another commercially zoned property you would not have that 10- foot setback have three you'd have three but is there any screening for that no except Alys and it's six feet off alleys uh alleys yes would have a six foot M yes you're correct all right cool yeah there's several exceptions in there other than that three feet but okay make a motion to recommend what we've talked about somebody I'd make a motion that we U

recommend to the town board to accept the changes in3 second okay uh Jimmy hi Don hi Phil hi hi all right did you not you did not accept the uh did you did not exclude the B2 from it yeah well the changes noted here include B2 am men amend motion to uh not applicable to uh B2 Central District okay okay secondry I I Phil I I okay very good okay status H project status project status I actually we just the one that you have in front of you has been revised um we made I don't know where I put that um on one second we added um some more information on here to make sure everybody understood there's the thing where it's where you can see at the top where it says plr date permit issued it's on the last category on the right hand side or second to last on the right hand side that was blank for the longest time and we've added basically whenever a um building permit has been issued that is something that um we want to make sure sure the date is put in there so if you look down your whole list all of these have submitted for building permit but only one has been issued and that's for the

kabad so um that is one change and then there [Music] is uh let's see the final record plat that was also one that was actually showing incorrect information so that's been added is when if somebody had a subdivision that subdivision has a date now as to when it was recorded So the habad is under construction you proba probably gone by there several times um Hickory Flats uh is everything is approved it's just waiting for them to come in and pay their fees Taco Bell is all ready to go they haven't come through the door to get their B permit yet no no not that I know um the um let's see Wellwood Assisted Living no activity uh we were that's I was thinking that the expiration is going to be coming up but it's not until the the fall this year Raising Canes has everything they need and they're looking at demoing in about a two weeks so one of their problems is it is a magnet for vandals for homeless for whoever uh and they've had real problems keeping it maintained the fence has been knocked down the buildings have been busted open they had a fire in there a while ago uh so anyway I'll be glad to see those buildings go yeah yeah I think they would too they

they definitely don't like to have to deal with all that um standard on bond um they're they're cruising along uh they're already under they've demoed or on the in the process of demoing so um yeah yeah so they're they're you know they have not let uh moss grow on them they're they're moving yeah um residents at Harford Mall uh they're still trying to work through utility problems that they've encountered and um the trying to get finalized on their final plans they still have not submitted a final plan yet we need to get we're asking for that several times plus they're offsite traffic they have a lot of offsite traffic traffic work that needs to get done and then I think you just approved the uh one last month for an extension I'm not sure if he'll ever develop but you know it's picture riding by there and knowing what else is going to be happening on the the the Raising Cane site and then he's there yeah I'm sure if you want that property you could probably buy it cheap bet yeah so oh did I skip over that yeah yeah and that's getting ready to expire in April that's the bank up here on on the little oh yes oh that's the okay across from the firehouse across from the firehouse yeah right I'm sorry they pulled their no they haven't approved uh and then they came in and got reapproved with a different development two two story

instead of one um but they haven't come back in since then so see it expires in April so there's lots of development going on right now uh but we haven't had any new stuff come through the door lately who's going the old next to margar I don't know I'd like to see Margaritas expand I think they would Margarita's Pizza next to uh the 71 7-Eleven is gone 7's gone right yeah I'd love to see them now what would happen with that which is very interesting I'll tell you I don't want to keep you here too long uh if they lose that they're no longer a shopping center because there's only three users so which doesn't really hurt or help them because they're existing um the another development which is mcfa crossing which has Weiss and did have Dick Sports and Patient First expanded to four which makes them a a shopping center so they'll probably be in front of you so who's s in Dix because they're clearly doing something uh Dix is a doctor's office and half of it and then the other half is um Harbor Freight Harbor Freight yes yeah waiting Turner got that project yeah harb of Grace what you say Harbor of Grace Harbor Freight Harbor Freight Tools tool tool Place inexpensive tools so um that's likely coming if Margarita expanded then you'd still you'd be at just the three then what would happen to the parking requirement how does that work they'd be calculated separately and they they'd have to have more parking right probably back before

they were a shopping center that's that's why they became a shopping center yep so they need they need a tenant other than they need a tenant other than Margaritas yeah but I'd like to see Margarita's expand let's talk about the park parking thing because I thought once you were a shopping center because like 7-Eleven had you know their parking Margarita says they want their they have their little six spaces out in front for their parking right my understanding with the shopping center is it's a freefor all dry cleaner has some too right and dry cleaner has some too so I mean theoretically they're not supposed to have Reserve parking right they're they're not we tend to let them I got it I just was curious manage their own Affairs but the um yeah you're right the the whole idea there is when you have a shopping center the parking uh mixes together to the point where you one one developments uh or one use their Peak period is different from another use um and it tends to work it the one exception would be B Town Center because they put in about nine restaurants eight restaurants it's tough so you know on Friday Saturday night they're they're packed and there's no spaces but we've always looked at these folks as saying look you know you understand how your Center works if you put in more uh restaurants you're defeating you're you're causing people to leave and not want to come come back so but I don't know how they uh how they wish to proceed but they're definitely cutting off their nose move into the town so you can walk there that's right yeah we'll have a nice wide thoroughfare on Thomas Street soon plenty of walking oh yeah no room for cars okay move to a

journ thank you cool yeah it's all all right thank you that's it there was a move a second you don't have to hit the thingy no I got one