Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Morning everyone. Welcome to the planning and zoning  commission meeting for St. Patty's Day,   March 17, 2026. I see a lot of  green out there. Good things. Um,   let's establish a quorum. Morning everyone.  Mr. Kane here. Mr. Robertson here. Mr. Huff   here. Mr. Kirkner here. Mr. Swisson.  Mr. Lester, Mr. Smith here. Mr. Gordon,   Secretary Dailyaly here. Mr. Chairman, please let  the record reflect that we have five members are   present and we do have a quorum. All right. Thank  you. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United  States of America and to the republic   for it stands. One nation under God,  indivisible, liberty and justice for all. Okay. Item number four. Is everybody  had a chance to take a look at today's   agenda? Any changes? All right. I move that we  approve the agenda. Second. All in favor? I I All right. We have uh two sets  of minutes uh from the February   4th and February 17th meetings. Um  any changes to those uh minutes?

Okay. Make a motion. I make a motion we  approve the minutes from Feb February 4   and February 17th to 2026. Second. All in favor?  I. All right. Commission member reports. Um I   um just have one item. I attended the  billboard zoning public information meeting.   um insburg at the Finburg um library  there. Uh I thought Daphne, Claire,   and Tiffany did a great job presenting  that um those proposals. Uh the community's   uh very uh they have their own website and all  that stuff. They're very active, very interested.   I thought they had a lot of good questions.  A lot of the questions and comments were very   similar to what we had while we when we had our  two meetings. So, um I thought they were very   engaged and we think we should expect some more uh  feedback from them as we go through that process. Commissioner Gordon is not here. Any other uh  commission member reports? Okay. Administrator   report. Daphne, good morning. Morning. Good  morning. I have just a few notes for you all. Um,   first of all, a little heads up that we did  submit the water resources element that you   had a public hearing for uh back in February. Um,  and we have gotten comments back from the state   that we're addressing and you will see those  comments um back before you in April. Brenda   will be here and at that time she'll also um be  looking for your um approval of the to continue   moving through the process. But just so you know,  you had the public hearing and that is continuing  

to move through and hopefully uh we'll be ready  to move on to the commissioners soon. Okay. Um a   couple of other things we are we've um undertaken  the work on the uh deferral related code divisions   with a consultant that is um on board with us.  We've had a couple of initial meetings and uh did   a field visit with them last Friday. So um that  is moving forward. We also are in the process of   um putting another consultant under contract  to look at roadways in the Freedom area to   help give us some information that we can use to  address some of the circulation concerns there.   And we have an RFP out for consultants to help  with a small area plan amendment to the Freedom   Community Comprehensive Plan to address further  some of the um concerns about things related to   uh design design in the commercial districts  in particular as well as uh taking a fresh   look at the land use designations and  zoning in the Maryland 26 quarter. Um Enemy could you give us any timeline  on that on the third item the small area   on on all the the consultants and um so  the code revision the consultant working   on the code revisions are um meant to have  their work wrapped up I think in September.   I'd have to double check the uh the specifics  on their timeline. Um the transportation network  

um consultant, I'm not sure because we are  uh still working through that process. And   same thing with the small area plan  amendment. We'll wait to see what we   get back in terms of um proposed process  and timeline for those. Okay. Thank you. Um, uh, Chairman Kaine mentioned the public  information session that was held down in   Finsburg related to the off- premises  sign text amendment. Um, we are working   on scheduling the public hearing for that.  It will probably be in midappril sometime,   but we have not gotten that date confirmed yet.  Uh, and then lastly, just a reminder, you got some   um forms to fill out for financial disclosure.  Uh, so if you can make sure you have those back   um by the deadline, that would be good. And that's  it for me. Thank you. Any extensions? Yes. Good   morning. Morning. We have three extensions that  were granted since our last your last meeting.   The first one is a subdivision plan. It's called  Abbott Acres. The file number on that is P 02029. This is the 16th extension of this subdivision  plan. I believe it's seven lots and it is in   commissioner district 2. And on the positive  side, the property just exchanged hands recently   within the past year. We did talk to the new  property owners maybe about six months ago. So,   they're trying to decide what to do  with this and how to move forward. So,   I think that's that's good news. Um, the second  one is Herd Ridge Assisted Living Facility,  

which you probably recall this is the second  extension on this. The file number is S190030. This is an 80 bed assisted living facility.   It is the second extension. It's  also in commissioner district 2. And lastly, we have S15005. This is the Crossroads Vehicle Repair Shop,  which you also may be familiar with. It is   the seventh extension for this plan approval  and it is also in commissioner district 2. So,   Commissioner District 2 all around today. Thank  you. Okay. Thank you. Uh, BCA cases. Good morning.   I have two BCA cases for you today. Um, case 6604  is a request for the conditional use of boarding,   kennel, dog, daycare, grooming, breeding for more  than 10 dogs and catery. The size of the property   is 120 uh.087 acres. It's located at 4738 Ging  Road in Westminster in the county's agricultural   zone. Planning staff found this request consistent  with the Carol County master plan as amended in   2019. Case 6605 is a request for the conditional  use of a contractor's equipment storage facility.   The size of the property is approximately 17.998  acres and is located at 1430 Buckhorn Road,   Sykesville in the county's agricultural zone. Uh,   planning staff finds this request is also  consistent with the Carol County master  

plan as amended in 2019. Do you have any questions  about either of those? No. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, let's move on to uh item number eight,  city of Westminister annexation number 72. The city of Westminster annexation number 72,  Padmmy LLC. This is anformational briefing.   This annexation is located at 10 Sullivan  Road in the seventh election district and   third commissioner district. The petitioner  and property owner Padmy LLC is requesting   annexation to obtain additional water necessary  approximately 1,332 gallons of water per day   to allow the owner to construct and operate a  convenience store and gas pumps at the property. This is the annexation for  the Sheets convenience store   um that has gone through the site  development process already. So  

um this is currently what the property looks  like um south from westbound from Maryland   140 and the view from Sullivan Road um  on the eastern side of the property. This is the annexation plat. Um 1.4983 acres  is under construction for a Sheets convenience   store with associated fuel pumps. The  remaining 1.446 acres is Maryland 140   um and is necessary to be annexed to create  a contiguous corporate limit for the city   of Westminster. As you can see, the  annexation flat includes the road. This is a layout of um the location of the plat.  As you can see, it's within the growth area for   um for Westminster and just  outside the corporate limit. Here's the ortho for the property. The property is currently zoned in the  county as C2 commercial medium intensity.   adjoining properties with the county or zoned  C conservation and our 10,000 residents. Um   the city of Westminster has indicated its intent  to place the annexation area in the B business  

zoning district. General retail or general service  between 10,000 and 60,000 square feet and fuel   station are permitted uses in the county's  commercial medium intensity zoning district.   Um automobile service stations is a special ex  special exception use in the city of Westminster's   B business zoning district. they will be  granted that special use, special exception   use as they've gone through the site development  process. Um, and the permitted uses in the city's   business zoning district are not substantially  different from the permitted uses in the county's   commercial medium density um zoning district. So,  a zoning waiver is not being requested for this. The designated land use in the 2009 city of  Westminster comprehensive plan is commercial. The property is currently located within the  existing final planning water and sewer um areas. the agency review process. Um, comprehensive  planning recommends the city give public   notice by posting the property prior to the  date of the public hearing and notifying all   adjoining property owners and economic  development supports this annexation. In the absence of its outstanding agency comments,  staff has concluded that the proposed annexation  

will not overburden county facilities. A zoning  waiver is not required as it is um as the business   zone is not substantially different from the  uses within the county's commercial medium   intensity zone. And this annexation is consistent  with the Westminster comprehensive plan as the   area is located within the city's municipal  growth area. The next step is to present this   to the board of county commissioners on March  26th. Um and planning staff has recommended   um a motion to move that the planning commission  concurs with the findings presented by staff and   communicate support for the annexation  to the board of county commissioners. If there are any questions about this questions the road 140 I don't think we've  seen anything before where the road   um is part of the annexation. Is that a is  that a common thing or No, we've seen that   um actually quite a bit in Westminster  where they'll they'll annex the roaded   as the means for creating the contiguousness.  Um actually in this case it's a little bit more   um direct. So, it does if they annex that  portion of 140, it does join a substantial   section of um of the city. Sometimes they've  even kind of gone along the road for a while to  

um to create that contiguousness,  but that has been done before. Okay. All right. Any um public  comment regarding annexation? Seeing none. So this is umformational only. You're requiring a motion. Yeah. So, um,  we did want to clarify on on further discussion   about how to convey your, um, findings and support  for the annexation. We felt like, um, that needed   to be captured in a motion. So, it's not strictly  forformational purposes, and we'll make sure that   for future annexations, we correct that. Okay.  Thank you. I'll make the motion that uh I move   that we concur with the findings presented by  staff and communicate support for the annexation   to the border county commissioners. Second roll  call. Yes, please. Mr. Huff? Yes. Miss Kirkner?   Yes. Mr. Lester. Mr. Robertson. Yes. Mr. Smith.  Yes. Mr. Swissen, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Chairman, please   let the record reflect we have three yays and  zero nays. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Moving right along. Uh item  number nine, concept subdivision plan,   Lionsgate Major Subdivision P2233.

and Amy Barcraftoft will present. Good morning. Good morning. Sorry,  just one minute to get settled. My name is Amy Barcraftoft with the  development review division. Uh with me   I have some representatives for this project.  If you could introduce yourselves. I'm Linda   Alexander with CLSI. Darren Barnes, one of  the partners, and we are here to discuss uh   concept subdivision report for your review and  consideration. This is file number P2200033,   Lionsgate. Uh this is in commissioner district  five. Um we are inside the freedom and priority   funding area and the designated growth  area. You'll see on the map before us,   we are located in the northwest um kind of  quadrant above the intersection of Sykesville   Road and Liberty Road. Um and you can see uh the  subject property highlighted in the blue uh line   work. Um and I just wanted to draw your attention  to the zoning adjacent of adjacent properties.   Uh the subject property is zoned R20,000 as well  as the adjacent properties to the east and the   west and they are developed with single family  homes around them. And the parcel immediately   to the north is zoned conservation and the site  of Hajes Park. If you're familiar with that area,  

that is a ball field and salt storage barn owned  by the county. Um adjacent to the south that uh   small red square is the site of the Baltimore and  Ohio Railroad Historical Society building and that   is zoned commercial. Um but this is largely a  residential area to the west of um Hodgees Road.   See if we can get there we go. We have another  slide of the site again. The subject property is   12.43 acres. the frontage along Hodgees Road which  is north of Bartholo Road. Property is undeveloped   and the land is mostly forested. You can see in  that in that slide. There is a stream that runs   along the southern property line. A four lot  subdivision borders Hodgees Road on the eastern   uh property line and includes that strip of  uh road frontage between lots two and three   of that existing uh subdivision and that was  intended for 50 ft of future roadway and was   platted that way. Lion's Crossing is a three lot  minor subdivision which was recently approved   and that's located to the southeast. The forest  conservation for that minor subdivision is located   on the subject property. So that's an existing  forest conservation area easement already there. This property is inside both the priority funding  area and growth area. As I mentioned, it is served   by existing public water, but it is outside of  the sewer service area. So no future service sewer   service is planned currently. Um, so this plan  shows six lots on the property. These lots will  

range in size from a little under one acre to 3.08  acres in size. The plan proposes single family   homes on each of the lots and access is provided  with a proposed use in common drive from Hodgees   Road. The use in common drive I wanted to note is  proposed to be constructed at 16 feet wide with   a culdesac at the end and this is wider than our  required 12t width. The lots again would be served   by public water but as you see in the plan have  private septic systems or sewer excuse me private   septic system in lie of sewer. So, if you find  this plan a little familiar, you might recall that   you saw it as a special report in 2022 under the  name the Collins property. And the reason for that   special report was the request from the developer  to increase the maximum number of users on the use   in common from five to six. Um our code indicates  that five is the maximum in a residentially zoned   uh property and that increase to six users was  approved in that uh special report presentation   before you. So the initial concept for this  site plan excuse me subdivision plan came in in   December of 2024. We uh distribute it to technical  agencies for review and we held a technical review   committee meeting in January of 2025. I wanted  to note that we did have citizens attend and   discuss the property. We had seven citizens uh  express their interest in this project. Um two   citizens have since emailed to inquire about the  proposed development. Some of the discussion uh   at that technical review committee uh from the  public included concerns about existing traffic  

uh stream erosion and questions about mailboxes.  Uh another citizen who lives near the property   has emailed you with concerns for the visual  impact of the development. Again, it's existing   currently as an undeveloped site. Through our  technical review, we have had um comprehensive   planning note that the plan is consistent with  applicable policies and recommendations. Storm   water management has issued their concept approval  for the plan. Storm water is being addressed with   some grass swailes and a submerged gravel wetland  to meet requirements. And you can see on the plan   that there will be a small storm water parcel that  would be deed to the county. Forest Conservation   has granted concept approval and that will be met  with an on-site easement. As currently designed,   landscaping is not required for this project,  but our landscape technician noted that screening   would be recommended between lots, two, three,  and the Hajes salt barn to the north. So, that's   a recommendation. Grading, soil conservation,  utilities, fire protection, and engineering have   all approved the plan. The plan is exempt from  flood plane code and water resource management has   approved the plan with the proposed water resource  easement of 3.30 acres along the southern stretch   of the property. This property is subject to the  provisions of concurrency management chapter 156   and will be tested for adequacy prior uh for the  to the approval of the preliminary plan. Here are   some photos I wanted to show. To the left, I'm  standing on Hajes Road and um taking a picture   of where the site using Common Drive will come  through those two existing um properties and onto  

Hajes Road. So, we anticipate that the existing  parked cars would be moved out of the way for   that construction of the use in common drive. Um  but that's where the connectivity to Haj's road   will occur. And to the right I'm taking the photo  um and the wooded area represents the parcel and   the clearing which I'm standing in is actually  the Hodgees Park property. So that picture is   uh taken from the park and the wooded area  is the subject property to be developed. Please let me know if you have any questions or  direction about this plan. Anything that I can   answer for you today or um the engineer and  the developer might wish to answer for you.   Any comments from engineer and developer? Not  really. We're just here to uh answer any of   your questions. Um I would just make a two small  comments. This is the last piece of property.   um that the Collins family owned over the  years. That entire area along Barlow as well   as everything along Hajes. Um this side was owned  by the Collinses. This piece just happened to be   one of the pieces that wasn't developed. It is  zoned R20. It does not lend itself to putting   any type of public sewer in there. Um especially  given that everything else around it is septic. So   um we've minimized as much of the impact to  the woods as possible. and uh everything that   you see here that's not impacted woods wise  except for where the septics will be put in   an easement to the county. Um so and as far as  the I'm sorry as far as one other item as far as   the entrance coming in there's 50 ft during the uh  concept review we were required to show that any   drainage that would come off of that driveway  we're bringing that onto our site. So the way  

that that's being designed in there, there won't  be any impact to either one of those. You know,   we're going to stay within that 50 feet and any  drainage is going to come onto us and we'll handle   it uh by some swailes on us. It will not go on  off the property on either one of those sides. We   don't intend to take any more trees down here than  absolutely necessary to put septic system in the   houses in um because obviously any trees we take  down, you know, the homeowner or the developer is   going to have to buy into a tree bank for those  or plant somewhere else in the county to make up   for it. So, we are trying to minimize the impact  any of the environmental features. Thank you. So, how many users are on the use in common?  Normally, sir, there'd be five. In this case,   there's six in this case. Six. There's  six. So, the use in common is just for   that correct development. So, when we came in  originally to get the approval on the six users,   I understand that the county's 12 foot wide use  in common driveway, most of the developers that we   work for never put in a minimum use in common. So,  we came in um and we widened this at 16. There is   a pullover on this driveway in one location that  that allows for two cars. The culde-sac at the end   of this thing is as large as a culde-sac would be  on a public road. Currently, your requirements are   only like a 24 foot radius on a culde-sac. This  is 35. Um, it's bigger than a normal C. It's it's   as big as what you would put on a public road.  The only difference is it's 16 foot wide versus   a county road that's 18 foot wide. It's all open  section. has a wide shoulder on this thing for   storm water management purposes. So, it does look  wider when you come in. Um, and we did that to   accommodate the fact that it was six users and not  five users. Um, and we put the larger culde-sac   at the end because we figured, you know, you're  going to have your your uh FedEx guys coming back.  

You're going to have your UPS guys. 24 feet is not  very large to be turning them around. So, we put a   a fullsize culde-sac in here. you know, I mean, as  far as the county road, one of the questions was   the mailboxes. Okay. County has a standard mailbox  and trash uh little pad that's put in place on all   these using commons. We've been using them over  the past four or five years. They sit about 15   20 feet back. And, you know, there's a gang box, I  guess you want to say they call it, for mailboxes.   And then there's um a pad put there for everybody  who put their trash there. And then we've been   lining those, excuse me, we've been lining those  in like a landscaped situation so you can't see   them. Um, so it shields them from there. So that  would be positioned in that 50ft strip, but it   would be landscaped so that you wouldn't it would  just provide the screening for it. And we've been   doing that across the board, too. I'm not really  sure if that's in part of your detail, but that's   just something we do. So the the use in common  the driveway is owned by this the six users.   Yes sir. Six users, right? It's not a it's not a  rightaway. No, it is not a rightaway and there's   a maintenance and uh maintenance obligation put  in place declaration of maintenance when the plat   records that's over that driveway to maintain  all that. Okay. And then just a comment um and   I thought it was interesting talked about the 36  foot turnaround. Yeah, we have a 35. Yes. Mhm. 24.   Um, it sounds to me like maybe we should revisit  the 24 ft. Can't comment on that. I just know what   we put in place. I know you can't, but uh yeah, we  but um I agree with what you said about we've been   putting the 20 the 35s in place. If you remember,  I don't know if you remember some of them you'll   see where they used to have little landscape thing  in the middle of them. Those haven't worked out   real well. So, we eliminated that, but we left the  culde-sac the same size. So, um, provides a little  

bit more impervious, but it does allow better  maneuverability, especially if somebody's taking   a camper back there or just a UPS truck getting in  and out, you know what I mean? So, um, so anyway,   that's just I just want to let you know that that  was one of the things we did on this one because   of that because we did go we do have more users  back here than just the normal three or four. So, oh, and far as mitigation, that's on site or that  will be No. So, this site, whatever we don't,   whatever we don't disturb will end up being in  an easement to the county for the woods. Okay.   Any of the trees that we take out, because we  are taking trees out, we're going to have to   mitigate somewhere else. So, we're either  going to have to buy into a forestry bank,   which may not be available, or the partners  that are involved in this do have other pieces   of property that they would be planting trees  on to make up for, and then they would those   trees that would be planted somewhere else in the  county would be given an easement to mitigate for   any trees that were taken out here. Yeah. The  septic is this sand mound or No, sir. These No,   sir. These are all conventional. Conventional.  Um well I shouldn't shouldn't say that sand mount   is a conventional system as far as um MDE is  concerned but these are not sand mounds. These   are all trench systems in the ground and they  are all known as deep trench systems. So they're   going to be able to provide for that four or five  bedroomedroom house without a problem. So there   will be the maximum number of trees as possible  left there. Yes sir. Okay. All right. Thank you. Talk uh what was the uh you mentioned  recommendations for landscape screening. Can  

you show the the photo uh the overhead I guess and  where they're um recommending screening? Sure. So   to the uh I don't know if my Here we go. You can  see that um structure that exists is a countyowned   maintenance uh structure. There's a salt stored in  that area for roadway, you know, treatments. So,   they uh landscape specialist has said that while  landscape is not required for the project, it is   recommended to have landscape between my mouse  is going crazy. uh to the south of that uh barn   uh along the lots that'll be created uh at that  property line. So lots one, two, and three. So to the north along this property line,  they have recommended landscape, I guess,   in case uh the property ever changes ownership  or just to have some screening for the homeowners   between that and the the county-owned land. Is the  county owned land is that fenced? It is not. There   is an entry fence like a gate you drive Oh, I'm  sorry. There's a gate that you drive through here,   but there is not a fence between I can  show you my picture on the right. Um,   it's kind of a I mean, it's a park, but  it's kind of um not maybe as built up as   a park with any kind of pathways or benches or  anything like that. There's a ball field that   exists there and it's pretty much an open field  with the exception of that salt barn structure. Amy, could you can you window in on those?  Can you get closure on those lots? Uh,   how do I Anybody want to Oh, I don't know  how to I was just It's hard to see from  

here. Control. Yeah, I apologize. Here we go.  We're zooming. Oh, I undid it. Here we go. So to the um screening is recommended behind  lots one, two, and three. I don't know that   I necessarily have a problem with that, but  you see if those septic systems were within   basically 15 or 15 feet of that property line.  So if we put any type of screening, it would be   strictly one straight row. Um we wouldn't be able  to put any massive amount of screening in there,   else we would affect those septic areas adversely  over the period of time. Well, lot three,   we could. That's not a problem, which I'm not even  sure we'd be taking all the woods out on lot three   based on where the limit disturbance is right  now. And if you see that hatched area right there,   that hatched area is actually an easement that  the county has on this property to maintain those   slopes for that park. So, um, but up on lots one  and two, I mean, we could put a just a straight   line of screening in there or something if you all  wanted to. We just have to be careful where those   septic areas are. That's all. Just curious, what  is the slope on that parcel approximately? What   do you mean? What slope? Slope. Is it is it fairly  slope the entire parcel? Um, stream. Once you get   down to the backs of where the houses are on lots  three and four, it falls maybe 10%, 15%. Okay. Um,   the rest of it sitting in there probably  maybe 8%, something like that. 5 to 8%. Okay. So the stream runs between the back of columns  out. Okay. So all but all drainage will be staying   up on mostly. Yes. So that stormwater facility  is designed so that the when the water leaves  

the site, there won't be any increase in the flow  coming off of this site. Okay, that's the reason   it's designed. Now, when it flows off of us, it's  on us to to a certain point below that facility.   It kind of meanders along the this property  line and Collins Estates. Then eventually it   comes back onto us. When it leaves us again, it  flows into a county easement down below one of the   county's stormwater management facilities that the  county owns off of Collins Estates. Okay. Yeah. I   Collins is kind of a lower area back there.  Yeah. So, nothing more will go towards them. Good. Everybody good? We don't have any recommendations. No, no  recommendations. Okay. Um, how about public   comment? Any public comment? If you're u making  public comment, which I see there are some,   um, please make sure you've signed in. Sign in U  sheets are in the back. State your name, address,   and talk into the microphone to facilitate  facilitate audio and video recording. Comments   will be strictly limited to three minutes per  speaker. Uh, citizen testimony is not a Q&A. So,   it's like state your stance, your case,  and things like that. Questions may be   directed to staff after the meeting. And if any  individual fails to comply with these rules,   uh, the chair may call the person out of order and  may require him or her to leave the meeting. So,   you're up. Good morning. Patrick Mullen. I am  uh the owner of parcel 329 lot 18, which is  

uh 195 1095 Collins Avenue. Uh, my property is  the one that on the zoomed in view we have here.   It's right in the lower uh left, goes across  the gravel wetlands over to uh lot six. I do   want to state a slight correction for what was  just said. There's actually a a steep hill from   the Collins Estates properties down to the stream.  So, it's actually on both sides. Uh water rushes   down my backyard into that stream and will be  does from the other side as well. Actually,   even from the uh Barlo side as well. Uh  what I've come here to request is that a   um a cluster of evergreens be uh planted on the  development side of the submerged gravel wetlands   to break up the visual corridor that's going to be  happening between uh my house goes directly across   the gravel wetlands to lot six. Uh as you know  in the winter time like we have right now with   all the leaves gone. It's just a straight visual  shot. So, I was hoping to uh have some restorative   uh greenery put in there to handle the change  in the uh in the visual corridor that it will   be created once these uh trees are removed for the  provet lands and for the other properties. Okay.   All right. Thank you. Can you can you kind of move  that out so we can see where he was referring to? Yeah. No. Yeah, I am. Yeah, I'm right on the left.  That's my property right there. I think you zoomed   too far over. I'm sorry. Go down. Go to the Go  to the right. So, yeah, that right above where   the uh hand is, that's my house right there.  and then it goes straight across the wetlands  

over to especially the eastern mouse house on  lot six but also um at a diagonal from to lot   five. So a few years ago I put in a green u a  sun room there. So especially because after the   uh pandemic and working from home and everything  I have a nice big wall of uh glass there that um   yeah just hoping for restor restoring the view.  Thank you. Okay. My name is Josh Zimman. I live   at 5757 Barthlow Road. Um I am down into the right  of the uh drainage pond that they're talking about   putting in there. If you don't mind putting the  hand on it to the right, please. There you go.   Right there. Uh there's seven reason there's  several reasons why this house was purchased   um for my family. One of them was that we were  uh at the time told that this would be remain   a wetlands behind us the entire time. That has  now changed. Um, that's a concern. Additionally,   we'd like to request that there be a cluster  of uh pine trees or something to the effect for   the visual impact as well. Um, we've been most  significantly impacted by the Alliance Crossing   development, which uh was originally scoped for  two lots um up the hill from us. Now, there is   suddenly a third house. I heard today that it  was noted there was a third house approved,   but the existing plans on file do not reflect  that. I'd like to have request an update be made   to the existing homeowners in the area. so that we  are made aware of that approval process that was   conducted. Um and lastly, and uh maybe shouldn't  be mentioned too much on a recorded line here,   uh my house is um serves a department of  war effort that is utilized for signals   and traffic. And so some of my work that  I do uh is impacted by the anticipation of   additional Wi-Fi signals. And I have a concern  about the u ability to service certain asks.

The area is already saturated consistently and is  already a challenge. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Oh yes. Thank you. Um there is a spring that is  not noted here that surfaces consistently. Um I am   very concerned about the drainage. I have had to  make a phone call to the developers about runoff   into my yard already. Um, we would like to see the  swale uh plans to ensure that we are not impacted   by that because it is consistently my yard's  always flooded by this spring. Um, we have had   to plant trees over the years to try and absorb  the water and had very little impact for it. So,   I'm concerned about what their plans may be in  this, especially considering septic. Is this   spring located on the property that we're talking  about here? This particular plan is actually old   there. The uh plan that's actually been approved  by stormwater has a has the swale and some   um some drainage that's coming off of that Collins  crossing. I'm sorry, not Collins crossing, Lion's   Crossing. Um, and we were required by storm water  to pick up a good bit of that drainage that's   coming off the lines crossing and we have swailed  it down along the back of this property line and   are bringing into that submerged gravel wetland.  So, there is um significantly more grading and   drainage uh situations happening that will be  built that's not actually reflected on this plan   that you have up here right now. So, is that above  the the wetland area? So, you see where lot six   is. Yes. And where his house is. Okay, we actually  have a on the most recent plan, there's actually a   swale, a an actual grass swale that's picking up  the drainage that's coming off of Lion's Crossing   because it was determined that there's some  um when Lion's Crossing was developed, it was   just allowed to come down into this area. We had  to now pick that drainage up and bring it into  

this submerged gravel wetlands so that it doesn't  continue to do any additional flooding down there.   So, while this plan doesn't show it, there is  grading on that submerged gravel wetlands that   comes the whole way up across the back of his  property that I think would help um because this   plan doesn't show it, but the most recent plan  that's as a concept that's approved by stormwater   has grading that show that shows the whole way  up through uh the Collins crossing right now. So, share that with Yeah. Yeah. I think  it would help to maybe share that with   the the gentleman that Okay. the  county because that's what water   resource and if that's not that's what  water resource and everybody has already   seen current plan. My concern with that  that design that they're discussing is   um insufficient. The wetlands are uphill from  what they're discussing. So that that all you're   doing is creating a puddling space outside of the  space that you're already trying to dedicate to. We we really need to see the upgraded  plan or the updated plan that needs to   be shared, please. Because this is new  information, too. I I agree. I agree. Okay. Yeah. Uh so in terms of any recommendations  from the board, um you know, we're not making any   kind of final decisions, but sounds like we need  a recommendation to see the updated or uh plan and   that to be shared with the uh land owners around  that property. Um and any other recommendations   like to see see the updated plan. Yeah. Yeah, keep  in mind that this is concept too. So this is going   to go through another whole review, right, from  a preliminary standpoint. Yeah. Right. But we're,  

you know, I think we should working off  the the latest. Okay. However, if this is   concept when the plan comes back, we will see  it as hopefully what everything is being said.   Um, and that should suffice for the homeowners.  The other thing I would offer it to is when it   comes in for preliminary plan, you know, we can  provide extra sets so that they could be pro   provided to the homeowners too before it goes  before it ends up back here again. They would   see it at the preliminary of that design and  have a chance to look at it at that point too.   And it would be a farther step down the road from  this design and that type of thing. Yeah, I think   personally if I were a homeowner I would like  that. So I think so our um interactive map um to   follow any project through the development review  website u excuse me the development review process   is updated on the county website every Friday  with any new submissions that have come in. Um,   so any member of the public can follow along using  that interactive map to see um, every plan set   that's submitted updated on a weekly basis. Okay.  So perhaps if they aren't familiar with exactly   where to look, they can check after somebody in  the back and they can direct them. Absolutely. Also, as far as the screening of the  trees, we want to be good neighbors. So,   we'll work with them on, you know,  aesthetically making their view.   Yeah. I'm I'm glad you offered that  because we have some land owners here   that are concerned about that. I think we  should take that seriously. Yeah. I mean,  

I I'm owner as well, you know. I understand  that that we will do that. Good. Good. Any other comments? No further  public comment. Okay. Well,   we'll uh see you again. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Uh item number 10, concept  site plan for Bay Branch Solar S2510. So, well, while we're getting set up for  this, I just want to give a little context   for reviewing the solar plan. Um, so this is  a solar project that has received its CPCN or   certificate of public convenience and necessity  um from the public service commission. So,   um, while this is this is a concept plan, um,  and you can request certain site improvements,   but because it's it's a a solar project that  has its, um, CPCN, ultimately the final action   um that you'll be asked to to take on  this particular project will be to um,   finally affirm that they've met all the technical  requires requirements. Um you can delegate final   approval or ask to see it back. But um but in  terms of um whether you want to see this kind   of project at this location um that's sort  of been preempted by the um state by the the   solar approval process. So, we're looking at site  improvements and whether they've met the technical  

requirements of our code for a solar development.  So, that's sort of our context here. Um, and I'll   turn it over to David to walk us through the plan.  Okay, perfect. Thank you, Deafany. Good morning,   commission. David Bcraft with the development  review division. As mentioned, uh, I am before   you to present the next project on the docket,  which is Bear Branch Solar, file number S250010.   We have a few representatives of the project here  with us today. I'll let them introduce themselves. My name is John Forash, Soul Harvest  Energy project developer. I'm Billy Swes,   Triad Engineering, Civil Engineer. Uh,  Brendon Bishop, tri engineering engineer.   Perfect. Welcome. Thank you. And so, as kind  of already discussed uh by Miss Dailyaly is   uh what is being proposed is a groundmounted  solar facility. Uh this did go through the state   process, the public service commission. Um it is  before you as a concept plan at this time. So,   we are looking for review and direction on their  current design. Um and with that, I'll I'll lead   into it. So, uh, for those who are unfamiliar, we  are on the north side of the Westminster municipal   limits. So, the municipal limits are shown via  this gray area. Uh, and the subject property   is highlighted here. Uh, which you can see abuts  that municipal limits area. Uh, looking at the the   zoning of the properties. So, the current zoning  of this property and the surrounding properties   is agriculture. Um there is within the municipal  limits this property adjoining is zoned industrial   restricted. So if we go to the next slide,  uh looking at the property and its entirety,  

it is just about 63 acres. Uh and this is shown  as the remaining portion uh on the Midway Farm   amended plat for this property here where they  uh allocated some land here to this adjoining   property here. Uh the site is accessed via Little  Town's Pike or is accessed to the Little Town's   Pike which is Maryland 97 shown here via Lamb  Drive which is a private paved roadway. Uh the   roadway is currently 20 ft wide. Um the only other  user of this private Lamb Drive is this property   here which is the Four Square Church. As you can  see looking at the property, forest conservation   encumbers forest conservation easements uh  encumber the eastern side of the property shown   by all of this gray shading. There is a stream  that cuts through the property here uh via this   blue line, but there are no FEMA 100year flood  plane designations on site. Uh this property is   outside of the Westminster priority funding area  as well as outside of the uh priority growth area. So kind of going into uh what Daphne discussed a  little earlier. Um, so within county or I'm sorry,   within state code, um, solar energy generating  stations with a capacity to produce more than   2 megawatts, um, need to obtain a certificate of  public convenience and necessity, uh, otherwise   known as CPCN, uh, from the Maryland Service  Commission. A CPCN was requested uh or the request   was submitted by the developer to the state April  1st, 2024 for the construction of a 4 megawatt  

facility. The CPCN was subsequently issued on  January 31st, 2025 subject to recommended license   conditions. Um that is a nine-page document which  was included with this packet. Um but some of the   key takeaways of the license conditions include a  CPCN expiration of five years if not extended. Uh   the requirement of an approved site development  plan uh and approved grounds management plan and   approved truck routing traffic management plan and  a glare analysis. um as as well as the initiation   of the decommissioning plan if there's no electric  generation for sale uh to the grid for a period   of 12 consecutive months. So, moving forward to  what's being proposed. Um so, on May 7th, 2025,   an initial site development plan was um submitted  to development review um and was distributed to   technical review agencies. Uh as mentioned the  developer is proposing a 4 megawatt facility   which encumbers roughly 20 to 27 acres. U this  system uh because of recent code changes last year   uh this is a principal permitted use within the  agricultural zoning district. Uh, and that is   subject to the site requirements outlined within  county code, chapter 158.153, section F. Um,   I'm going to go through each section of that code  and talk about how this works with that section   of code. Um, just bear in mind that the zoning  administration has granted concept approval of   this current plan. So, this does meet all of those  requirements that I'm about to go over. And while   I'm going over, I just want to um make sure that  I'm showing the plan as you would like to see it.  

So, I have a couple different renditions here. Uh  let me know which one works best for you. So, we   have this plan here, which you can see shows the  solar array, uh and then shows the access drive,   which connects down to lamp drive, which then  connects down to Maryland 97. Uh another option,   if you like colors because of St. Patrick's  Day. Um, we have this green highlight,   but it's showing all the same information. Another  option is an overlay on an aerial photography. So,   again, you see the solar array. You see the forest  conservation easements that are back here and on   the adjoining property. Um, and then you see this  access drive which leads to Lamb's drive which   leads to Melon 97. Uh, and then alternatively,  we have some zoomed in plan sheets as well. So,   if there's anything in particular you want to  look at to get a closer look at, we have these   two options. So, before I run through the report,  is there any one of these plans that you would   prefer to be on screen? The green one. Okay, I'll  make it happen. There we go. All right. Perfect.   So running through uh chapter 158153F uh item  number one talks about the setbacks and distance   requirements. So county code states that there  is a 100 foot minimum setback required from the   property boundary to the solar arrays. However,  uh the public service commission order that was   provided by the law judge as part of the CPCN um  specifically preempts local code on that setback   requirement. And so as currently designed,  the nearest solar array, and this is just an   approximation, but the nearest solar array to the  property boundary is 65 ft. Um, I'm going to get  

into this a little bit more into the report, but  there is a landscape buffer, a 50-foot landscape   buffer that shown surrounding the facility  where there's not already existing forest. Uh, in compliance with code, uh, there  are no residential buildings within 150   ft of the proposed solar panels or the associated  structures. So moving on to item number two within   that section of code. It talks about the height  limitations. Uh a maximum panel height of 15 feet   is shown within these plans which complies with  county code. Item number three within sections   of code talk about the location and appearance  requirements for solar arrays. So this solar array   is proposed at the terminus of Lamb Drive which  is a private used driveway or private roadway,   I'm sorry. Um the solar array, it does meet the  location and appearance requirements of county   code in that the location is toward the interior  of the property uh with an elevation that is   roughly 10 vertical feet higher than Maryland  97. U and then the ground mounted system is   not a fixed to any type of block walls or fences  on the property. Item number four discusses sign   requirements uh in reference to these systems. Uh  to comply with code, a facility sign is proposed   at the gated entrance with contact information in  case of any type of emergency. Uh the detail of   this sign is shown within the plan set, but there  are no additional freestanding signs associated   with this. Item number five discusses the glare  requirements. So a glare analysis was provided   uh and reviewed by the public service commission  as part of the CPCN process. A letter will be   provided at the time of building permit  application which confirms that there's  

no glare impacts uh to adjoining properties or  adjoining roadways. Um and this glare analysis was   also provided to uh the zoning administration for  their review as well. Um and these documents were   acceptable for code compliance. Item number  six talks about the electrical connection   requirements. So the electrical connection from  the solar array to the existing uh electric system   or the grid um it does meet county requirements.  So the project's point of interconnection to the   grid is going to be via an underground line  which runs um adjoining the access drive which   will hook to the existing uh power lines on  the east side of Maryland 97. Equipment pads   are shown within the fenced area, but there  is no energy storage devices currently shown. Item number seven discusses vegetative  stabilization requirements. Um so there were   various conditions outlined by the public service  commission to ensure that vegetative stabilization   um requirement in county code will be met. Uh  license condition item number nine provided by   the public service commission states that in no  case shall the grading or stormwater management   plans include removal of top soil from the site.  And then license condition item number 11 provided   by the public service commission requires the  developer to create a grounds management plan   for this development. And that grounds management  plan includes descriptions of the various types   of grasses as well as other plants that they will  be using. A schedule for how often they're going   to mow the property. A plan for avoiding or  minimizing the use of herbicides or pesticides   on the property. Uh along with various other  criteria. Item number eight with county code  

uh outlines fencing requirements. So fencing  requirements are met. Uh there is a 7 foot   tall proposed black vinyl chainlink fence that's  going to surround the facility. The closest public   road rightway is Maryland 97 Littletown Pike. Uh  and that is further than the 50 foot requirement   outlined in county code. There is no barbed  wire associated with this uh proposed fencing.   Item number nine outlines buffer requirements.  So a landscape buffer is shown and proposed   within this property. Um so still a little bit  of green on this plan here. Um so this green   highlight here shows where that landscape buffer  is going to be proposed and located. So this is   again a 50 foot wide landscape buffer. You can  see it terminates at this point because there's   existing forest here under conservation easement  and it also does not extend along the back of the   property because there's planted trees that are  within a forest conservation easement back here   as well. But along this property boundary as well  as the front and the unforested side portion here, uh landscape plantings are shown uh to be planted  at a minimum height of 6 to 10 feet and there   will be a landscape maintenance agreement and  associated landscape bonding will be required   as outlined within license condition items  20 and 21 uh issued by the public service   commission. uh this concept landscape plan  was approved as compliant uh by the landscape   specialist. Looking at item number 10, it talks  about lighting requirements for these kind of   developments. Um site lighting is permissible but  no lighting is proposed with this development.  

Item number 11 talks about access requirements.  So as mentioned um there is an existing private   drive for Lamb Drive. Um at the end of Lamb Drive  they are extending the 20 foot wide access uh and   this will be turned gravel which runs back into  the gated site um to a parking area back here.   So there was a request to permit gravel uh  in lie of the required durable and dust list   uh that's outlined within chapter 155 of  county code. Uh this request was forwarded   to the director of planning and land management  and was approved. Uh the last item within code   item number 12 outlines the decommissioning plan.  So, a decommissioning plan was required as part   of the CPCN process through the state uh with  stipulations outlined within license condition   item number 37. Uh as the decommissioning plan  corresponds to the removal of infrastructure, um   it will be further looked at later in the process  once we know what type of in infrastructure will   be approved and what will ultimately be  removed with that decommissioning plan. U so moving on past that section of code um  there's another section of code which talks   about parking requirements. Uh chapter 158 states  that solar energy conversion facilities require   one space minimum but uh it includes one parking  space per employee on the property. Uh with no   employees for this development, one parking space  is depicted for this property and is shown back in   this turnaround area here. Uh site compliance has  granted concept approval of the plan. The proposed   development is exempt from flood plane management.  Uh there are no forest conservation obligations  

with this development. Water resources has granted  concept approval of the plan. State highway as   well as engineering review granted approval of  the plan with the existing access to Maryland 97.   uh comprehensive planning has reviewed the plan  and determined it is consistent with the 2014   Carol County master plan uh land use designation  of agriculture storm water management will be   provided through non-rooftop disconnects and  bios storm water management has granted concept   approval of the plan uh this plan was subject to  citizen involvement on June 23rd 2025 during the   technical review committee meeting uh there were  no citizens in attendance at that meeting and I   personally have not received any phone calls or  emails in reference to this plan. Uh finally,   the final state plan will be tested and reviewed  for adequacy of public facilities in accordance   with chapter 155. And so moving forward, um just  looking at the property here, uh I just wanted to   give you an idea as to how this looks out on site.  So looking at Lamb Drive on the left we are at the   terminus of the existing Lamb Drive looking into  the site and then on the right we are beyond the   terminus of Lamb Drive but you can see looking  back um Maryland 97 is is back this way but it   cannot be seen. So happy to answer any questions  uh as well as any reps with the project here. David, there's there is no forest mitigation  involved with this. Not with this particular   one. That's correct. So you say that not this  particular one, right? So forest mitigation on   any of them. So because they're not proposing the  removal of any of the existing trees, there's no   obligation that needs to be met. So if a house was  put there, it would be forest mitigation. That's  

correct. But because of this which is taking  out land there's some disturbance there's no   forest mitigate there's something wrong here. So  there is I believe it's a state uh requirement   that states solar energy generating facility.  So facilities like this they do not have to   uh meet any type of aforestation requirements uh  because they're not removing any trees. That would   be the only requirement that needs to be met. But  because the state has stated that this these type   of facilities do not have to meet that there's  no obligation with this one. Now if they were   removing trees say if that forest conservation  easement was not there and they were removing   some of those existing trees on this property then  there would have to be some sort of mitigation. Just a comment here. This something's wrong  here. So, a a land owner who's building a   somebody would want to build a house or a  couple houses there would have to comply   with all kinds of forest mitigation rules.  But because this is a construction here,   it'll be there for many, many, many, many years.  There's none there. This this should be addressed. Seems that way. That's something we need to take  up with the delegation. I was going to say that's   above us. Just just a comment on this. I I'm That  surprises me. That's there's something wrong here.   Yeah, I think it's the CPCN is also a nice way  of saying eminent domain maybe. Well, yeah,   but still you need to take care of the property,  the land. No, I understand that. But I think since   it falls under that there Yeah. But but a land  owner has to spend 30 $40,000 to put one house on   for forest mitigation and something like this that  disturbs the entire area the property is free to  

free exactly of that which seems like it's heaped  on the the home builder or the person who wants   to build a house or live in a house and all the  burdens on them for forest mitigation and not on   this. There's something wrong here. I I agree. I  think you have to take it up with the state. Yeah,   I know. But I you have to start the conversation  somewhere. I agree. And uh I think this is a good   good spot to to think about this. I agree because  I I didn't know that. So I think it's appropriate   to ask at this particular stage not to heap on you  guys but to just ask the question because we got   a lot of these things coming down and if you take  it as an aggregate um how many other communities   we're trying to look we're trying to look at  solutions with forest mitigation and the costs of   it in this county and what it does to individual  people and then we see something like this   just think it needs to be addressed. So  I I think it's appropriate to bring it   up. It has nothing to do with you, right? You  just happen to be the recipient of my concern. Uh any other comments? Oh, I just one  more. the uh the line that goes out to   uh 97 that's negotiated with the land owners the  underground line or is that part of the Yeah,   the underground line. Yes, sir. How's how's is  that a disturbance to other land owners that So,   coincidentally, um Lamb Drive is shown on  its own parcel here. Okay. um that person   that owns that parcel for Lamb Drive  also owns this property here. Okay. So  

there should not be much issue if any  running that line out. Just wonder. So in limb is black top. That's correct.  And then this is Stone. Is that Yeah. So,   uh, as you look at these pictures, this is  still a pretty accurate representation. Lamb   Drive is blacktop and you can see it leads into  this gravel as existing gravel farm lane. Um,   that a similar lane will be put in which  runs back to this site gravel. Okay. Is there any uh presentation or discussion  with the airport about what's going on with   the property? Yeah. So, there are  various boundaries with the airport   uh where they liked inclusion into plans  such as this. Um when this first came in,   they were included in that initial distribution  to say, "Hey, this is being proposed." Um   just to make sure that there's not any  adverse impacts of planes flying over   um and I heard uh crickets. So, I  I took that as silence is golden. I believe we also received a letter confirmation  approval from that the local airport as well.   Yeah, that would have been with the CBC  process process. They have to do a FAA and   I know that the both approaches as well were  included in the uh the glare study as well,   right? That's I'm thinking about the glare and you  know approach and stuff. Okay. Um you mentioned   that the Wait a minute. I'm scratching some notes.  The the height of the solar panels is going to be   15 feet. That's right. And the location of  the land is um 10 ft higher than Route 97,  

give or take. Yeah. Just looking at the contours  of this site versus the contours of 97. So,   does that make the where the solar panels  will eventually sit 25 ft above Route 97?   It's possible. So, does it does it make  sense for a six foot high tree? You know,   one of the things we've heard with all of these  is the visual thing. People don't like to see the   field as they're driving up 97 or wherever 27.  So, does it make sense to do anything higher?   Could something be done higher than six feet  because it's going to be 25 ft above grade? I mean, Uh just to be clear, these are  uh trackers. So single access trackers.   So when we're talking 15, that would be  the maximum, right? When it's, you know,   I get it. And then at the at night, it'll be,  you know, flat. Um but as proposed, the you know,   the the trees are sized based on the caliber of  the trees. And so the heights of those trees,   I think it shows in plantings anywhere from six  to to 10 feet planting. And then from there you're   you know those trees are going to grow um over the  course of their life up to I think it's what 50 to   yeah most of them are over 30 to 60 to 70t tall  when they're mature. Okay. So yeah it's going to   take time to get to that maturity but in five  years they are going to be 25t tall. What type   of trees are you thinking about doing? Uh we  have red maples, black gums, American lynons,   red oaks, eastern red buds, down service burries,  no evergreens or anything like that. Uh American  

holly, eastern cedars, silky dogwood, airwood  by berm and black calls. Okay. Yeah. So there's   various layers of the 50 foot wide buffer that'll  be um that'll be planted based on the based on the   design. Okay. What's the total acreage? Did you  say 63 acres? So, the total acreage of the the   entirety of the property is 63 something acres and  only 27 is going to be used for the give or take,   right? Okay. Just curious, how many homes  will this solar array? That's my next allow   for quite a few. Will power will power?  Yes. About 1,600 homes. 1500 1600. Okay. And again, when we just a high level comment, I  mean, when we first um approached a land owner   about this property uh over four years ago, um at  that time, the county was um asking developers to   look at remainder parcel properties and provide us  with a map of those remainder parcel properties.   This was one of those properties. And um you know,  one of the reasons that we got real excited about   it was just um you know, the natural setback off  of Littletown Pike, just how far it is. You know,   over over a thousand feet from from the  road. Um you know, Soul Harvest Energy.   We're focused on developing properties and uh at  in at locations that are you know tucked away or   um you know really are set back significantly  in a place that's going to make sense for for   the community and uh and everybody involved.  So that's kind of what drew us to this site   right from the beginning and um you know just  lucky that we we had the same vision as as the  

property owners themselves. So that's sure a  beautiful set of planting of beans there too. Gorgeous. So that solar stays in Maryland or Carol  County doesn't go to Pennsylvania. Yeah. The power   that's generated from the facility will offset  um BG& retail customers that sign up for for this   program. you know, they'll receive a a discount  off of the uh the retail rate based off of um you   know, buying energy from from this solar project  that has qualified under the the state's community   solar program. I need that. Yeah. Be happy to  provide you with more information about it. Okay. Okay. Any other comments,  questions? Okay. Well, um,   public comment. No action required, right?  Oh, I'm sorry. Public comment. Thank you,   Liz. We're doing so good. I scratched over  with my notes problem. Um, any public comment? Seeing none, um we'll see you guys uh soon,  I guess. Right. We're done. No motion. No.   Good. That's it. The only motion that would  be made at this point is if you wanted to   delegate final to the chair, but the only  thing we're looking for definitively was   um we have it as review and direction. So, it's  I'd like to review it again. Come on. I'd like  

to review it again. Okay. We need a motion to see  it again. I don't think so. We don't need a motion   to see it again. No, we'll just see you again.  Perfect. Thank you all. Thank you guys. Thank you. Mike, I know we're going to take a break  later. Could we take a five minute? Yeah,   got a request to take a fivem minute break.  Let's uh take a five minute break. Thanks. back. We'll call the meeting back to order.  Uh item number 11, the text amendment for   planning commercial centers. Planning commercial  centers. All right. So, as you may recall at our   last meeting, I shared a presentation with you  on the planned commercial centers which are um   one of the development types that's subject to the  deferrals in freedom. And uh the proposal was to   um look at removing the section of our code or  applicable sections of our code that allow for   residential uses as accessory to and commercial  center. And the uh rationale for that was that   there there is concern about the residential use  um which is restricted to the second story of a  

plain commercial center um and and the lack of  real guidance that our code has related to how   that should be executed when that option is taken.  Um, so we had a couple of a couple of ways that we   could address this those concerns. Um, we could  potentially develop some additional guidelines or   what have you related to plan commercial centers.  But given that there has been a fair amount of   conversation in the um in the realm of the master  plan related to mixed use development and how   that should happen and where it should happen and  whether it should happen at all. Um, it it feels   appropriate to address the immediate concerns  related to residential as accessory to plant   commercial centers by simply uh taking that out of  our code and then working through this question of   what's the best way for mixed use to uh be allowed  here in Carroll County as part of the the broader   master plan discussions and uh developing a real  thoughtful, intentional approach to mixeduse   development um as part of that process rather  than simply just allowing it as an accessory   option to a planned commercial center where we  haven't really um gone through the process of   figuring out whether that's the right place to um  to have this kind of development or whether it's   um whether what kinds of uh development or design  guidelines might need to be associated with it.   So that's the uh that's sort of the context  of what we're talking about here today. Um  

I provided you with a redlinined version of how  we might go about this. Um which is to take out   the accessory use piece of the planned commercial  center. Um it it primarily happens in two places.   uh section 15592 which is the uh section on plan  and commercial centers in our development and   subdivision regulations. Um we conveniently have  one whole section. This is section D. You'll see   here in the red striketh through text that relates  to accessory uses. All of the text is uh uh solely   addressing residential uses as an accessory use  to a planned commercial center. So section D   numbers 1 through six um uh the proposal would  be to simply remove that. So planned commercial   centers remain um in the code at least in 155 as  written. The only thing that would change would   be to take section D out which addresses that  residential use as an accessory use. And then the   correlary to that in 158 which is our zoning code  uh 158083 which is the regulation of accessory   uses in commercial and industrial districts. Um,  currently residential uses or dwellings accessory   to a planned commercial center are listed in um,  sorry for all the scrolling here. Uh, 158083A

1 L. Um, and what Whoops. What you see here is  uh language that we had talked about at the last   meeting which refers to a um specific date  before which any uh dwellings accessory to a   planned commercial center would have to have  been approved in order to still be allowed.   The concern there was we have uh we have two of  these developments in the county already. They're   constructed. people are living in them. Um, we  don't want to create a non-conforming situation   by simply disallowing those uses entirely,  but we don't want to allow new uses. So,   the proposal here is to simply add in this section  um a piece onto the end of the existing text that   says that they are allowed when approved prior  to December 18th, 2025. And um I picked that date   because that is the date that the deferrals went  into um effect. And because this is specifically   um being uh instigated because of that deferral  action. Um that's the date I picked. We really   could probably pick any date. We could make  it January 1st. We could make it today. Um   but that seemed to be reasonable because this  is in response to that deferral action. Um,   and that's what we that's what we would need to do  in order to make sure that dwellings accessory to   a planned commercial center that are already  in existence um don't become non-conforming.

Uh so it's a pretty clean approach here.  Open to any conversation you want to have.   Any other suggestions or questions? Um certainly  a discussion as to um the merits of the proposal   or what else you might want to look at in terms  of um addressing residential uses as accessory   uses in plain commercial centers. So, one of the  primary complaints I think was how they looked.   um went into DC Saturday night and  along the way came down 16 16th Street.   um and noticed that there were quite a few  commercial properties there with buildings   above it clearly residential and I wasn't smart  enough pick my phone up and take pictures but they   had all different kinds of designs up there  that looked um very aesthetically pleasing.   um nobody had the same flat fronts that we saw at  these two places. So I think maybe going forward   when um the guys that are researching all this um  for the county come back with some suggestions.   that may be something that would be okay to  incorporate into this type of thing if we were  

looking to do that in the future. It it does serve  a need for people. Um not everybody can afford   even the simple townhouse that's out there. And of  course the apartment buildings that do go up are   um less than aesthetically pleasing too. So design  may be a big thing. Yeah. And this is part of the   scope of work that the consultant who's looking at  code changes associated with the deferral um will   be addressing. um what we'd be looking to them  to um to address with respect to this particular   issue would be those those kinds of things. What  does a good how do we get to a good outcome in   these kinds of projects and um what might we need  to consider um codewise in order to get that good   outcome? Um, a lot of other jurisdictions have um  specific mixed use districts, zoning districts.   So, that's an option. Um there's also uh certain  jurisdictions that have more rigorous um design   standards or or even things like um amenities  that are required in mixeduse projects that   speak to the residential component um and create  a a pleasant living environment as well as a good  

place to do business. Um, and those are some of  the things that our code currently is lacking. Um,   as I said at the beginning, we could have also  addressed this um by looking at our current   um subdivision and development and subdivision  regulations and adding to them. But I think there   are still some open questions based on what we've  heard so far with the master plan um as to what   the right approach to mixeduse development should  actually be and maybe that's not uh that the only   place that can occur is in our planned commercial  centers. Um so those are yeah those are the kinds   of things that I think the the consultant will  come back to us with some ideas on and it may   be that that um ultimately we end up adding in  some bits and pieces so that you can do that kind   of development as part of a planned commercial  center. Um it's kind of it's kind of open-ended   at this point but I agree with you. It's it's an  option for a living um or a housing type that we   don't um don't have a lot of here in Carroll and  certainly meets a need particularly in terms of   um uh maybe more affordable types of units. But we  want to make sure that we're we're creating a good   place for people to live. um a pleasant place for  people to live. And so I think the concern is that   we just don't have enough guidance right now to  end up with a good product. Yeah. Um affordability  

of course is what the state is looking at and  in the market there is limited affordability out   there. Um, when you're looking at young people who  would like to get out of their parents' basement   and move forward into something they can't  afford to buy, so they're looking at some type of   something to get into that is like that. Um when  you talk about amenities, um it starts to become   more expensive for it to be afford affordable  because those amenities jack up pricing. So yeah,   it it's a kind of no win. And a lot of um even  in the um upper communities, a lot of people   aren't interested in the amenities right there.  they they want to keep their housing costs down   um because they're already paying exorbitant fees.  So, sure. I mean, there are certainly different   varying levels of amenities. I mean, you could  have pools and gyms and all kinds of things, or   you could simply have like a courtyard space where  people could could get together or some kind of   um place where you could have outdoor eating areas  or what have you. Something that speaks to the   residential nature. We were recently um driving  around and looking some of these uh places right  

now and frankly we couldn't even figure out where  the entrance was for the residential units. Um   there's no place for somebody to get together with  friends outside of their um of their actual unit.   Um, those kinds of things are I would I mean  some people might call them amenities, but   um but they seem like the kinds of things that  you would simply want to see in a good design,   something that speaks to the residential  character of this area and not just   um you know a commercial type of structure that's  been adapted for people to live which is I think   what some of the what some of the frustration has  been with how these have been executed because we   don't require anything beyond um what's already  provided as part of a planned commercial center. And again, if you're if we're talking  about um what it would be that   uh we would want to see in some type of mixed  use development. Um those will all be part of   conversations that we have further down the  road and we can look at what some of the   um uh cost implications might be for those  types of projects or the types of units   that might be available through them. Um  and try to find that good balance between   a good quality product and something that is  affordable or offers some affordable options.

Other um thoughts or questions  on what's proposed here? I mean, it's really I don't I don't think it's  our place to define uh the the concept drawings   for the the developer. certainly should have some  I guess I'm how how def how much of a point do we   want to put on those divi design elements other  than do we say you know that the uh the second   story uh do are we getting into color schemes and  things like that are we getting into I I don't I   guess I'm struggling with how do uh define that  in code. I so um we're not at that point yet,   right? But uh some of the things that I've  seen other jurisdictions do relate to not   so much the minutia of the design as the design  elements that you might have. So for instance,   some kind of differentiation if you've got a  a groundf flooror retail component and upper   story residential, some kind of differentiation in  the design um elements that are used. So it's not   all the same material, all the same um window  treatments, all the same whatever. Uh so maybe   some sort of different differentiation in in that  sort of um architecture. You could also require  

for instance that um that there that there is some  kind of common open space component or um plazas   or what have you that are part of the residential  nature or the mixeduse nature of those types of   um development proposals. You could look  at um separating the um the parking areas   and the access areas. Um you could look at uh the  ways in which the residential and non-residential   um relate to each other or the way that they're  separated from each other. Um, even things like,   you know, if you think about uh if you live in um  a mixeduse community and you happen to own a dog,   where are you walking that dog? Is there a place  for them to go or are you just walking out into   a parking lot? Um, those kinds of things.  How are you able to maybe circulate around   the site? Because on the weekend you might want  to get outside and go for a walk. Um what's the   lighting like? What's the signage like? What's,  you know, all those kinds of things that speak   to the fact that somebody lives here? This is  where they're making their home. This is where   they live out their daily lives. And that's  a very different um that's a very different   set of things that you would want to see there  from uh this is a business development and our   focus our emphasis is on uh how it acts as  a retail space. Um, so there are all those  

kinds of things that you can add in in terms  of what you would want to see in a wellexecuted   mixeduse development that are not you must have  uh a colonial style of architecture that uses   uh red, white and blue color scheme or whatever  it might be. Um, you can look at this from a lot   of different angles. Um and mostly the real basic  um design elements around um massing materials,   windows, circulation, uh public spaces, those  sorts of things can be codified without being   um super uh dictated. I mean that's why I think  it's a great idea, you know, just to have the   consultant involved that specializes in this  because I mean again as Janice was just in DC   and obviously in my line of work you see all  kinds of you know assortments and if they're   done properly you know they can be very nice like  you said having the this is the retail this is the   you know in a lot of places too like you said  they'll have specific retail parking specific   resident you know so it it can be done nice in  in these type of um building some facilities can   definitely be a huge, you know, great thing for  the community, housing, all that good stuff. So, but again, we'll get we'll look to the consultant  to give us some good examples to sort of start   working with. Um uh but for now the the proposal  here would would make sure that um we don't get  

additional um proposals in while we're trying to  sort out what actually we want to see where we   want to see it how we want to see it. And it's  okay to backdate. Yeah. Talking about Yeah. Um   again, the the this both of the projects that we  have in the county um are already constructed,   already occupied. So setting a date, whatever  that may be, whether it's December 18th or   something else, um would simply allow those  as accessory uses to continue in existence.   Right. And there's nothing in the pipeline for  any anything like that coming at us. I mean,   if that's the case, then I don't know if there's  a reason to have any backdating of this, you know,   because if the the existing the two existing  properties are they're going to be okay. This   is just moving forward, right? This is this  is what we want. Yeah. I think back dating   might might raise a potential problem if we did  that if somebody you know you never know but   um so yeah I think I think uh I think this is good well basically saying they're grandfathered right   and so and anything after that  would be new guidelines right Okay.

So next steps are so if you don't have any um  revisions to what is proposed here then I would   um entertain a motion from you to approve the  um text amendment as presented and forward that   with a favorable recommendation to the board  of county commissioners. Um once they get it,   I'll make a presentation to them transmitting your  recommendation and they will have a discussion   on that if they choose to they can have a public  hearing on the matter and then we'll move through   that process the same way we do with um with every  other text amendment. And I guess just to clarify   what the point I was trying to get to earlier,  you know, when we see the um the site plans or   the the um concept plans, that's when we have the  ability to say, well, we'd like the lighting to   do be like this and the shrubs to look like this  and the trees to be here. That's the that's the   time for us to uh provide input on design.  Um, so the same would be for these types of   uh structures. That's when we would provide in  input to the developer, the builder saying, well,   we'd like none of the, you know, we're going to  have 10 units above this whatever. We'd like for   them to all look a little different so it's not  cookie cutter. We'd like to have, you know, and   then that's when we can provide input into the the  design elements. we can't provide design elements   at at you know as we're writing a you know  section 158.083 083, right? Well, yeah. I mean,  

I think it's a both and. So, right now, there is  nothing in our code that you really have to sort   of hang your hat on in terms of um pushing the  developer to provide a certain type of of product.   So perhaps, and again, we may be we may be putting  the cart be before the horse here because I think   we'd like it would be helpful to see some examples  and to say this one goes too far. This one doesn't   go far enough. These are the kinds of things that  we think would be beneficial to have that that the   developer can then look at. And you know, here's  the thing. the the more ambiguity and the more   uh generalities that are in the code, the harder  it is for a developer to give you at the first   at the first pass something that you're going to  respond positively to. Um it also gives you less   um less to sort of go fall back on in terms  of what the county has already established   as expectations for these certain types of  developments. So um so again we can look at   different examples that are um sort of the bare  minimum in terms of guidance um and examples that   are quite um developed in terms of what they lay  out for certain types of mixeduse developments and   then everything in between. and you can kind of  find your comfort level in terms of what you think  

would work best in Carol County um and would get  the kind of um outcomes that uh that are desired.   Okay. Was this a was this in response to um to the  initiation of the consultant or the deferral or or   a review from the staff of of all our I mean what  what initiated this this change? So this was one   of the Yeah, this was one of the um development  types that was subject to the deferral and the   um again the concern that uh sort of put it into  that category was um projects in the freedom area   um that were done under these provisions that  that did not lead to a a desirable outcome,   at least from the perspective of um uh certain  people and and I think a desire to get a better   quality product that fits in with a neighborhood  that reflects the residential component. Um that   sort of thing. So that was the that was the the  origination for the the um the topic. Okay. Yeah.   It was pretty controversial when we had um that  project. Um and the first one I think everybody   kind of thought, well that's probably okay. And  then it was not what everybody anticipated and  

then went downhill. Here we are. Yeah. I I like  the I like the idea here and I you know I think   it checks off a couple boxes potentially with  affordability with uh you know dipping our toe   into um multi-use uh like we've all seen and like  apparently in different communities. Um so I you   know I think it's a it's a positive step. I think  it's probably going to be part of the uh you know   the 10-year plan needs to be I think but um well  if mistakes are made um you correct the mistakes   and this is an opportunity to do that. So I I I  give you credit for working on this. Yeah. A lot   of credit. We'll talk about it in the master.  Sure. Cool. Try to make a motion here. I make   a motion that we approve the text amendments for  155.092 plan commercial centers with a favorable   rating and forwarded to the commissioners. A  second roll. Mr. Hoff. Yes. Miss Kirkner. Yes.   Mr. Lester. Mr. Robertson. Yes. Mr. Smith. Yes.  Mr. Sison. Commissioner Gordon. Mr. Chairman,   let the record reflect. We have four yays and  zero nays. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Um, did we do public comment on that?

Liz is watching me for public comment. Um,  okay. Uh, let's, uh, adjourn. We're going to   adjourn our meeting. Uh, and then we're going to  reconvene uh for a master plan work session. So,   I'll take a motion for adjournment. I  move the adjourn. Second. All in favor? I We'll turn it over to you. Thanks. Give me one   second here. I'm just trying  to unhide one of our columns. There we go. That's not actually going to be helpful. So, Okay. So, uh we're continuing to work through  the recommendations from the workg group   um reports. Just a refresher, we've been going  through all of the the recommendations from the   agriculture, economy, and housing work groups  were grouped into one of four categories.   policy recommendations, land use recommendations,  um fiscal or capital recommendations, and then uh regulatory recommendations. Uh so we got through  policy recommendations over the last couple of   meetings and now we're going to dive into  some land use recommendations. And again,   as a reminder, these are um there are uh a  limited number of these. Um it looks like  

we've got maybe about 20 of them. Um this is  not the full set of land use recommendations   that I anticipate ultimately we  will have in the master plan. Um,   these are simply the ones that came out of the  workg groupoups that were land use related. Um,   okay. So, you all should have  a copy of these in from your um from your email. And we'll just start at the top.  As we did before, we added in some notes either   from um if it says staff, that's uh comp planning  staff. Um we also have some comments in here from   economic development, public works, development  review uh for your consideration as as you're   discussing these. So, we'll start at the top  here. The first recommendation is to look at   extending the priority preservation area east  north of Westminster and south around Maryland   27. This is coming from the a work group um  as a way to um increase the possibilities for   focused egg preservation. Um, see if I can try  to just zoom in here a little bit. Thank you. Um,

okay. Probably gets us close enough. So  currently the priority preservation area   um kind of follows where I have my cursor here.  So a little black line that goes um on the western   side of Westminster and then down through uh  Wakefield Valley and then terminates kind of   in this vicinity. Uh the recommendation from the  egg work group was to look at extending that to   the east. So further over towards Manchester  really to grab this uh this quadrant between   97 and 30. Um and then a little bit further south  and east um in the vicinity of the 27 corridor.   Um again the the rationale for that was to try  to um really focus where egg preservation could   be encouraged, expand the opportunities  but keep it in a in a in an area that   u makes sense in terms of where there's already  a concentration of a preservation easements.   is where there's also some good um soils, good  good a infrastructure that would indicate that   this is a good area for long-term viability  of agricultural um activity. Uh we would have   to go through a process to amend our priority  preservation area. That's a state designation that  

um that we um applied for and were granted when  that legislation first was established and I   want to say that was 2012 maybe. Um there's  a process that we can use to expand the area,   but we'd have to kind of go through meeting  the the requirements for what qualifies as a   priority of preservation and have that approved  by the state in order for it to be official. So with that, I'll stop talking and open it up  for any discussion that you guys might have. Does that extend into any of the upper Patapsica  rural legacy area or does that exclude that? I'm   not sure where that line runs over on the  Yeah, the coloration here is not great,   but um there is a light blue area. Okay, I see  it now. All right, there. That is the upper   Patapsico rorow legacy area. And then Little  Pipe Creek is over in this in this vicinity. So the light Yeah, the light. Okay, I see the  light blue now. Didn't have my glasses cleaned.   It's very faint. Also just want to note that  this line was very roughly drawn during the   workg groupoup sessions as I'm sure you're aware.  So um we would look to refine that for sure.   Yeah, because I guess my concern is that little  fish hook I guess going over the top of I guess   Westminster there because that would almost  block out more and basically the best way   for growth is near or in the municipality.  So yeah, if we if we wanted to pursue this,  

we would sure want to make sure that it's aligned  with other recommendations in the master plan.   um related to where growth opportunity  should be identified as well. Then would the intent also to be basically say  that from this point on only this land in in these   areas would be eligible for a pres or just to put  a it would be priority. I'd say you know we really   want to pursue these first but not necessarily  block out anybody else. They're the priorities.   Yeah. So the priority preservation area um by  identifying it in our master plan basically says   this is where we would like to focus most of our  efforts. It kind of gives those properties an edge   in the um in the easement acquisition process  because they get some additional points for   that. But it doesn't exclude other areas of the  county from being considered for preservation. It's kind of on paper that there are areas that  we prioritize. Um and so and this is basically   for state funding. Okay. Um, now county funding  is a different story and I don't think there's   anything tied to priority preservation areas  with county funding. That's up that's just   discretion of the commissioners and the a advisory  board. if if a property outside of that property  

preservation area would be eligible for the county  program that's exclusive of that. Yeah. I mean,   the only thing I would add to that is we've  talked about um trying to develop some sort   of strategy for land preservation and certainly  defining a priority preservation area as kind of   your focal part of the county that you want to  um preserve land because the the PPA does have   um as as part of the state designation language,  a goal of preserving 80% of the land within that   area. So, that's kind of that's kind of the  the idea there. Um if at some point a a a more   um sort of targeted strategy for land preservation  in the county were to emerge and the priority   preservation area was was a a big part of that.  It could influence maybe where we choose to direct even county money for land  acquisition or easement acquisition. It's a ying and a yang because as we expand  our area or want to or suggest it be expanded   in the same breath we're sitting here  uh being forced to approve projects   that eats up the land that's eligible for a  preservation. So um it it's a noble cause.  

It really is right at this stage of the  game. That's about what I can say about it. It's hard to get 80% when the 80%  you're looking for the rest of it   to get the 80% what you're looking for is  starting to be devoured piece by piece by   piece. And we're seeing that. Um  just an editorial comment here.   And I don't have the statistics at my fingertips  right now, but I did recently try to figure out   how close we were, what our current percentage  of preserved land within that area, within our   existing prior to preservation area is. And I feel  like it's in the 60% range. It could be close to   that by now. I think you're about right on that.  Yeah. So, I for some reason 13,000 acres sticks   in my head as still kind of potentially um out  in this PPA that could be put under easement. Um   you have a good memory. It's about 13,000. Okay.  That's left to meet the 80% goal. Sounds about   right. Yeah. So, you know, obviously there's still  plenty of of opportunity within the existing area,   but if we extended it, who knows what that does  in terms of opening up some more opportunity, particularly around the Bachmann Valley area. I'm just curious And this is far-fetched  to me. I wonder how many counties have  

ever extended their priority preservation  areas kind of county seems to always lead   the way in this. Yeah, we'd have to look into that and what the success was when they did that. It's always about chasing the money  and uh When you go to the state,   you try to get every the biggest bang  you can get for your buck for the   $1.3 million you put up to  get the $2 million back. And again, it's the, you know, the sticky wicket  because obviously moving things more east,   you know, a developer might be more apt to want to  develop closer east because that puts you closer   to Baltimore and knowing mills and all that type  of stuff, too. So, there's just no no easy answer   to it. That still doesn't precludeclude anyone  from taking a hard look at the like the uh 97   corator and what would be appropriate as far as  a future commercial industrial type development   that could still happen on some of those corridors  and the same way on the 140 corer uh that heads   towards Tony Town, right? still think that needs  to be part of what we're looking at. So, how many   how many acres more would that encompass from  our pri our current priority preservation area? I don't know if we've calculated that. I don't think it's more  than it's way more than 10%.

So, the original area was I think about  88,000 acres, something like that. Um,   just eyeballing it, it might be  another 20,000 acres. Question. As long as we dwell on contiguous acres, that's  so important to try to fill in the pieces and   put priority on on the contiguous acres. So, do  we want to retain this recommendation at least   to move to the next level of conversation?  Um maybe with a caveat that it take into   consideration additional discussions around  areas to um areas areas you might want to   identify for economic development or other  kinds of um I think that would be a good   footnote. I think that's great okay put in. So,  I don't have any problem expanding the area as   long as we we carry through with with a study  for the future on on these corridors. Okay. It's a balance. It is two uh two  competing uh goals there. So,   yeah. Okay. And um I do think that  there the economy work group had   identified some specific targeted areas for  economic development. We sort of separated   those out and we'll talk about them um in very in  a very focused conversation at the end of this. So  

um we'll get to those kinds of questions um before  too long. Okay. Okay. Let's move on then. Um the next recommendation is to explore a transfer  of development rights program that uh further   preserves rural areas by transferring residential  lot rights from the PPA to less agriculturally   productive remaining portions or other suitable  receiving areas. Are you talking about TDRs? Yes. That doesn't work very well in other  jurisdictions. That has not worked   very well. We we studied TDRs time and time  again over the years. And it was it's kind of   like chasing your own tail. Um seemed like for  every um positive there were a couple negatives.   And so maybe maybe things have  changed, but I've yet to understand how how they've changed in a positive way. There's I think there's only been one instance  in Carol County where TDRs were ever utilized   as part of the the VRA. As part of the VRA,  correct? That was probably 40 years ago. So   just uh just for everybody's um background,  it has this question of TDRs has come up   multiple times in the past. Usually there are  a couple of sticking points. Um the first being  

identifying a an appropriate receiving  area. Um and the second being um the numbers that are required for  um the number of development rights being transferred versus the number of  lot rights being developed. And we it's   very hard to get the econ economics to  work out the financials to work out in   a way that makes that transaction work  for everybody both the seller and the   uh receiver slashdeveloper. Um you they have to  be done at pretty um high numbers in order for   the value of land to just work out um from  receiving in or from sending and receiving areas.   you're kind of messing with zoning here when  when you work with TDR a TDR program and you   you hit the nail on the head about finding that  balance and then finding the economic impact and   how it works and unless you want to add staff  is that something we would want to pursue in   the master plan a TDR u development you Well,  that's what this recommendation is. That's what   the recommendation is. And um we can certainly  study it and if there's interest in looking to   see has anything changed. I think the last time  we looked at it was probably about 101 15 years  

ago. Maybe the economics have changed. Um maybe  there is um something in the mix that makes   it more viable as an option, but um we haven't  been able to make the numbers work in the past. I I'll speak kind of bluntly. I I hate to  waste staff time on something that just has   never unless we're willing to change zoning  in the county, which I hate to hear about. Um   TDRs just just add to a complexity of things  that don't show any major benefit. I don't I   don't feel that's just a an opinion and we did  study that a couple times. I it didn't work.   Yeah. I think um I'm somewhat familiar with  Harry County. Yeah. Um having done them and   um I I don't see a problem with at  least leaving it as an exploration.   um to look towards the future because  there may be some changes that come about. my opinion. Well, yeah, it sounds like I mean flexibility  in zoning in the future. Is is that what this   is basically gives that capability? I  think that's probably not a bad thing.

U So, what do you want to do? Keep it  in for now or take it out. I say yes. Keep it in. I do. Yeah, I say keep it in for now. Okay. Sorry. I I mean really at the end of the  day, I mean TDRs, you know, they were a thing,   no one could use them because there wasn't  a place to go with them. So that may still   be the case. Yeah. I mean, you someone might  want to look at it down the road, but I think   they got to do. And and the one thing that makes  residents more upset than anything is when you   have a piece of land that they're thinking is not  going to get developed and then all of a sudden,   next thing you know, they're building houses  on it without, you know, that's true. I We see   that all the time. Everybody always assumes that  the piece of ground behind them is never going   to get built on even though, you know, unless  it's already in some kind of preservation. So, okay. So, leave it in for now.  We'll see where it goes. Yeah. Yep. All right. Um the next set of recommendations  there are three of them here that we kind of   grouped together. So these are coming out of  the economy workg group. Um topic one land use   recommendation one and two and topic two land use  recommendation one. So these three right here. Um  

so we have a recommendation to uh comprehensive  re re comprehensively review zoning for potential   commercial and industrial designations.  um focusing. Okay, let me start again.   Comprehensively review zoning me meaning zoning  maps, not zoning text for potential commercial   and industrial designation. The focus should be  on areas with existing infrastructure or where   infrastructure can be made available with minimal  investment. uh resoning should occur where the   surrounding community can support and enhance the  anticipated uses. Then we have a recommendation to   um identify potential areas of redevelopment or  revitalization. Um, and a third recommendation   that's generally the same is to explore  the opportunities for mixeduse development,   which may require amendments to the zoning code  to support as well as a comprehensive res review   of zoning to ensure appropriate integration into  communities. So, back on our planned commercial   centers dis discussion, this is where some of that  kind of conversation is coming from. So, a few   different recommendations related to identifying  areas for economic activity, specifically   commercial and industrial redevelopment and  revitalization and mixed use. And you see a couple   of comments that we got when we sent this out  for internal um review. So, economic development  

um was offering the comment that um reszoning  for commercial and industrial is often not   uh is often a tricky proposal for existing  communities. But that's where you're going to find   the infrastructure that um that really is needed  to support um to support those kinds of uses. Um comment from uh public works mentioned  that Westminster has a mixeduse infill   zoning category that we could look at for um  some of our conversations around mixed use. Um   and then from from um the comprehensive planning  staff, just a comment that um all of these kinds   of things related to zoning or potentially  reszoning for certain types of um uses have   to start really with the land use designations  that you all apply as part of the master plan.   Um, so there's just a question here about whether  these specific recommendations need to be retained   because um because you are going to go through  this process of evaluating land use designations   for all kinds of uses as part of your um process  in updating the master plan. Um we could retain   the recommendations for now and then maybe  revisit them at the at the end of the process,   but from a just from a purely processed  standpoint, it doesn't make sense to have  

a recommendation in a plan to do something that  the plan is doing. Does that make sense? Um but   but if these are things that you want to make sure  get communicated on a map, then we can retain them   for now just so that we know that we're being  attentive to that when we get to that point. Anybody? I I I remember this discussion during the work  group and the map just knowing where was a was   the question of u for the group. So I think the  map exercise is pretty basic and and necessary   just to you know say here's where the potential  is or here's where they currently exist. Um and   I mean it might be good too if we do put it  in the master plan. I mean obviously with like   you were saying everybody thinks that every  piece of land around them won't be developed.   kind of right here saying, "Well, it's in the  master plan that there's the potential is there   to a degree. Isn't that already in there? Exist,  right? The map is Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The map is   your visual expression, your graphic expression  of what what the county wants to see happen,   right? Um, so you will need to look at that map  to say where do we want commercial and industrial   development? Is that reflected in the current map?  Do we need to make changes to it? Um, the question  

about areas for redevelopment or revitalization  um can be factored into those discussions as well.   Um, and then mixed use might that might kind of  depend on where some of those conversations go   that that I was alluding to earlier when we were  talking about planned commercial centers. So,   is that um a new designation for mixed use? Is  it um a land use type that's kind of integrated   into other designations like commercial  or like residential? Um we'll kind of   see. I remember part of the conversation was  should there be like a designated commercial   industrial zone or zones? Um so like a  mixed commercial mixed Yeah. Right. Yeah. problem looking into it. Yeah. keep it. So, just keep these for now and then  then when we come back once we go through the   whole process and we're we're kind of finalizing  recommendations, we can decide if these are are   redundant or we or suggest some future action that  needs to be taken to implement the plan. Okay. All right. I I see that we are um at 10 to  12 right now. We obviously have a few more  

recommendations to get through here, but  I know some folks need to head out. So,   um we can continue this discussion at our next  meeting, April 1st. April 1st. Yeah. Have all   kind of shenanigans. Yeah, we make up you make  up a bunch of stuff and see if it's real. And   between now and then, we'll take a look at  what the next group of recommendations may   be. We'll probably try to get through the rest of  these land use ones and then move on to the next   category as well at our April meeting. Okay.  Okay. Sounds good. Thank you. Thank you all.