Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

when it got emailed. I didn't I didn't get a copy of the one that came last. Yeah.

Okay, we're going to call the meeting to order for the planning commission. We're now in order. Uh first first business tonight is uh administrative matters. Item one, we're going to go over the minutes from see if there's any corrections from the last meeting. Any comments?

I I I have two real quick ones. Okay, Jeff, you go ahead. page up at the top where it says phase 5 adds 725,000 ft. It should be 2,7

725 That's it. Okay. Uh the only one or two I have on page 11. Uh let's see that's four, five, six, paragraph seven at the end. We had talked in the meeting about um the Knox boxes and uh I had asked a question which is not in here if it would affect the other phases at the mall and the answer I believe from Kevin was yes that would affect all those all new buildings being built would be requested to have the Knox box home the Bair Fire Department and I just want to enter that back into the record. And the other one was the other one's a simple one. It had uh let's see, find it real quick. On page 20, paragraph three, halfway down, it says to Mr. Thompson's concern. It should say to Miss Thompson's concern or Miss Thompson right there. That's all I had. Anybody else? Can I have a motion?

Now we'll move for approval. Second. All in favor? Jeff? Well, I'm sorry. I'm not supposed to be doing all in favor. Jeff I. Peter. I. Dan. Hi, Phil. I. and it's I for myself. Thank you.

Okay, now we're going to move on to new business tonight. We have uh six items that are on the agenda. For anybody that doesn't have the agenda, we're going over uh ordinances. We're going to uh go over ordinance 854 on sign regulations. We're going to go over 855 um permitted use tables. Uh let's see. C will be we'll go over ordinance 856 performance standards and development guidelines. Item D will be ordinance 857. It will be administration and enforcement. E will be ordinance 858-26 amending Bair Town Code uh chapter 165. Item F will be we'll be looking at ordinance 85926 amending chapter 165 comprehensive plan development regulations. There'll be a presentation given by either Mr. Wagar or Miss Liz or

Var I'm sorry Mr. RAR and Liz, our uh town attorney. And then uh anybody out in the audience that wishes to speak in between each one, uh you you can come forward and give your comments and we'll do it one at a time. And just for the benefit of our guests, our role tonight is strictly advisory, right? Yes. We Yes. We'll make a recommendation and the town board will act on it, whatever it decides to do.

That's a good point. And this is a chance for the public to come and speak on on their behalf towards it or against it or whatever, make any comments, and then they'll be passed on to uh our town commissioners. Okay, with that being said, Mr. Vaggar, um Wakar, I'm going to get that down by the end of this. I thought I had it down. Yeah, car.

What car without the T? Sorry. And you did so good on my name. So, okay, I'm going to let you uh present the first one. Ordinance 854. All right. 8 ordinance number 854-26. It is amending section 165-106B 2 B3C. Uh, in summary, it just clarifies that the freestanding signs can be located within a shopping center or mixuse center without violating the billboard prohibition as long as they are located within the project area and a development agreement is secured. Okay. Is there any input from staff? Any comments?

I just question. Um, I had one question and Liz, maybe this is for you. When you have um when the when it was like the mall property and it's subdivided into into different parcels and the sign is on one parcel, who's responsible for taking care of the sign? Is it whoever's property is on or is there a is that covered in the develop developer agreement? that is covered in the development agreement to ensure is it signage for um specifically the Harford mall is calculated based on the um I think it's the square feet of how much you know retail space they have but the signage is the responsibility of everyone just like the parking lot just like the storm water just like this the landscape

okay Jimmy I was just going to say this was just a little cleanup but you know this was allowed for shopping centers, but it wasn't allowed for mixed use centers. I wouldn't explicitly state mixed use centers. So, let's just put the two of them in the same category. You treat them the same. Well, you treat them both the same. Shopping centers and mixed use centers will now be treated the same for signing. That's all it's doing. Okay. So these uh freestanding signs, do they have to be gerine to one of the people in the shopping center or can it be uh Chismar for town commissioner or

No, it has to. So under the town code um the department has always taken the position that if you have um a sign of a certain uh square foot and you have multiple uh entities on that sign, that's considered a billboard. So, um, this allows this kind of takes it out of the quoteunquote billboard classific. I know it sounds crazy because I always thought the same thing. Billboard is totally different how to sign, but that's how the department uh interpreted it. Um, so it would be everybody in the center or everybody in the mixeduse concept would all use that. They could all use that same sign. I think Harford Mall's property based on their square footage, again, I'm just using them as an example since we're always in it. I think they're allowed like five signs around the perimeter of uh their property because

so someone who's uh has a lawn service or window service that's not included. Okay. Yeah. Okay. It's only specific to the businesses on the on that particular Yeah. I just want Yeah, I wanted to make that clear. Any more comments? Okay. At this time, anyone out in the audience in the public would like to speak, feel free to come up to the podium. We good? All right. Okay. Can I have a motion to this ordinance? Recommend support for the uh ordinance uh 854-26.

Second. Okay. Roll call. Jeff I. Peter. I. Dan. Hi, Phil. Hi, and myself. Hi.

All right. Um, next ordinances 855-26, article 1, tables 3-6 and 3-7, permitted use tables. So, just to summarize, uh, it's a general cleanup with respect to the permitted zoning designations for cannabis businesses in the permitted use chart. Originally, they were placed in the service uses and now they're going to be placed in the retail use locations exclusively. Um, and they are only permitted with a special exception in the B3 and B3A zoning districts. Uh, this is to correspond with the type type of use in article 7 performance standards section of the code. Additionally, there's a clean up of the permitted use table from for mixeduse centers in all categories, which includes retail, service, and residential in which they apply.

You want to comment on this one? I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. Comments on this one? I I didn't have any comments on it. It's just clean up. I know we just had recent legislation about Yep. Great. This isn't really changing anything, Phil. Is that the text has it cannabis listed under retail, but the table has cannabis business listed under services. So, we're just moving cannabis from the services table to the retail table. Everything stays the same. It's just consistency. You know, the text says it's in one section and the tables added in another.

And then same with the same with the mixed use as well. Just for general consistency throughout the allowed use tables. It's not changing the fact that cannabis has required a special exception and um mixed uses a special development. It's not changing that at all. Thank you. Any other comments, input? No. Would anyone in the public or the audience like to come up and speak? Okay, we're good then. Uh could I have a motion? Move support for 85 ordinance number 855-26. Second. Okay, we have a second. I'm going to do roll call. Jeff I. Peter I. Dan

I. Bill I.

And I for myself. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next is ordinance number 856-26 article 7 performance standards and development guidelines by use. Uh to summarize, this is to simply expand on the Jersey barrier and barbwire fencing prohibition to all zoning districts within the town of Bell Air's jurisdictional limits and that would be amending section 165-53 B2B. Um the second section that is going to be revised or amended is section 16553 H 2D2A. It adds allowances for the planning commission to wave property line setbacks, landscape buffers, and building restrictions within a shopping center as currently provided for mixeduse centers.

And I think pretty much we did that in one of our recent meetings down Morris Mill Road. Morris Miller, you mean McFale crossing? Yeah. Yeah. Yes.

Yeah. That McFale crossing kind of um is the one that precipitated this. The Department of Planning's position had always been sort of an interpretation which was when the owners entered into the development code. One of the things that they're doing in the or excuse me, development code, development agreement, one of the things that is required under the development agreement is reciprocal easements. So, meaning that if owner A has one lot, owner B has another lot, they're granting each other easements across the property line for things like parking, landscaping, setbacks, that kind of stuff. This just sort of memorializes what the planning department has always said, but then also forcing, with all due respect, to the planning commission to make the ultimate decision. It makes sense to to allow that.

In that case, I thought it made sense. Yeah. Yes. Any other discussions? So, in the past, the these jersey barriers have just come up in and they haven't notified the town. Um,

what is the what's the purpose? Says are prohibited without approval of the director of public works, which makes me to believe that you could here to for you could put them up without the approval. there was sort of an ambiguity in the code in one section. Um, in fact, we're still in a lawsuit over jersey barriers right now. Um, jersey barriers started showing up and the commissioners moved uh amended the code um several years back to say no jersey barriers in I think it was like the B3 and B2. Ward, do you remember B23 and B3? B2.

B2 and B3, but it wasn't permitted. It didn't say anything about Jersey barriers in other districts. Okay. So, um, one of the other things that came up was if someone is using the Jersey barriers as a barrier to the property for the purposes of construction, okay, the code didn't provide for them to use those barriers for say a temporary use. So, they're building in the fact that someone could use Jersey barriers for construction purposes instead of a fencing and um as a temporary measure to keep people out. So, they would have to get um Steve Klein to approve that as a temporary use permit.

Yes, sir. I recall correctly that uh one of them sprang up on the uh east side of South Main Street and we had a hard time getting rid of it for a couple of years. It came um Main Street. Bond Street or Bond Bond Street? Bond Street. No, Main. The the barriers on site up there at Oh, it's evolved. Oh, okay. Remember, we had a hard time getting rid of that for a couple years. I don't It sprang. It was the previous owners, not any that that was that might have been the precipitating one.

Yeah. Came out of CO and Yeah, because they they put the outdoor dining hard time finding how to make them get rid of it and finally just disappeared. I'm not sure if it was more teeth or maybe this cleans it up. Well, this does clean it up. Yeah. This is good thing. That was it was an eyesore there. With that being said, I want to Mine was going to be on Bond Street. There's a piece of property there on the corner that sat Jersey walls there for a long time. Are they grandfathered in? Not anymore. Not anymore. Okay. Take a drive down Bond Street. Okay.

That was fun. Any more comments? Anyone in the audience like to come forward? We're good. Okay. Could I have a motion, please? Mr. Chairman, I'll move that we support ordinance uh number 856-26. Second. Okay, I have a second. A roll call. Jeff I. Peter I. Dan I. Phil I.

It's I for myself. Okay. The next two ordinances are going to be presented by um Alispa Thompson and they're going to be 857 and 85826.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um ordinance 857-26. Um, the in sole intended purposes of this ordinance is to codify under the powers of the board of town commissioners under the development regulations the power to make recommendations to the Harford County Liquor Board for setback waiverss as required under Maryland code annotated alcohol beverage and cannabis article 22-1602. Just to clarify, um those setback waiverss are only for certain classes of liquor licenses, not cannabis. So what that statute says is that the uh lency can go to liquor board. Liquor board has set um uh setbacks in the state code says you can't be so far from a church, a house of worship or a school. They can request a waiver from the liquor board. The liquor board's requirement is that they come to the legislative body of the municipality or the governmental entity and obtain a recommendation as to whether or not that board in our case the board of town commissioners would approve that setback or recommend that setback be reduced. They then in turn send that back to the liquor board. Um the only change from the state code that we are recommending or the planning department was recommending is that there has to there has to be a public notice as required under um the code now um but they wanted to have um the notice requirements of the public hearing and the request to be sent to the adjoining property owners which I didn't see a problem with under the state code. So this is just to provide that mechanism that did not exist in the town code as required under the state law. So the planning commission plays no role in this.

No. Okay. Because it's preemptive by state law. Any other questions? Would anybody in the public like to speak? We good. Okay. You're a quiet bunch out there. Just wait. Thank you, Liz. Next one's all yours, too. the purpose of ordinance number 858-26. I'm sorry. Did we vote on 57? Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, got to vote on 57. Sorry. Thank you. Good catch. Keep me straight. Keep me straight again. Okay. Do I have a motion? Move support 857-26.

Second. Roll call. I Dan. Phil. Hi. It's for Jill. Sorry about that. Okay, now we'll move on to 858-26.

Ordinance number 858-26 um is attempting to codify um land use article um section 7-301 for the purposes of allowing what is known as development rights and responsibilities agreements. State law permits that development rights and responsibility agreement as long as the municipality has um enabling legislation um to enter into a what we refer to as acronym of DRRA. Um between the municipality and the developer under certain statutory required provisions. Um these sections here that are incorporated into the ordinance are amended to make it consistent with the town code. For example, things in the state code that say the legislative body have been changed to the board of town commissioners. The town administrator is considered the um principal. Um now the purpose of the these agreements is to basically give vesting to early vesting to a developer at the date the agreement is signed. In exchange for that early vesting of their approvals, they are required to give a an enhanced public benefit to the municipality or what is known as an exaction. So right now under Maryland law, exactions are illegal. They are prohibited under Maryland law. So, what an exaction would be is, for example, your property is on 123 South Main Street, and in order for the planning commission to approve your development, you have to go and reconstruct a uh sewer line that does not service the property on the other side of town. That would be a historically example of an exaction. You can't do that. However, under a DRRA, exactions

or public enhanced benefits are permitted as consideration for the early vesting. So, if you have a DRRA and say the town wanted them to go and fix the sewer line across the town, they would all the parties would agree to do so and the developer would do it. It is an enhanced public benefit for consideration. The agreement is good for five years. So instead of vesting occurring when they get their building permit and they are under substantial construction of their project, they get their vesting as of the date of the agreement. All other requirements under the town of Bair code must be satisfied. So, if they're going to do a mixeduse project and they also want a DRRA, they must satisfy all of the requirements under the performance standards in the code, get their approvals just like they normally do. This is just an added benefit. Any questions? I'm sure you have a lot of questions.

So, does the does the DR need to be applied for and processed prior to that it comes to the planning commission or is it part of the planning commission? You know, it's submitted to it's submitted to planning because there was what a they had a it had to be reviewed determined that it's substantially complete. Correct. Back to the developer. Correct. And then if it is substantially complete, then that package would be yesed on by planning and then come to the commission.

Conceptually speaking, yes. The idea would be that when they submit for their development, they already they would apply for their DRRA at the same time. Okay? And then it would all kind of go through on a simultaneous path. That's because of the fact that vesting is a late is Maryland law is a late vesting state, meaning you do not get your vesting until you have a building permit and you're substantially unc under construction. They could conceptually, if they have already an approval in place, they could come back and request a DRRA. So, think of any project say in the last year that you guys have approved that doesn't have a building permit. They could come back and say, "Hey, I want a DRRA because I want to get my vesting now. I don't want to wait. I'm happy to pay an enhanced public benefit." And that would be approved by the planning commission as well as consistent with the comp plan. So the vesting benefit gives the developer a time advantage. He doesn't have to

Absolutely. Now help me with the part of this public support. What what could uh the town ask a developer to do? Um we have it listed. We have categories in there, but it could do it could be something like we have a park and we lack funding in order to upgrade that park. We could ask the developer to upgrade the park or provide funding for that upgrade. And it could doesn't have to be on the property. Can be on the property, the subject property, but it doesn't have to be, but it has to be in town. Can't be in the county. It could it could be anywhere in town.

Is there a dollar limit in relation to the project that applies or No, it could be whatever the town might ask them to do. Yes. And that they would agree to and that they would agree to obviously and if they didn't agreement the cost to them would they would not get their vesting in advance. Is that the good pro? What happens? What if they don't agree? If they don't agree then they just run through the normal trackcts. They're they're you know they go through they don't get their vesting until they get the building permit.

Interesting. We already have for the folks that haven't had one of these we already have a uh developers are required to do some kind of a art or ornament uh but that's that's tied to I think a percentage value of development correct going to happen and that's on the property so on site it's onsite and if it did have

this would be better for my and at least I believe for the town because you know we really would get potentially get something more out of it. I'm a little concerned about um the blank check of how much we could ask for, but then they can always say, "No, I'll be curious." Obviously, the the guys in the room have we haven't heard from them yet, and I don't think they're here to talk about the hen. That's right. It's got to be 200 what? 200 square feet to require a permit. So, but to to your point, Phil, so Mr. way too much to come out here to talk about the

um to your point about the art amenity requirement under the code. So let's say that the art amenity was required for a particular project, they would still have to require that the public enhanced public benefit goes above and beyond that. Okay. Now, any discussion about an enhanced public benefit, is that a, you know, the developer just goes, "Well, I think I'm going to need to put this forth to get my DRA or is there some discussions with planning the commissioners. How does that It sounds like a grab bag.

It kind of is. So, the discussions uh generally speaking, we would hope, and again, this is new for us too. Um we would hope to have a very good idea before the developer even submitted its application as to what the enhanced public benefit would be because um the at the end of the day, at the very very end of all of this, you could approve it. You could say it's consistent. the planning department could make their recommendation that is consistent with the comp plan and good for the town. At the end of the day, the board of town commissioners is the ultimate say as to whether or not the agreement is approved. So, in order for that to happen, they got to know what is going on. They got to know what the project is, what else are they doing, you know, that kind of thing. So, it it everything would flow between town council and the town administrator to insulate the board of town commissioners, but that's how we sort of envision it. and any enhanced public benefit if it involved construction it would be part of the building permit for whatever they're doing or if it's like okay I'm going to build over here but the enhanced public benefit is is over here

then they would still have to go through permit process okay and if that required separate plan approval you know it's like okay yeah I'm going to put in a playground so exactly and like so the DRR whatever the enhanced public benefit that the developer is okay with doing. Um would have to come before the planning commission for a finding that it's consistent with the comp plan. That's a requirement under state law. Would it change any prior approvals? No. No. Unless it was on site. That's the only reason why I could think of it would change prior approvals. Like if they wanted to change something like at a playground or I mean

something was already approved that was going to be there instead now. Yes. They got to come back. They would have to come back. Okay. Help me if I'm correct me if I'm wrong but it would seem another value a specific value of investing for a developer would eliminate situations where they go through the process and these processes take a couple of years sometimes as we know. uh you're getting your approvals and then as the the legislative body from time to time passes legislation that might have made that entire project no longer eligible. Correct. And I've done all this but if you had your vesting then that wouldn't apply to them. That's correct. Now across the street correct

exactly how that would apply. Yes. So it I can't think of any example that's had to do with your considerable developments, but you may have a few in mind that and unless the parties agree to an extension, the part the um agreement is good for five years. So if say they get their DRRA and they never follow through and it dies after the five years and it's not extended, then all bets are off. Vesting ends. They have vesting ends. Five years is a reasonable time. Otherwise, what is it now? One year two years. you start over. Well, the planning commission approval could go up to three years. Um, building permits good for one plus one. Yeah. Yeah. So, um, that gives them two more years

about a project that maybe got started and then didn't continue on. Uh there's a limited time for that too, right? That this vesting would protect that a little longer. Yeah. What? Just curiosity. I'm I'm still figuring out some of this stuff. permits versus shovel in the ground. What over which one I mean is there a time limit on your permit to get a shovel in the ground? Yeah. So, um they have uh one year one year to commence construction. Yeah. And it has to be substantial construction. Any other questions, guys? Any questions here?

I I just one more question. Yeah. Yeah. It says uh uh after receiving a petition and before entering into an agreement, the town administrator and or his or her designation prepare a report and submit the application to the planning commission who shall conduct public hearing. So how does how does that roll into the whole flowchart? I'm just trying to understand the process.

So that that report would have to go to you guys. I mean really it says town administrator but it's likely to be the director of planning um to make a recommendation like you know a staff report like Kevin had always done for you know that's why I put his his or her designate. So again the idea would be you know you review the development to make sure that it complies with the code in it of itself the site plans plan all that stuff and then the development agreement at the same time. Okay. Okay. So it's the staff report. Yeah pretty much. Gotcha. But then the public hearing would be it can be at the same time as the development. Okay.

Yeah. Unless of course the plan is already approved, you know. Um I don't know why this just came to mind, but the assisted living facility off of Main Street probably because it it's getting ran expired, but like they've been approved. They have a site plan. You know, they're they're moving forward slowly, but it's moving forward. They could come back and say, "Hey, I want a DRRA." Now, they'd have to, you know, go through the process, but they wouldn't have to resubmit their entire site plan all over again. Does that make sense? Unless they were changing the property,

some kind of substantive change or going for an enhanced benefit, and then it's like, okay, now we've got just another piece to look at. Well, there wouldn't if the enhanced public benefit doesn't touch the property or the approved site plan. It's offsite, then just the DR and the enhanced public benefit would come before you guys. Oh, okay. You see what I'm saying? That would be the change. Okay. Yeah, I understand. Gotcha. Okay. Okay. We good on this side? Okay. Would anyone in the public like to come forward? If you come forward, please get close to the mic, state your name, your address, and your affiliation. Great. Uh, good evening everybody. Can you hear me? Can you hear me?

Oh, there we go. Yes.

Um, I'm Christopher Mud with Venal LLP, 210 West Pennsylvania Avenue, Sweet 500, Talson, Maryland 2124. And I was kidding about the chicken coops. We're here to talk about uh DRAAS. Um, and you all I know most of you I think know me, Mr. Gray. I'm not sure that um I've appeared before you yet, but I've been working on the Harford Mall project um the redevelopment project for phases uh three and four and five. Um and also work with the phase two developer, which is the residential developer. And I'm actually not here per se to talk about the mall. Um, but I'm more to talk about in support of the legislation for DRAAS. Some of the folks uh and my clients are here tonight and I think they may talk a little bit more about how a DRRA could be beneficial for their project and um it's shouldn't be a surprise given that I'm going to support um DRAAS in general and I I'd like you all to hear a little bit more about how important they can be to a developer in general without regard to the mall. Um so uh what what is a DRRA? Um this is language directly from the Maryland State Code, but um it's a mechanism authorized under the land use article of the Maryland code to facilitate, and this is from the code, an agreement between a local governing body and a person having a legal or equitable interest in real property to establish conditions under which development may proceed for a specified time. And the Maryland code speaks of DRAAS um to govern such things as the permissible uses of real property, the density or intensity of the use of the property, the imposition um of conditions, terms, restrictions or other requirements determined to be appropriate by the

local government for the project, the time and terms for development and construction of the real property. uh and other matters that are consistent with the purpose for DRAAS. And practically, the DRAAS authorize governments to negotiate agreements with property owners and developers regarding the terms and conditions applicable to projects. But also practically, these are agreements are typically only utilized for projects that are not your run-of-the-mill projects. You're not going to have a simple pad site that's going to come through with the DRRA. You're going to have complex projects um that might be deserving of special attention, projects that include numerous phases, projects that may take numerous years to execute, projects that may have several different developers and stakeholders and a little bit of difficulty figuring out how to navigate the process. Um, it's also important to note that these are not and and this can be um I realize as someone who represents real estate developers and real estate developers themselves certainly realize that sometimes there's um you know a negative air about government relationship with real estate developers and so there's concerns about agreements with real estate developers and it's important to note that these agreements this process is not a closed-d dooror agreement not a closed- dooror process there's significant ificant public process involved. You've talked about it some of it already. Um you know they're initially negotiated by the executive branch of government but government but once they are negotiated they require public disclosure. They require a public hearing. They require review by this planning commission for comp conformance with the comprehensive plan. Um and then they require approval by the mayor and board of commissioners if if it were to be adopted in this jurisdiction. That's how it would be approved. The code does not authorize the agreements to last in perpetuity. They have a 5-year shelf life and there are limited opportunities to extend that uh beyond five years. That would be addressed in the agreement and in

Maryland code, but it's very limited. Um and also importantly, these these are required to be recorded in the land records. So what's more public than that, right? You have your your business that's aired in public and then it's in in land records and it becomes an enforceable agreement through those land records. Um, so I'm going to talk a little bit about what other jurisdictions in Maryland think DRAAS are good to have in their toolbox. And I've heard uh Commissioner Chismar talk about when this bill was introduced that this is this effort tonight and and what's being asked of you and and what is being put up for discussion is whether or not this is a tool that the town of Baylor wants to put in its toolbox. Um, and so I'm going to tell you about some other jurisdictions that have this tool in their toolbox and think that it's wise to have it. Howard County, Frederick County, Carol County, Prince George's County, Montgomery County, Anaonda County. They're the only counties that have authorized themselves to do this. But interestingly, there's a host of uh municipalities and I think that it's probably more popular in municipalities, and I don't know exactly why, but there's a host of them that have it. um Gaithersburg, Rockville, Mount Ary, New Windsor, Tonytown, Cumberland, Centerville, Easton, Denton, and very interestingly, your sister jurisdiction up the road in Habertigra very recently adopted legislation to authorize the use of DRAS there. Um so we think why not do it here in the town of Bair as well. Um there have been some very significant projects that have utilized these agreements in the past. You all may recognize some of these projects when I talk about them. And there's just a handful. I mean, there's countless projects that have used DRA, but I want to give you some visualization, some understanding of the complexities and what a DRRA can bring and how it can be useful. If anybody's been to Colombia in Howard County, downtown Colombia, much of what you see there was orchestrated and facilitated through a DRR.

Um, 5,500 residential units, 4.3 million square feet of office, 1.25 25 million square feet of retail, hotels, transit implemented through phasing. It was a very big complex development that required a DRRA and actually much of the smaller areas like the if any everybody's ever been to um uh Merryweather, that area around Merryweather that's newly developed, that has been done through a DRRA. Another interesting one I found in Gaithersburg, a project I didn't I'm not familiar with this, but it's going to sound familiar in a second to you all, I think. Lake Forest Mall. It was a major mall to mixeduse redevelopment project. Um, and that agreement, interestingly, came online after they had their uh their plan approvals in hand. They had approvals and they were looking to implement the project and they entered into a DRRA after having those discretionary approvals in hand. And one of the important things, and you'll hear some more about this tonight as to why this is of interest um for this mall, but one of one of the major things addressed in that agreement was were provisions regarding the lingering tenency in that mall um and the early demolition of it. Um while the project is being built in phases, it was they were ringing their hands, it seems, over whether to take the whole mall down or to reten part of it and to only do it in portions. And so they used the DRRA as a tool among other things. They used it as a tool to help them dictate and figure out how to demolish the mall in an orderly fashion that made the most sense for both government and the developer. Um, and then the last example I'll give you is a place called Monrovia Town Center in Frederick County. This is an example of a DRRA that was entered into before any of the discretionary approvals were in place. the developer came along and said, "We want to make sure that we get uh you know the the um uh our our ability to have vesting and

an understanding in hand before we get started." And it was a master plan mixeduse community with multiple phases. And again, they obtained that approval uh before they had their discretionary approvals in hand. Um so, you know, in total, I think these are um excellent tools to to have in the toolbox. And I'm going to switch a little bit into um into why tea off a little bit of discussion as to why this would be helpful for the mall here. And there's been a lot of talk about vesting tonight and this being, you know, that's the principal goal of of it. From the perspective of the mall, that's not really a concern. At one point in time, it may have been, but at this point, you're going to start seeing construction there this summer. Everybody's really excited about it. And so this isn't a situation where we're trying to prolong the time frame we have to start construction. It's really more about how we execute. For those of you who've been watching us bring all these these um phases in. The one thing that we kept talking about and didn't have direct answers on is the future phase. We don't sitting here today still know exactly what that's going to look like, but we still want to get started. We want to bring them all down and we want to reach and potentially, you know, use this tool as a potential way to facilitate that and to facilitate that in a way that's comfortable for the developer in the town relative to what what is expected to happen at the rest of that mall um uh property. So, um I've talked way longer than I'm sure I'm allowed to talk at these things and I appreciate you letting me do that.

That's only with the town board that you only get three minutes. Okay, good. I was fearful. I didn't even I didn't even practice and I worried and I I uh here I am. I probably went on for 10 minutes. I'm sorry. But we I'll I'll certainly um answer questions if there are any. But if you don't mind, we'll have some other folks just say a few things and then we'll be we'll be can have a conversation. Thank you. Actually, you do get five minutes. Oh, okay. I think that was just about five minutes. Yeah. Am I allowed to hand some stuff out?

Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you.

Sorry, as Matt's handing that out, one thing I want to mention too because we don't want to get tripped up on this for your purposes tonight. You know, again, this is all about putting the tool in the toolbox. And while we want to give you an example about the mall and why it could be a good tool there, this decision that you make tonight, this recommendation and really eventually the council's decision about whether or not these things are appropriate shouldn't be about the mall. Um, you know, it shouldn't it really should just be about on its face whether this is appropriate. And we hope we can give you an example why it could be used at the mall. But if we were to ever bring this back for the mall, we'd be right back before you in that public process I described where we would have an application. and we would have specifics and then we'd have more of a dialogue about specifically what we're talking about. But I just want to make that clear even though we're getting into the mall a little bit. It should not necessarily your decision tonight should not necessarily be about that.

Uh Matt Robinson uh with SJC Ventures at 1115 Halill Road in Atlanta, Georgia. Um as as Mr. Mud had mentioned, yes, we're we're not here tonight to advocate specifically for a DRRA on the Harford Mall redevelopment, but I do think it represents a very interesting case study in which a DRRA would have been helpful for the mall redevelopment in the past and it will be helpful for the mall redevelopment in the future. Um, I I handed out the the vision of the full mall redevelopment. Um, I know some of you have seen that before, others others may not have seen it. So, I wanted to make sure that you all had had been exposed to what our vision is for the full mall redevelopment, but as Mr. Mr. Mud sort of alluded to, you know, as we were sort of talking about vesting, uh, some of you will remember that we had to bring in the the northern half of the development, which is anchored by major tenant A, we had to bring it in in two phases in which the shops building 500 and and 400 were sort of uh, split apart and uh, approved in in a second phase. Um, a lot of that had to do with this vesting um, discussion and so that's why we brought it in in two phases and I think had the DRRA legislation been in place. That is something that could have been utilized to enable it to be approved in one phase, I think it would have been uh much less confusing for everyone um, as we were going through the process. Um and it and it certainly would have um you know it it would have made uh construction and and starting the project uh much more seamless and streamlined. Um just just as an example. And then going forward as as we look forward to phase five and beyond which

was really the the core of the development uh uh behind uh what you see is the existing shops buildings in blue. you know, that that's going to be a much more difficult and complex part of this project to to execute on. Mainly just because if if you're not familiar with with kind of how retailers and and retail develop uh developers think, um you want to position most of your buildings towards the streets where they have more visibility. The core of the mall has much less visibility to the streets, so it's going to be a little bit more difficult to execute on. One of the things that Mr. Mud uh alluded to is one of the strategies that we can employ is to actually do that piece in multiple phases more for from a construction standpoint which is sort of the first phase would be taking down the mall and making it a green field site so that developers and tenants know that the site is ready and primed for development. Um you can also add in additional things like like you know we've shown some plazas and green space there. you can kind of uh put that in uh upfront initially to try and generate interest. Um but as it stands right now um you know executing that that really complex part of this project is is difficult with without having some sort of uh tool in the toolkit to to enable for that complexity and flexibility that really this next phase of the project is going to need. So, uh, like, like I said, we're not here to advocate specifically for a DRRA on the Harford Mall redevelopment tonight. It's just for the legislation itself. The Harford Mall redevelopment is a great case study to look look at this through uh, if you want to apply lens to it to look through. So, anyways, I recommend approving and uh, I think if you have questions, we're happy to take them, but

Okay, great. Thank you.

John Michelle, CBL Properties, 2030 Hamilton Place Boulevard, Chattanooga, Tennessee. I just wanted to reintroduce myself. I work for CBL. We are the owners of the mall and the master plan developers of the mall. We have deals with SJC Ventures to do two phases of the project. We have a deal in place with Newcastle Development to do the multif family project. And I don't know if you all have been through the mall lately. Um certainly there's a bunch of social media um presentations about the mall and it's not inaccurate. Um you know the the mall is unwinding um intentionally and and also um there's no stopping the unwinding of the mall. So eventually the mall will close. We're not announcing the closure. I'm glad there's no reporters here because I work for a mall company and it is not our business to close malls. Uh but this mall is going to close. Phases one through five, as you all know, have been approved. They're all going to start and a DRRA, I think, as Mr. Mud and and Mr. Robinson explained, will help us tear down the mall. I mean that that from the mall standpoint, what we're talking about is phases one through five being executed while the mall and having a mall that gets torn down that leaves a grass area that could be for public use. Obviously, that would be something that would be subject to further discussion, but we think it would be a lot better for the town and for the community to tear them all down while phases one through five are under construction as opposed to leaving a vacant structure um up while those projects are under construction and even open. Um they're certainly not going it the partially demolished vacant mall will not be an amenity for the new projects or for the

town. Um tearing it down while the other projects are under construction makes a lot of sense um from the project standpoint and from the town standpoint. And that that's really all I wanted to take a minute to explain. How would and just as a case study, yeah, already done. How would this have applied three or four years ago, whatever it was, when it all started, would there have been one of these agreements for the entire place or would we have one for each separate?

You know, it's it's it's a funny question. And if you if if you think back to what happened and how we did it, it was everything was in an intentional location, but it didn't happen at an intentional time frame. So, the multif family project was positioned in a specific place so that it could complement future redevelopment of the mall. At the time the multif family project went through, Macy's had long-term control of the space in the mall. And while they had long-term control of the space, there was no meaningful redevelopment of the property that could take place. It just wasn't possible. And and Macy's held up the inside of the mall. It it allowed enough small shop leasing to take place off of the Macy's. So, sort of a domino effect after and it occurred after the multif family project was approved. Macy's announced that they were closing a number of stores, one of which was this store. It probably would have made sense for us at that point to discuss a DRRA if that had been available. Um and and also and I don't want to speak for our multif family partner. I mean there are always questions related to vesting when it comes to um you know that that sort of use that I think would be a discussion that you could have. But I but as I think of it you know it's a tool. It's not a have to and nobody has to apply for um or seek a DRRA with an approval and the town doesn't have to grant a DRRA with an approval. It's it's something that is a secondary negotiation that takes place with or after an approval in this case. So, you would be interested in one of these right now for the entire

We our our interest is, you know, to to be totally transparent because I think it's a good it's a good thing to talk about. Um, our interest is in tearing down the mall while these other projects are under construction. You're talking there about the inards of the mall plus the Macy's or just the inards?

The the Macy's is one of the projects. So phase three is the Macy's project that will be torn down, but with what's approved today, Macy's will be torn down and then there'll be like a funny section of the mall. We'll, you know, it'll be safe. There'll be exterior walls. It'll have life safety in it, but it'll be a standing structure that eventually has no tenants operating in it. And so what we what we see would be negotiating a deal with the town so that we tear that down because that's going to be in the town's best interest and and I think in our interest too. What's what's your last lease exploration?

Um there's there's there there's still work to be done but they're coming up. one I just what I jumped up because to explain the reason why the condition that he described through construction exists is because the approved plans of record rely on the retail space within the mall to account for the total amount of re retail space for a mixeduse development approval. So we've been told that if we were to try to take that down then you wouldn't actually have enough retail space on an approved plan to justify. Hence, having a tool like a DRRA would allow us to agree contractually that if we take that down, we have to put it back up within a certain period of time in order to, you know, a certain amount, certain period of time. And that's really one way in which to solve the problem. Another way, you know, and we've been asked this too, is why don't you just process a new plan for that last phase? And the answer to that is because it's very expensive and frankly we think it would be a waste of time at this point because we don't know whether what we would bring forward is exactly what the market would want. Every other project that we had came because a developer came along and said, "Hey, you know, I I want to build that there and this is what I see happening." We don't have that at the moment. We don't have a developer for that middle phase. Um and so even if we were to show something, it may or may not get built exactly like that. that it would put us back in a position of having to come back before you all for more changes. Um, and so this gives a longer runway uh to to try and figure out exactly what to do there while at the same time taking down a building that's going to be vacant and potentially putting up, you know, putting in its place green space that could be used by people in the community during the period of time when we're figuring out what to do with the rest of it.

Okay, that opens me up for questions for Liz now. Um, so how's that affect the 50%. If you have an agreement, that's exactly what Chris is referring to. So if they were to uh demolish the Macy's and the interior of the mall, they would fall below the 50%. Now, the board of sound commissioners provided for an out to drop to as low as 40% in a mixed use. So I mean it would depend on a lot of different factors that we would have to work out but that is definitely what Chris is referring to. But under that agreement that would have to be satisfied by

Yes. And there would be certain safeguards for the town to ensure that that was brought into compliance and or the space was utilized um in a particular fashion while they were assuming that it can be. I mean this is just you know all theoretical at this point. you know, perhaps used by the town um as a you know, not necessarily the town, but the developer would allow, you know, a public space for um the time they're under construction and that area is destroyed.

One of say a few of those buildings are empty for a long term, would that still be considered in that 50% because it's vacant? It's my understanding from the department of planning. Uh Kevin and I had spoken about dras for months now. Um it's my understanding that Kevin the department's position the new director may have a different position but um the department's position is is that as long as it is available for retail space it is it's there.

They could rent it tomorrow you know and it's there. The big the big point about the 50% rule remember is is that it is to con find the developer not to go over a certain percentage that is inconsistent with the comp plan. This property's designation is mixed to use commercial. So the concern was is that they would take this massive piece of property that is a generator of commercial businesses and turn it into apartments and that was the concern. Now, it's my understanding from the developer and maybe you know John or or Chris can chime in, but the developer has zero intentions of uh developing any more residential units.

A couple 100% this is not to develop additional residential units and a couple statistics that you know I look at every day. If we do tear down the mall and we and the other projects get built, we'll be at approximately 45 to 47% um retail to multif family when everything's built if the mall was torn down. Um and and I I envision a commitment to rebuild retail um to get to the 50/50. It wouldn't take much retail. It would just take the next phase of a project to equal out to the 5050. get get you're gonna get beyond the 50 be way more

well well beyond the 5050 says says our attorney but we look at that each time we

but but but but you know to to assuage the concern and and if you just think about it from a practical standpoint if we need to build 30,000 square feet of retail to get to 5050 um 30- which would is our game plan it is the business plan it's our intention um it'll be a lot easier to do that with the mall torn down than with the mall there because the mall sitting there representing retail space, which it is retail space, it's just not leasable in its current format, um, isn't doing anybody any favors. It's also not helping getting to the end game sooner. So, tearing it down creates a medium-term solution for the town, I think, in in a green space that's usable, and it also accelerates the completion of the final phase.

Logistically, they can't build. you see the conundrum like logistically they have to take the mall down in order to be able to build what they've already been approved. There's only so much space on the property. And from their standpoint, I definitely appreciate that standpoint. Yeah. And I I'm just talking about the future because we still got phase what six and seven to go potentially. Yeah. And Yeah. And they don't know what it is. We don't know what it is. Yeah. So,

well, I was just going to add that I mean just just so we're all clear what I put in front of you that is the business plan that we were trying to execute on and and what I was trying to convey in my comments is that that business plan is going to be exceptionally difficult if not impossible to execute on unless we have the ability to take them all down

and take and take it to take them take it to the market as a green field site. when people come and see a big structure there that is going to cost millions of dollars to take down like nobody takes it seriously right and so so that's why you know we're we're recommending approval of dras is to allow for the the flexibility of projects like this that have kind of unique needs and uh and uh complex situations that need to be considered

yeah and um just from a global perspective you know I mean we have the four corners this is one one of four so we could. I have no prior knowledge. I'm going to say that right now for the people who are watching on YouTube. I have no prior knowledge, but there is a complete possibility that another developer like Tollgate Marketplace, you know, Belair Town Center, one of those larger commercials could say, you know what, I want to do a redevelopment, too. And phases like the Harford Mall does. and and it's been extremely complex moving all of these pieces along the chessboard with all of the different developers and interests that and no disrespect to you guys, you know that it is trying to get stuff approved and through the system and you know is if they do X is that going to impact Y and and making sure that that's um

like where the diner was. That could be another area. Correct. If the state abandons that, then someone else could come in and and and and and buy it up and decide to do a face in development in some way, shape, or form. They also have the annex. The annex is another piece. You know, it's not part of the four corner. It's not as big, but that's behind there. They could decide to redevelop that in some way, shape, or form in the future. Again, no prior knowledge, just example, all hypothetical and a global because yes and developers here to advocate for his position, but where we all sitting here on this side are responsible for the entire town of Belair. Yeah. You got to think that other

correct. Where else could this potentially come into play? You know, would a DR memorialize that the, you know, if the, you know, as a hypothetical, you know, the area is all impervious now. It gets demoed. That makes a whole lot of sense. Everything's carded off. Now it's a nice, now it's a nice open field. The next developer comes in, goes, well, from storm water management perspective, it was paved. You know, I don't want to normally storm water, it's like, well, you come in what the condition is. If it's green, then your storm management liability is greater. So the DR would be able to memorialize that from a redevelopment perspective. Yes, it was. Yes.

Okay. There's lots of things that we can work on um as future requirements for the site. if there were any, you know, like in the in the at the at the last meeting where, you know, new parcels were essentially identified uh for potential sale later on and said, okay, this this tenant wants to own the property. Uh that wouldn't would that have any negative impact on the DRRA?

It would depend along the lines of whether or not they were going to subdivide it out. So if like say the two pieces for phase four, you know, one side wanted to buy it in because I don't think it's exactly subdivided out. I think it's just two uh it's just parcels are going to be okay. Yeah. So if there it's still under DRRA, you know, we'd have to take a look at that. But if they're not and it's terminated, it's done, then they can come back in for a subdivision plan and cut it out. And the DRA wouldn't impact that.

Okay? Because the DRA isn't for ever. It's got a time kicker. It's time kicker for them to make sure, again, all due respect, I'm saying them developers move it along. You know, they have time. They have a little asurances. This also gives them breathing room when they're trying to get financing for, you know, tens of hundreds of millions of dollars that they are now having vesting. So how say the five years kicked in then what happens? It terminates on its own regard and unless the amendment is um the parties agreed to amend it and terminates in what respect? It's they lose their vesting. It's done. It's done.

Done. The project's finished. Yeah. The approvals. Yeah. But they could come in to to ask for an extension of that approval. They can come in to ask the board for an amendment to extend the time frame frame for performance. They would still have to go through a process performance then that's negotiable with Yeah. Correct. Yeah. And they can say no. Yeah. And there's under certain circumstances as well. Okay. Isn't that kind of likely with this group? I mean it it looks like it's going to be years and years to develop this out. I I don't think we're a good example for that question because we're about to start. This whole thing is about to go. Four years ago, that would have been a great question,

but but right now, you know, this whole thing, it looks like it's going to start this summer. Uh, phases two, three, four, and five will follow in the, you know, as soon as they can get an approval. So, I don't think our situation is a good example for that question. I think it is a great question. Um, but if you and you know now you're I'm gonna give you an opinion that you didn't ask for. I mean it's it's more time than you have under the approval. Yes. Which is two years plus one. So it's it's a lot but you know it's still it takes a long time to do a multi-phase projects and there's a lot of crazy um external events that you know cause things to get delayed. So that's what led me to ask the question.

Pardon? That's what led me to ask the question. Yeah, it's a great question. You all don't really know that something could come down or I mean we're we are ready to go and our interest in this is really 100% to figure out a way to tear down the middle of the mall because we think it's best for the town, the community, and the projects. Um and and we would want to do it quickly. um we wouldn't be seeking anything other than that in in our version of a DRRI. You would picture that becoming a and this is not a opposition drug becoming a public place even while all this construction is going on all around.

Well, maybe when the con the construction let's just say the construction's over in two years. So when the construction is over, it would become a public place. when the fences came down. Probably not a good idea to have it be a public place while the fences are up, but but it's only a 24-month total construction project. The irony for folks that weren't here was that the first once the apartments came, which was phase two, right? And every step after that, we were very conscious of this mixeduse thing and not falling under 50% retail. It it at least never occurred to me. Well, this has to be actually available retail, not it doesn't apply if you if you have demolition and all you've got nothing. You can't do anything.

Exactly. Yeah. Exactly. So that that would be an untenable situation. But that's I I never thought of it that way. I was thinking, well, the stuff we've approved would count for the percentages and we'd be we were with respect to the approval. The approval was made when the mall was functioning as a different animal with Macy's and the mall and and we you know it it unwound differently. At no point did I think that anything that was there now that was there then was going to survive. I never thought that. But I I just thought that the the percentages were based on what was approved, not what was still there. And because at some point if you if you tore everything down now before you started it, you'd have zero Z. you couldn't do anything. Yeah.

And that's why you're that's why you're here tonight. Okay. As well as being good community citizens. And that's also the reason why the department had recommended the board put the key and it's not to their project because we had no idea, you know, when the 50% was codified. You guys made the requirement for the 50% in their initial approval for phase two. We didn't want it to be an apartment farm over there.

Correct. So when the board of town commissioners codified that as part of the mixed use performance standards that they had to maintain 50, the department had recommended and the board adopted a a kickout clause for this kind of situation where they have to fall below the 50%. They can't maintain it because otherwise how are we supposed to you know this is a unique situation where it's like they've got other approvals but they need to move. They can't move because there's this big hulking empty mall in the way, you know. So, but there is a kickout clause that allows them to do that. It acts as a safety valve to drop to no lower than 40%. So,

sorry, Chris. No, no. You I I one thing I forgot to mention during my initial three minutes of speaking was uh was um and this this might you know help sort of cap off the discussion a little bit but DRA's um one important thing that they provide is is certainty and we talked about vesting and I'm going to use the word certainty and you may remember some of our prior uh discussions on the um on some of the um phases that that lenders, developers really like it, but lenders do too. And so if you if you facilitate this tool and it's in an in an area uh in in place for this project or other projects, it does give that ability where somebody can underwrite a deal and look at it and say, "All right, well, you know, is this going to happen?" Yeah, there's a contract that says this is going to happen. And is it going to happen in a certain period of time? Yeah, that's what the contract says. And it just helps make people more comfortable to invest their either if you're a developer invest your your own money or if you're a lender to invest um you know a bank's money or for the bank to invest its money. I just wanted to make sure that that was clear as a overarching element too. And I I got one comment. Since most of all the investors are in here, all the different components you all have, I would take it they have a legal agreement this whole complex regardless of who owns what part in there.

Yes. That they have to stay under this agreement. This DRR correct. So the DRRA runs with and binds the lands and it binds its successor and assigns regardless if they sell another. So if John's company who owns the entire piece sells off to somebody else, it follows the land. It doesn't follow the owner. And it would also be signed at the initial standpoint by anyone who has an equitable interest, meaning people under contract. So yeah, it wouldn't be that the owner does it and then someone who's under contract. I didn't know about this. They they'd have to sign as well. And it's it's recorded in the land record. So it impacts the title to the property.

Kyle Whitman, one Olympic place, sweet 900, Talson, Maryland. So just in regards to our viewpoint on it from the residential perspective, we see this a lot. We have one down in Charles County. Actually, it's for an exaction to provide some off water off-site storm water management, but it's a mutual benefit for everyone. Anyway, we are more than happy to sign an agreement as an equitable owner in this that prevents future residential and also allows us to rent high-end, you know, luxury apartments at the price point we want without staring onto the roof of the mall. That would be kind of tough to do. So, we're we're hopeful that we can get to this point. I'm glad the discussion has been productive. um and and you guys understand the complexities and the nuances of three different people working on a project that kind of needs to come together and this can kind of help do all that for us. So,

appreciate that. Thank you. I was just it if there are no more questions, I was just going to make a clarifying point on the plan that I handed out. It was drawn before um Mr. Meshell came in with the bank. So phase five is actually referred to the center, but I guess now that's phase six. So just if just if you were looking at this and you're like, "This is confusing." What? Sorry. Credit union. As long as you don't mention Whole Foods. Thank you, Matt.

Okay. Any more comments from the audience? Okay. Uh I think uh we're at a point where there's no wording changes in there. There's no extra comments to add to this. Do we have a motion? Move that the planning commission strongly endorses ordinance 858-26 for approval. Second. Roll call. Jeff I. Peter. I. Dan. Hi. Phil. I. It's I for Jimmy. Thank you. I'll turn it back over to a car. You're welcome to stay for the hen discussion overalls on

Thank Thank you. Thank you guys. Have a great weekend. You too. You too. All right. Yes.

One of my most favorite Chapter 134 animals article one regulation raising and selling to address section 56. This is just simply to reduce a lot size requirement for two domestic and resials from 10,000 ft as it is originally now 5,000. We are adding language that the application of this is exclusively for single familywide and we are just making a revision to remove the word chicken from the section and replace the section 1314. 134-1. This removes the inconsistency requirement 165 article 10 section 165 article one by expressively expressively section. Any comments or discussions? Everybody good with

hand? Would anybody in the audience like to come forward? Mr. CR quales. Quales. Quales. Okay. Chickfil-A. Yeah. What do we call that place over there? Chicken alley chicken. Chicken Road. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. With that being said, do I have a motion? Mr. Chairman, I'll move that the planning commission support ordinance number 859-26. Second.

Roll call. I Peter I. Phil. Uh, Dan. Hi. Phil. I. Jimmy is an I. Okay. Uh well, I don't think we have any more business. Do we have any project? Just one other thing for you guys. Okay.

Um just to let you know, um the board of town commissioners will be passing a resolution on Monday to accept the appointment of Michael Bayer as director of planning. Um so he will be starting um later this month. Um, I do not know right now whether or not we will have a planning commission meeting. Um, I'm not sure if he's going to, you know, need a month to kind of breathe and get acclimated. Um, and again, I want to thank the board or the commission for kind of our patience with me and what car as we kind of try to keep the legislative, you know, ball rolling through the system. Um, and try to make sure the planning commission could get together and do this, um, you know, without Kevin. um because I think this is the first time's done it and I've kind of had to work on getting you guys together. So again, thank you for your patience and your communication. I really appreciate it.

We have no applications for May. No applications for May. No. Okay. Yeah. Thanks for working with us. Wait a minute, Phil. That's Yeah, this going to be your last meeting. June. I'm June. We have I go off June 23rd. Okay. Well, hopefully we'll have one in June. Unless you re up maybe. No, no.

There is a um public hearing that will be scheduled on DRA as um Wakar and I will work on a memorandum from the planning commission um to summarize really it shouldn't take long at all because you guys didn't really have a lot of comments. You had a lot of questions which was fine um to discuss. It was a great discussion. Um, but we'll put that together and send it out for you guys' review and if you have any comments or you want to add anything, we're happy to do so and we will make sure that the board gets that before Monday. It was nice to have a piece of legislation that both the town and the developers were in favor of and I didn't know what to expect. I knew they were here for a reason. Scary, is it?

They'll be here. They'll be there on Monday, too. It wasn't just out of their community spirit, which is considerable, but uh I I could see where this uh is a win-win for both sides and uh it can be a good tool. Yeah, I think so. Yeah. Wish we would had it, you know, five years ago or whenever they started. But um well, with that being said, do we have any uh project updates from the planning department? Not at this time. Okay. Okay. Do I have a motion to Well, I had a I had I had a question for Liz. Um, on these art amenities that over the years we have, you know, approved it.

Who's responsible for the maintenance of those amenities? Um, I think the the my guess without looking at the code, my knee-jerk is the property owner is anything on their property is their responsibility. The reason I ask is that that clock at the corner of Bond Street and 22. Okay. That's an amenity for somebody. Yeah. On Harford County side of the property. Yes. On the Harford County side. Harford County office building. Yes. Yeah. County office building. Yes. Loyola Federal. You're talking about I That's an amenity for somebody, but that clock hasn't worked

in years. I never even noticed a time on that clock. Yeah. Oh, I go by there every day. So, it it is an art amenity amenity, Pete. I think it is. Okay. Phil, do you remember? I I don't I don't think I was here then where the black boxes boxes. Yeah. On the opposite side. On the opposite side in the trees there. Yeah. There's a clock and it hasn't worked for years and I'm pretty sure it's somebody's amenity across the street from Mike's property. Yeah, but on the black box property or the open lot where the parking lot is. I don't know where county office building county office building where Brown and Brown was. Yeah,

in the like at the corner of 22. I mean I I I know the location. I just never looked at it to see that it was working. I saw it thought it was cute. Didn't even realize it wasn't working. I go by it and I love the clock but I never really looked at the time. No, it's it hasn't worked in years. I I I don't know. I I don't know. Can you check on that, Mar? Check and see who is uh responsible for the art amenity at the corner of 22 and Bond Street, please. And uh I don't know who I don't know who that is. So, the property owner, the developer, correct? But it's on the corner of 22 and Bond Street. The property is owned by Harford County. So why would

decades ago? I know. That's why I'm like we we require county office building have an art amenity. But trust me, I I trust your memory better than I do mine. I don't recall that one at all. Okay. I I don't recall it, but it could have been. We'll check it out, Pete. Okay. Just I know clocks like that aren't easily fixed just as unrelated, but related story of the insurance company had clocked for many many years up there and then it fell into disrepair and it was the time was only correct twice a day a few years. Well, it's it's back and running now. It's only five minutes off. That's great. It's better than the weatherman.

They did they did great research though and Frank Kelner, who's now retiring, tracked down wherever that thing was originally purchased back in 1953 and they were still in business and they fixed the clock. Yep. So, it's only five minutes now. A lot of community was relying on that clock. I got complaints about that for 10 years after I didn't work there anymore. I got a quick question. It's probably for you, too. Maybe some of you guys have been around a little longer than me. How do you go about looking to have an ordinance changed as a citizen? As far as a pending ordinance,

an ordinance that you would like to have changed, an existing ordinance. Existing ordinance. Yes. Submit a request to the board of town commissioners to introduce something. And why? That's how the chicken would Yeah. Well, I'm thinking cats on this one, but Oh, okay. It's not a health. It's not a animal control issue. I got Eddie Hopkins a little bit too, but uh we've been talking about it and I I just want to know what the formal way is to approach it would be send is send it to any of the board or all of them and then CC um Eddie and they'll take it from there. Yeah, that's how the hens got started. Okay. Any other discussion, questions, comments?

Second. All in favor? John? I