Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Call the Planning and Zoning Commission of Carroll County, Maryland meeting to order for September 15th, 2026. Can we establish a quorum?

Yes. Morning, everyone. Morning.

Morning. Mr. Kane?

Here. Mr. Robertson? Here. Mr. Huff?

Here.

Mr. Tarkner?

Here.

Mr. Soyson? Mr. Lester?

Here.

Mr. Smith?

Here.

Mr. Gordon?

Here.

Secretary Hine?

Yes, I'm standing in for Daphne Daly. Yes.

Mr. Chairman, please let the rug reflect that seven members are present. We do require them.

All right. Please stand for the pledge. Has everybody had a chance to review our agenda for today?

Yes.

Can I get a motion of approval?

I move that we approve the agenda for today.

Second. All in favor? Aye. The minutes of July 8th, has everybody had a chance to take a look at those? Pretty straightforward. Gail, you did a great job. There's a lot going on in that meeting. Can I get a motion to approve those minutes?

Make a motion we approve the minutes of July 8th, 2026.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you. Commission member reports. I don't have anything to report. Commissioner Gordon?

I don't have anything to report, but did want to mention, I don't know if anybody saw in the news, I believe it was either yesterday or today, but there was a conversation about a moratorium, not here locally, but I believe it was Frederick pushing out data centers to a total of eight years. I thought that was quite an interesting article. As we all know, that affects all of us and what's going on in the surrounding counties, but just wanted to mention that.

Okay. All right. Can I ask a question? Sure.

Has the county been approached at all with any data center stuff?

I defer to Mr. Hine on that one. No, not that I'm aware of. I shouldn't say that.

All right.

Thank you. Any other commission member reports? Any other members? Okay. Okay. All right, item number seven, administrative reports, administrative matters. Yes, good morning. Good morning.

I'm going to take advantage of that I'm not usually the one sitting here to go over a couple of things with you all. Okay. So the first thing I want to mention is that coming up on October 18th to 20th is the Maryland APA Conference. That's going to be at Turf Valley in Ellicott City. And specifically on the second day of the conference, there's going to be a planning commission session. So I think the whole conference would be valuable for anybody who would be interested in attending, and we do budget funds for planning commission members to attend that. So Gail will send out the information to you all, and if you're available. Because it is local, it's not an overnight. We haven't budgeted for overnight, but... I think it's a very valuable conference and would be good for those of you who could attend to attend. What's the date again? It's October 18th to the 20th.

Okay. I went last year and it was very good. Yes. Very informative.

Um, so then, um, I wanted to thank you all for, um, all of the hard work that you've been putting in over the summer. Uh, we've had a number of text amendments that we have been working through. Uh, those all have, have deadlines for various reasons. And so I want to thank you again for, for all the work. The work continues. We're talking about self-service storage today, and we have a couple others that we are going to continue to work on. But I wanted to give you a quick update as to where all of these stand. So planned commercial centers is one of the uses that was deferred by the county commissioners. That deferral has now expired. And so, and we don't have any projects in process. We do have one project that's a modification to one that's a minor project that it was caught up in the deferral that is now moving forward that you may see. But there are new planned commercial centers that have been coming our way. Our consultant, Michael Baker, is working on recommendations for those codes. So sometime in the future, we'll bring those recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners and see if they want to further those by sending them to you all for discussion and to the normal process. Regarding cluster subdivisions, the deferral will expire on October 1st, which that coincides with the state law regarding early vesting for residential projects. As you may recall, we had some high-level changes that we discussed, and you all recommended one change, one amendment, related to the use of developer rights and responsibility acts, DRAs. So that has been discussed with the commissioners. They had a public hearing on September 3rd, and this coming Thursday, they will be voting on whether to amend the code to include that. Now this again is a topic that Michael Baker is working on and again we'll have more nuanced conversations about that code with the commissioners and see if they want that to be sent back to you all for more conversations about cluster subdivisions. self-service storage we will be talking about today. The deferral on self-service storage is ending on October 9th. Last week, the board voted not to hold a public hearing to extend that deferral. So in other words, the deferral is going to end on October 9th, and we are scheduling Carol Hylands to come before you all on your October 20th meeting for final approval. If at the end of this overall legislative process with the commissioners that some text amendments are put forward, they will decide at that point whether the other two projects that are subject to the deferral will be exempted or whether the new codes will apply to those projects. But both of those projects are very early in the process and neither one of them have come before you for any sort of review. uh... related to age restricted uh... we had a public hearing on september third regarding the proposed code changes we then had work sessions with the board of county commissioners on september first and september eighth in total i think that we had about six hours of discussion with the board of county commissioners on them There are some minor changes to what you all recommended for consideration, but those were mostly some clarification type things, changing of terms and so on, that as our review of public comments indicated that maybe some more clarity There was nothing substantive change. There were no substantive changes. There were mostly clarifications, and those changes have been published on our website and will be what the commissioners will contemplate this coming Thursday to determine if those amendments are adopted. And presumably they will also be voting to determine if any or the projects that are currently deferred will be subject to the new codes or not. So regarding ADUs, they are not subject to a deferral but the state law that requires us to implement the ADUs goes into effect October 1st also. So we had the public hearing on September 3rd and this Thursday the board will be voting whether to adopt those changes. So a lot of the stuff that we've been working on over the past few months is all coming to a head for final adoption this coming Thursday. Finally, what I wanted to throw out there for you all and to bring up is that over the past couple of months and certainly the past couple of weeks, there's been a lot of correspondence that you all have received. A lot of very good comments and issues and concerns that have been raised. There are some misconceptions and misinformation that has come your way. And I just wanted to reiterate for you all that we as staff are here to provide you with the facts to make informed decisions. We can certainly answer those questions as they come up if you have any immediate questions. Or if there is a certain topic that you would like more information that we can put together a presentation and have a more robust discussion about. And that could be any topic related to what you all address. But I wanted to throw it out there that if there are any immediate questions that you all have, especially concerning any sort of correspondence that we've received, we are here. We certainly can answer. And if the answers require more presentation, happy to do so.

Great. Thank you.

Well, that's all I've got.

OK. Thank you. Thank you. Any extensions?

I am not over it.

No, from the peanut gallery. Chairman, I do have a question for Chris while you're here. There was some thought on a letter to the commissioners about the ADUs to express concern and questions about ag preservation child's lots. Has there been any response, and how are we going to handle that?

So the code, the red line code that is being presented for adoption addresses that issue, and it addresses it as per the direction of the Planning Commission.

Okay.

So it's in there. Okay. Yeah. Just wanted to check.

Yep. Okay. All right. Any BZA case update?

There are no BZA updates at this time.

Okay. Any other administrative reports?

No?

No, okay. All right, item number eight, the City of Westminster Annexation Number 90, the Sheriff's Department Headquarters, a discussion and decision.

Good morning, Commission Board members. Good morning. City of Westminster annexation number 90 is the Carroll County Sheriff's Office headquarters. This annexation requires a zoning waiver for a portion of the property. Therefore, action will be needed to be taken at the end of this presentation, so. They'll have to give a recommendation to afford this to the board of County commissioners. The petitioner and property owner, Carroll County commissioners are requesting annexation to construct and operate the Carroll County sheriff's office headquarters, uh, located on the north side of Greenwood Avenue and the west side of old cranberry road and Manchester Avenue in the seventh election district and third commissioner district. The annexation area is contiguous to the corporate limits of Westminster and located within the Westminster municipal growth area. As you can see, the corporate limits are just south of the property. And there are a few parcels that are partially within the corporate limits of Westminster and partially not within. The annexation area is approximately 4.3224 acres, comprises entirely of parcels 275, 274, four two five one seven five seven five eight four three zero three one six seven five four four five nine and partially of parcels one one six one one three six one one three five three three six and one five two zero access to the area is from old cranberry road and greenwood avenue The proposed annexation area does not include Old Cranberry Road or Manchester Avenue. Here's another view of the property. As you can see, there is a residential dwelling on parcel 758 and a warehouse on parcels 275 and 1136. There's some photos of the property as it stands currently. The top photo is a northbound view from Greenwood Avenue. You can see that warehouse. And then on the westbound view on the bottom photo is the view from Manchester Avenue. You can see the residential dwelling. The residential dwelling is within the annexation area, though it will remain a residential unit for the development. The annexation area is in Carroll County's C2 commercial medium intensity zoning district and our 7,500 residents zoning district. Adjoining properties within the county are zoned C2 commercial medium intensity and C3 commercial high intensity. Public facility is a permitted use in the county's C2 commercial intensity zoning district and our 7,500 residents zoning district. The City of Westminster has indicated its intent to place the annexation area in the B business zoning district. Public buildings, structures, and properties of the recreational, cultural, institutional, educational, administrative, or public service type are a permitted use in the City of Westminster's B business zoning district. The permitted uses and the cities be business zoning district are not substantially different from the permitted uses and the counties see to commercial at medium intensity zoning district. Therefore a zoning waiver is not being requested for this portion of the annexation request. However, the permitted uses in the business zoning district are substantially different from the permitted uses in the counties. are 7,500 residents zoning district. A few notable differences in the types and intensity of uses permitted include restaurants, vehicle sales, multifamily dwellings, and hotels and motels. Therefore, this portion of the annexation area does require a zoning waiver. So that middle portion of the property. The annexation area has a land use designation of commercial and urban residential in the 2009 City of Westminster Comprehensive Plan. The proposed annexation request is consistent with the land use designation. The property is located within the W1 existing final planning water service area and the S1 existing final planning sewer service area. Through our agency outreach portion of our review, we asked a series of agencies within Carroll County and from the state of Maryland to give their review of this annexation. These are the following comments. Carol County 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. The Carroll County Department of Emergency Management and Communications comments that this annexation would necessitate a modification of the patrol areas for the Westminster Police Department and the Carroll County Sheriff's Office. Carroll County Development Review recommends the annexation of two additional county owned parcels, parcel 1539 and parcel 1649 highlighted in the image on the screen. These along with the adjoining road beds, but excluding Manchester Avenue slash Gorsh Road may hold potential if included in the development of the lands currently under the plan review as the Carroll County Sheriff's Office However, if it is not desirable to include this area in the Sheriff's Office design, then the parcel plus roadbed, approximately one acre, could be redesigned to serve as ancillary space to the Sheriff's Office. Annexing would maximize opportunity and provide jurisdictional consistency. Our final findings are that a zoning waiver is not required for the portion of the area within the commercial medium intensity zone. The zoning waiver is required for the residential section of the property. The annexation is consistent with the city of Westminster comprehensive plan as the annexation area is located within the growth area, is contiguous to the corporate limits. And, uh, given the lack of outstanding comments from, uh, agency review, the PR the proposed annexation will not overburden county facilities. Um, planning staff recommends support of this annexation and zoning waiver and has a recommended motion, um, for you to move the planning and zoning commission forward a favorable recommendation of the zoning waiver to the board of County commissioners. This annexation will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners on October 1st. Are there any questions?

I guess, so the primary access to this property is via Gorsuch Road out to Baltimore Boulevard where the Olive Garden is, and then Manchester Avenue down to Main Street. Is that what we're seeing? Yes.

Why the Coons property? The Coons property or lot in the, that's the big one, I guess. Why would that be included in this? Because it doesn't really serve any kind of ancillary space for the sheriff's department i'm thinking the other additional spaces are for possible parking overflow things like that maybe i'm wrong about that but i i didn't i just didn't understand quite why the coons parcels included in all this which parcels are those uh 1519.

I don't see 1519.

Yeah, and I don't believe that's part of the annexation, is it? I think so.

Hold on. Let me look at my list of...

It's in the description of the annexation area. Okay.

I don't believe it is, actually. 1519? Yeah. No, this is 1520.

Tax map 46, parcel 1519, Coons, Westminster, Toyota Service Center.

Oh, no, that's saying what the site is bordered by. That's the section where I'm just saying the surrounding area. I got you. Yeah, it's not in the annexation area.

Thank you. You're welcome. That makes it clear.

Thank you.

Didn't mean to throw your curveball. No, it's okay. I was confused. Like, I don't think that that's the case.

Okay. Are there any other questions?

Any other questions?

Okay.

So, with that, can we get a...

Public comment?

Oh, sorry.

We're doing so good.

I missed the last meeting, so I'm out of practice. I missed the last meeting. Any public comment? Seeing none. Can we get a motion?

Yes, I would make a recommendation that, uh, the planning zoning commission forward a favorable recommendation of the zoning waiver to the board of commissioners.

Second. Okay.

Roll call.

Mr. Huff.

Yes.

Mr. Kirkner.

Yes.

Mr. Lester.

Yes.

Mr. Robertson.

Yes.

Mr. Smith. Yes. Mr. Swenson?

Yes.

Mr. Gordon?

Abstain.

Chairman, let the record reflect. We have six yays and one abstain.

Okay. Done. All right. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Item number nine, concept and preliminary subdivision plan, Dublin Manor 4, subdivision P250065. Amy.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Just a second, please. Good morning, Amy Barcroft with the Development Review Division. Here before you with a concept preliminary subdivision plan for Dublin Manor 4. This is P250065, and with me is Richard Krebs, surveyor for the project. This property is located on the east side of Manchester Road near Snydersburg Road. The plan is before you for a concept plan review and request for approval of the preliminary plan in accordance with chapter 155. The subject property is outside of the city of Westminster and is 93.147 acres. This is zoned agricultural with an existing single family home and farm. And most importantly, the property is under a mouth agricultural preservation easement, which was recorded in 2002. The property is surrounded by conservation and agriculturally zoned properties. And the adjoining property to the northeast is also in an agricultural preservation easement. The subject property and those in the vicinity are served by private well and septic systems. As this photo shows, the property has been previously subdivided. Lot 1 of German Acres was recorded in 1975, and then we began seeing subdivision for child lots through Dublin Manor Section 1. Oh, excuse me. I would like to restate that. Previous to the property becoming recorded in an agricultural preservation, there were some other subdivisions. One was Dublin Manor Section 1 approved in 1987. Dublin Manor Section 2 was an additional lot approved in 1990, and a use in common driveway was established at that time to serve those lots and the remaining portion. In 2002, the property came under an agricultural preservation easement And at that time in 2025, Dublin Manor Section 3 was taken as a one child's lot subdivision. At this time, the remaining portion is entitled to two additional child lots subject to the provision in the Agricultural Preservation Easement. The purpose of this review is a proposal for one of those child lots from the remaining portion. This will be Dublin Manor Section 4, Lot 4. Here are some photos of the existing use in common drive which branches onto Maryland Route 27, St. Albans Drive. And here are some photos of the remaining portion where the new lot is proposed. The proposed lot is 1.4 acres in size and again will be accessed by that existing use in common driveway. A single family home is proposed with well and septic. The right of way is 30 feet wide and already exists passing over the remaining portion. Stormwater management is addressed with a grass swale and disconnects. This property is not in the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Utilities. Water resource management has approved the plan and no landscaping is required. Because of the easement, agricultural preservation easement, forest conservation is exempt. And because of the agricultural preservation easement, this subdivision is not subject to the concurrency management code, chapter 156. So again, this is before you for an approval of the preliminary plan. The final plan would be approved by the chair unless you request to see it back as a final plan. We, as staff, suggest the following conditions of approval. that a stormwater easement and maintenance agreement be granted to the Carroll County commissioners, that the existing declaration of maintenance obligations for the use in common driveway be updated to include the benefit of lot four and that any changes to the preliminary plan and plat be submitted and approved, um, by be resubmitted, excuse me, to the commission for further review and approval.

So how many lots will be using the use in common driveway, potentially? Is it six or seven? Potentially. I know, I think, if I counted right, I think this takes it up to...

So at this time, this will be the fourth user. with this plan. Yes.

Was there an existing home as well?

The existing home is on the remaining portion and is a user. The first lot, German Acres, has a separate access. Okay. And Dublin Manor Section 1 has a different access as well. So the use in common is serving the most recent to subdivision and this proposed subdivision lot.

Okay, and then the one that would still remain, would that be on the Houston Common driveway? We're not sure.

Most likely, but they also have some road frontage along 27. They could also take the lock down there.

Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Would you go back to the overhead and show us exactly on the farm where that lot's going to be put? Okay, so that is part of the cluster. Is that right, Richard?

Yes, it's going to be clustered, correct.

My arrow disappeared there.

Yeah, actually the lot four is going to be between the end of the lot right there and up to the woods.

So it would be part of the forested land there?

Just a little bit. It's in about 20, 30 feet, yes.

OK.

Any other thoughts, Ralph?

No. And the lot size, 1.4?

Yes.

Okay. I suppose a lot was already approved by Ag Preservation.

Well, it would have to be, yeah. And it would have to be approved by MOUF also. Is it going through those stages yet, Richard? Yes, it's going through them.

It's been approved, yes.

Okay.

Pretty straightforward pretty straight, okay can Well, I guess this is pretty straight, but let's let's get a motion I Any public comment?

I can't wait for that to get bleeped out somewhere back there.

No public comment. That happens a lot, too. But that's okay. I know.

I know. I was derelict in my duty.

Okay. Now can we get a motion?

So being it's not up there, I'd make the motion that we approve the preliminary plan in accordance with Chapter 155 and the approval for the preliminary plan in accordance with Chapter 156.

We do not need to do 155. It's only 155.

Okay. I'm looking at the next one down. Sorry. Okay. I request the approval for the preliminary plan in accordance with Chapter 155. I'll second.

Roll call.

Roll call. There was mention of... Do we need to give him approval at this point, or is that separate? Do we need to see this back again? Is that part of the motion, or is that a separate?

Typically, final approval would go to the chair unless you would request to see this again.

Do we need to see it again?

No. Unless there's any substantial changes now. No. Okay. All right, sorry. Add that to the motion?

Yeah, let's restate the motion. Actually, well, we've got a motion on the floor. We've got a second, so we need to go ahead and vote down the original motion and then make a new motion. Or you can vote yes and then make a second motion that says that this will be for final approval as well.

Let's do that.

Okay. Mr. Huff?

Yes.

Mr. Kirkner?

Yes.

Mr. Lester?

Yes.

Mr. Robertson?

Yes.

Mr. Smith?

Yes.

Mr. Swayson? Yes. Mr. Gordon?

Abstain.

Mr. Chairman, let the record reflect we have six yeas and one abstain.

Okay, and now I'll take a motion if you...

I would make the motion that we give the chairman the final approval unless there's some kind of major change.

Second. Roll call.

Mr. Huff?

Yes.

Yes. Mr. Foster?

Yes.

Mr. Robertson? Yes. Mr. Smith?

Yes. Mr. Poison? Yes.

Mr. Gordon?

Abstain.

Mr. Chairman, let the record reflect. We have six yays and one abstain. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Good luck.

Okay.

I believe in you.

Nope.

Item number 10. Preliminary subdivision plan, Patapsco Estates, section 6, P240058. I think we have David. No.

David Becraft with the Development Review Division. As mentioned, the next project on the agenda is Patapsco Estates, Section 6. We have a few representatives of the project with us here this morning, and I'll let them introduce themselves.

I'm Josh Royal with the Estadium Associates. I'm the engineer on the project. I'm Mark Frazzera. I'm one of the owners and developers.

And this project is in front of you, requesting preliminary plan approval with both Chapters 155 and Chapters 156. This may be familiar to a lot of you. This was before the Planning and Zoning Commission in December of last year, because that seems like eons ago at this point. Just to re-familiarize, the project is highlighted here. It is in the R-20,000 zoning district. This red line to the right of your screen, that is the corporate limits of Sykesville. And then this uncolored portion on the south side of the screen, that is outside of Carroll County. So we are pretty much down all the way to the south end of Carroll County right outside of Sykesville. So the property itself is currently undeveloped. You see that it is surrounded by residential dwellings. Because this is section six of the subdivision for Patapsco Estates, a lot of these other lots that are surrounding this property are previous sections of the subdivision. Why they never continued with Section 6 is questionable. There have been many iterations of Section 6 through the years. And you can see that there is a stream on the west side of the property which barely touches onto or barely runs into the property itself. There is a floodplain south of the property, but you can see that does not extend onto the subject property. And finally, there is an existing water line across from the property, but does not run to the property itself. So what's currently being proposed is to have this property be six residential lots with a stormwater management parcel shown here. And these six lots are going to run down a shared driveway, which will go to Patapsco Drive. So moving on to the next slide here, this gives a better idea of what's being proposed. So these six lots, they range in size from 0.8 acres to two and a half acres. This stormwater management parcel that's shown all the way in the back here, that is about three quarters of an acre. All of these proposed lots meet the minimum size requirement of 20,000 square feet, the lot width requirement of 100 feet, and the setback requirements from all property lines applicable to the R-20,000 zoning district. As I mentioned, access to the lots are going to be via this shared driveway. So the driveway will run from Patapsco Drive up to the cul-de-sac at the end here. And this driveway is named Astoria, is that how you pronounce it? Astoria, yes. Astoria, okay. And that naming is a requirement just because of the number of users of this driveway. So if you recall, when this was brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission back in December, there was a request to allow six users in lieu of the requirement of five. And that was permitted by the Planning Commission at that time, and the number of users has not changed since that time. The plan did go to our technical review committee meeting back in November of 2024. At that point, there were citizens in attendance, and they expressed concerns of existing flooding on the properties, damage to existing roadways of Patapsco Drive, you know, just with construction, but also with just wear and tear through the years. There was concerns of the distances of the new houses to the property boundaries and the number of trees that were being removed when this was brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission in December. Most of the discussion at that time was in regards to the request and modification to the maximum number of users, as well as the extension of that public waterway from Swallow Road to the subject property, which you can see is shown here. And then so just running through, so this has received preliminary approval from all county agencies. I'm just going to run through them for the record here. So engineering review has granted approval in regards to the proposed access to Patapsco Drive. Landscaping does not apply with the current design. Approval was granted from the water resource management with the easement being required around the variable with stream buffer associated with that stream on site. Grading and sediment control as well as floodplain management have both granted approval. The Carroll County Health Department and the Bureau of Utilities have granted approval of the preliminary plan. So with the water line, that was reviewed by the Division of Utilities and then because there's no public sewer in the area, all lots are going to be served by private septic systems and that was approved by the Carroll County Health Department. Forest conservation will be addressed by way, and I'm going to go to the next slide here. So it's going to be addressed by way of on-site afforestation, on-site reforestation, and off-site forest banking. So all of the green areas shown with the different hatchings here, that will be placed in some sort of forest conservation easement. So you have this area down here as well as this area that encompasses that stream area as well. The Research Management Division has granted preliminary plan approval. Stormwater management will be addressed via dry wells and a submerged gravel wetland. And again, that's going to be provided on this parcel that's going to be deeded to the county. And finally, in the review, comprehensive planning determining that the proposed land use is consistent with the 2014 Carroll County Master Plan as well as the 2019 Water and Sewer Master Plan. So pursuant to Chapter 155, staff recommends approval of this preliminary plan subject to the eight conditions, and these eight conditions relate to sureties of work being done, a declaration of maintenance obligations for the driveway, and various easements that are going to be required associated with this development. So because this is a six-lot major subdivision it is subject to concurrency management chapter 156. Before I move on to that portion of the report and the presentation are there any questions in regards to what was brought up thus far?

got a question concerning stormwater retention when that is deeded to the county then we are responsible as a county for maintaining that stormwater pond to make sure it's working properly that's correct so while the developer puts it in and establishes it, any ongoing maintenance then falls to us, not the homeowners.

That's right.

Okay. I mean, I know that's not uncommon. I'm just, okay, yeah. I'm moving on. All right. I just wanted to track. Thank you. That's it.

So that being the case, and it is not uncommon, does the county have any, while it's being built, constructed, does the county have any on-site presence there to review what's happening since they're going to be the owner ultimately? And they do, right?

Yes, so ultimately, whenever we have property that's being deeded to the county and going to be maintained by the county, we include our facilities in the plan review. So that way, at least they can make sure that the grades are workable with their equipment and that there's not going to be any issues with them getting access to and from the parcel itself.

Right, but I'm talking about the actual... product that's being built, are they actively there when it's being graded and things like that?

Yeah, so I can speak to that. So during construction, there are sign offs on the construction plans at various stages of construction that the engineer of record who designed it is required to sign off on. once the construction is complete we require an as-built plan to be provided so they go out and they survey what was actually put in the ground and so we can then look at the computations the hydrology and hydraulic computations to ensure that it will function as it's designed to and meets all of our all of the requirements once those as-built plans are provided we go out and we inspect it to make sure that our own inspectors go out and and say yes this is what was anticipated, the as-built is correct, and so on and so forth. Following all those things, we would release the bond that we hold to ensure the construction of that. And then the reason why, to delve a little bit more into it, the reason why we convey these to the county is this is a decision that was made decades ago with the understanding that The ongoing maintenance and so on and the inspections that need to be performed and the obligations to keep these functional, putting that burden on HOAs that quite often it's not unusual for them to be defunct and so on and so forth, that it was in the county's benefit to take over responsibility for those. That has over the years proved to save the county millions of dollars as far as retrofitting. A lot of other jurisdictions where these are privately owned have to spend a lot of time and resources to get those either conveyed or agreements with HOAs and so on and so forth, whereas we the county own them. So we can then retrofit them to meet various permit requirements such as our NPDES permit. So that decision decades and decades ago was an excellent decision in my opinion.

um because it has saved the county literally millions of dollars over the years so go ahead i'm sorry please just a random question the um that's for residential if this were a commercial property then that doesn't fall true correct correct we only take over ownership on residential subdivisions like this where the the

entity that would be responsible would be an hoa in the case of commercial or industrial development there you have a much more solvent entity that if there when we perform an inspection there's an issue we can go to one entity and say this is on your property this is your responsibility you are responsible for for maintenance or or anything else that's required

I don't necessarily think this is the time or place for us to put these guys through this, but I'm just gonna push back for a moment on the inconsistency there, because if we're saving money doing this on residential, It would seem to me we'd be saving money doing it on commercial too. So I want to understand that because that seems a little inconsistent to me. And again, we can put this on our list when we have a beer. You can educate me. This is not the time or place. These guys are doing what is customary. I'm ready to rock and roll. But I'm not quite sure I understand it, Janice, to your point. And I'm glad you brought it up, the difference between the commercial. And I get the entity being more solvent. You know, it's... You're dealing with an HOA. Anytime you deal with a committee, it's an issue, right?

I think part of the thought process is commercials tend to be more steady. People are there for a long term. Residential can be transient. Turnover. So you don't always know who's going to have it. So it does make sense. And I'm sorry I brought it up, Chris.

And the cost savings is relative to the time and resources to work with an HOA. We've had scenarios where we've retrofitted projects where the HOAs have ceased to exist. And then for the county to do a project where it's needed, there's a long legal process for the county to take over ownership of that parcel, which at the time, essentially nobody owned. And so all of those costs, the legal costs, the coordination costs, and so on and so forth, that's where we have saved the money. That scenario doesn't exist on the commercial side normally because there's a commercial entity that can be gone to to have those direct conversations.

Right. Okay. We'll save it for a beer. All right, this is one of the 20 things that's on our list. Let's let these men move on because, again, this is not out of the ordinary.

Correct.

There is one thing that's unusual about this subdivision, which is decades ago, and we struggled to really find a lot of information out, there's inlets on the large sections of Patapsco Estates that drained into a substandard storm drain pipe that's half in the ground, half out of the ground, that drained all onto this property. And as David mentioned, there was neighbors complaining about, hey, there's flooding conditions. So our plan, excuse me, has more storm drain on it than you would expect for a project like this and a larger facility to be able to accommodate accommodate some of that off-site water that's coming so that's why when you look at it you're like wow that seems like that's a you know, a large facility for a few lots.

Doing more and you're fixing a problem that, you know, you're inheriting from prior work. And I recall that from the previous conversation, so that's all good. Yeah, that was a big topic. It should be an improvement. So, again, I'm ready to move on. Thank you. I apologize.

Okay. Any other questions?

Just the width of the driveways. Are they gradually, do they gradually get smaller as they go in to the turnaround or is it a common length, a width on the driveway? It's a common width throughout. There's a required. I can't quite see that. I was wondering.

There's a required pull-off that's only slightly wider.

So the width of the driveway is what? And it's used in common, is that right? Correct. Okay. I believe it's, is it 18?

18, yeah, 12 was the requirement, but we made it 18.

And then the turnaround, Is 18 or 20? How wide is the turnaround? I'm concerned about the emergency vehicles.

That's a discussion that we had with the water section.

I know, I know. We've brought that up before.

I want to make sure that I understand how that... My understanding is we proposed a 70-foot cul-de-sac. And during the review process, the fire engineer requested that we make it 80 feet, which is what this shows. Was this long enough for a pull-off? I don't even know that it is.

Yes, there's a pull-off in front of Lot 29, but it's very hard to tell because it's only two or four feet wider than the road as proposed, so there's a small bump out.

Right, because normally it would be 12 feet. You'd have to go out eight, so you'd have 20 total, but because we're already 18, then that just goes out a little bit.

Okay. I recall we had a conversation about that. I just wanted to reiterate that Okay. I understand now.

Yeah. I mean, that's a, for six lots, that's a big cul-de-sac in there as well for the, for, for to satisfy emergency services. Okay. Thank you.

Okay, great. So moving on to the next phase being concurrency management. I'm not gonna go into all the nitty gritties, but I'm happy to if you have questions. Ultimately, this site is, so first let me back up. Concurrency management is tested for public facilities in the county. This is tested for schools, roads, fire and EMS, police, and also water service since this is being connected to the existing water in the area. For schools, this was tested against Linton Springs Elementary, Sykesville Middle, and Century High School. For all of those, it is deemed adequate except for there are a few years in Sykesville Middle where it is approaching inadequate. So looking at the numbers for Sykesville Middle, the current functional capacity is about 101.1%. That's adequate per our code. At the end of the six-year CIP cycle, it will decrease to 96.8%, which, again, that is adequate. however there are some intermediate years in there where that 101 continues to climb before it drops off and in that climb it does breach into the approaching inadequate section of our code which is a functional capacity our state Yeah, state functional capacity of 110 to 119%. So in that climb, it does breach into that, which would deem those years approaching inadequate. Looking at the rest of the facilities, so Patapsco Drive was tested and was deemed adequate. Fire and EMS, so response times, latent no responses, those were tested for the Sykesville area, and those were deemed adequate. Looking at the numbers of the Carroll County Sheriff's Office as well as the Maryland State Police in respect to the ratio of officers to population, those were deemed adequate as well. And then finally, looking at the water service in the area, capacity was deemed adequate for the addition of these six new lots. In regards to everything except for those few years in the Sykesville middle, everything was deemed adequate. Those few years were approaching inadequate. So because of how the code is written, And I'm just going to read from the code that I've pasted into the report here. If a public facility or service is inadequate and a relief facility is planned in the six-year CIP to address the inadequacy or mitigation is accepted by the county or a public facility or service is approaching inadequate during the current CIP, the Planning Commission may conditionally approve the plan to proceed to final plan stage and issue a tentative recordation schedule and tentative building permit reservation subject to the modifications at the final plan stage. So because everything is adequate except for those few years of Sykesville Middle being approaching inadequate, Staff recommends a conditional approval of the preliminary plan subject to the four conditions and contrary, if planning commission decides to go that route, contrary to the previous project. because we would have to retest concurrency management for those schools. When they look to request final approval, it will have to come to the full commission again.

I guess I would just chime in there. Go ahead. If we have one school that's approaching inadequate for a couple of years and a few lots here, that seems, I don't know, it seems like that should be something that would be approvable today. That would just be my view on it.

And I'll just recant, I certainly understand. Unfortunately, we're bound by what the code says. So understanding it, it's a mild approaching inadequate.

It's still... What are the percentages? Because I haven't seen the staff report. It's all right.

Yeah, I don't think I have it with me. Okay, that's okay.

So the conditional approval... Things can keep on moving along, and as things change with schools, we get updates from school population, which we do. and they have been on the slide a little bit. I don't specifically remember these schools here, but that could change. Those numbers change, and they've been changing downward recently. In the meantime, you get your conditional approval to keep things moving, and then as school numbers change, that could change from a conditional to an understand. Any questions?

I just want a clarification. The lots along the front, are they on public water? Yes. And this then will be hooked up to public water? Correct, all of them. Okay. Okay.

You mean the existing lots? Yes. Oh, no, the existing lots are not on public water.

The existing lots, the houses that are there.

The houses that are there are not on public water. They're all in well.

They're all in well, yes.

Just a question. Would they ever be subject to public water?

Ability to connect in the ability to connect they the option is there if they wish to connect But they are not being forced to connect Okay, and the homeowner property owner would have to pay a connection connection area. That's what happened.

That's right, okay? Can I ask where the existing water line is?

Yes, yes, so the existing water line and right here

Oh, okay. That's why they're connecting in there.

Yeah, so just moving back, this dotted blue line, that shows the existing water line, and it ends essentially at that intersection there, a little bit before the intersection.

Because it's coming out of that large public water subdivision that's right there to the east.

So the homes across the road, are they on public water, or is it the same thing? an option?

I'm not sure. I don't believe they are. I don't believe everything that's on our street, Patapsco Drive, I believe is well and septic.

It's just a general question. It's more than just your development. That is the fact that I'm starting to really worry about wells in Carroll County because we're in about a three or four year drought cycle now. Anytime there's a opportunity for public water where there isn't and it's that close I want to make sure that those homeowners are protected as far as future water uses they need it it's a big concern take a little your time but I want to understand that that that's a case here

Any other comments, questions? Public comment? Public comment. Can you please step up to the microphone here? And while you're doing that, let me read the little...

I've got to read your rights. I've got to read your rights.

Speakers, wait a minute, wait a minute. Speakers must sign in to make public comment, state your name, address, talk into the microphone to facilitate audio and video recordings. Comments will be strictly limited to three minutes per speaker. Citizen testimony is not a Q&A session. Questions may be directed to staff after the meeting. And if any individual fails to comply with these rules, Planning and Zoning Commission Chair may call the person out of order and may require him or her to leave the meeting. It's yours.

My name is Michael Siemens. I live up on 7509 Patapsco Drive. And my question is, I may have missed it earlier, how much acreage are we talking about total? involved for this subdivision? Well, it's just about 10 acres.

It's the most exact amount.

Just shy of 10, yep. Okay. That was my only question.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Can I get some motions? I guess we need a motion on 155 and 156 separately.

You could combine them if you wanted to.

Can we do it all at once? Do it all at once. Okay. Matt, you want to take another shot? You were doing it last time.

Go for it.

I would like to make a motion that we recommend pursuing the Chapter 155. We need to accept the preliminary plans according to Chapter 155 with the eight preliminary plans. What would you call them? Recommendations. The recommendations. Eight recommendations by staff. And then on 156...

Four. Same thing.

Also, with 156, with the conditional approval with the four. Staff recommendation. Staff recommendation, yeah. There you go. How bad is that? A second.

Roll call.

Mr. Hoff?

Yes.

Mr. Cochran?

Yes.

Mr. Lester? Yes. Mr. Robertson? Yes. Mr. Smith?

Yes.

Mr. Soyson? Yes. Mr. Gordon?

Abstain.

Mr. Chairman, let the record feel like we have six jays and one abstain.

Thank you. Congratulations. Good luck. We'll see you again.

I feel like I'm at an Oriole game, and they're losing six to nothing.

No, but I mean the voting, you know. I may not call any of that. Oh, boy. Okay. Item number... Mike. Yeah. Mike, can we take a five-minute break? Yeah, we have a request for a break. Can we take a 10-minute break? We'll get back at 10.15. Can I get a motion to approve that?

I move we take a five-minute break.

A second. Five or ten. There you go. Stay. All in favor? Aye.

All in favor? Aye. 10-15. All right, we'll call this back to order. Item number 11, deferral code changes, self-service storage facilities. Discussion. I guess, Chris, you're going to lead this one since Daphne's not here.

Yes, I'm going to pitch head for Daphne. So, yes, as I mentioned earlier, this is one of the uses that was subject to deferral, and We contracted with Michael Baker. They went through the process of reviewing our code, reviewing our planning documents, and so on, and have come back with recommendations on potential text amendments. And so we are presenting those to you for discussion, and we'll refine them to ultimately have a recommendation from you all of any sort of amendments that we can then take back to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration. And so last meeting, Daphne walked through the first portion of this. Before we really get into it, I did want to point out kind of two very high level things that I'd ask that you all consider as we go through these discussions. So the first relates to the definitions and the uses. So I think we can all recognize that functionally, there are two distinct types of self-storage uses that we're talking about. There's the mini storage, which we've termed drive-up. These are the small shed type facilities that we have a number of them around the county. And that looks and feels very different from the internal type that we're talking about, which is more of an internal warehouse, and we're terming them internal. What I'd like you all to keep in the back of your heads as you're looking through these codes is any sort of provision that we're contemplating, how does that impact these the same or differently? So is what we're proposing, does it apply to both of those kind of functional uses? And this is gonna become important at the very end because we're gonna have to have a discussion at the end. what we have proposed are two separate uses and there we know that there's a situation uh... in fact we have a project in process where it's an existing uh... drive up and they're proposing internal on the same property so they're looking to expand concept of self storage what we currently are turning a different views and so you would essentially then have to principal permitted use on one property impossible but certainly not clean and not not the best way that we would want to address it right and it would be difficult to describe one as being an accessory to the other that's often how we address these sorts of things right is you have one principle permitted use and then you have an accessory to it and those are those are allowed but you have that one principle here we would if we stick with the code as is we would have two principal permitted uses on one property. And whether that's the best way to do things is up for discussion. Another way we could address this is we could go back to one use, self-storage, but recognize that there are two ways of doing it and we could have individual code sections that would speak to those individual uses. So a certain requirement for one versus a certain requirement for the other. Where that would be difficult though is in the use table of where we allow these. So currently we have both uses are similar in the use table. They're allowed in the same zoning districts, they're conditional in the same, that's what we're proposing. If at some point we differentiate them, then they would have to be two different uses because they have to be separate in the use table. But if we maintain the thought that they are all going to have the same designation in the use table, we could potentially recombine them and then have separate requirements for the two different kind of functional how they look and feel. So just something to, no decisions need to be made today, just as we're going through, think in terms of, oh, this really only applies to this one, this applies to both, and so on. The other concept that struck me in reviewing the recommendations from Michael Baker is that there are some recommendations for the code. And again, we are only talking about self-service storage here. And so there are recommendations for self-service storage. What I have been questioning is, whether those requirements are specific to self-service storage or are they more applicable in general to commercial development and so on. They very well are good recommendations, but are they things that we should contemplate more generally rather than specific to this use? And so one thing that could be contemplated moving forward is you all can absolutely make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners if you see something in code that you think that should be contemplated for an amendment. And so if there may be a topic that is recommended for self-service storage, but if you all feel that that's something that should be applied more universally, rather than putting it in the self-service storage code, we could absolutely bring that to the Board of County Commissioners for a separate amendment that applies then more universally. Also for consideration is we are working on the small area plan amendment for the Freedom Area. It could be that some of these requirements, maybe that you don't feel they apply to the entire county, but they may be applicable to the Freedom Area. So they could be something that could be brought up as part of the small area plan amendment to be considered just for the Freedom Area for the corridor that we're studying. So there are multiple options, I just don't want to have you think that you're tied to, we are specifically looking at self-service storage and this recommendation, and that's the only place it can be applied. They certainly may be appropriate only for self-service storage, in which case, yes, let's have that discussion. But again, I want you all to know that you have these options for greater consideration and greater discussion. So those are kind of the two high-level concepts that I just wanted to throw out there as we go through the rest of these codes.

Okay.

So the document that we've provided, and I'll run through some of the first things very quickly. You will see that as before, there are items that are in red. Those are the recommended code changes. There are some things in green which those were changes that were discussed at the last meeting so that we have implemented those and put those in here. So you can start seeing those evidence themselves. And here you can see the use table as I was talking about. The recommendation, I believe, from the last meeting was that both the drive up and the internal be a conditional use in the I-1 district. And so we have put that in green here so you all can see that that's the recommendation. But again, as you can see, the two uses are both consistent in whether they're allowed as principal or conditional uses. We took out some of the language here that basically replicated what was in the use table so there's not an inconsistency there or confusion. Let's see, I'm not gonna run through all of the changes that we've made but they are here and certainly when we do a final wrap up of the final what are you going to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners, we can go back and discuss any of these if you would like. We have a, so Daphne put in a note here. So the section that we're talking about here, which is section C, which is specific to the front facade design and orientation. So it's specific to the front of the building. And again, we may need to go through and clarify are we talking about the internal versus the drive up. The front facade design and orientation. One of the questions that she had is that this is for the front facade only. And so this provision for building walls exceeding 200 feet in length shall incorporate offsets of it and so on and so forth. It's sort of this architectural features. because this is in the section for the front facade, this would only apply to the front facade. And so wanted to ensure that that was the direction that you all wanted to look at, or are you talking about all of the sides? In which case, we'll have to think about how we would revise that and perhaps changing section C, the name of it to be, you get my point, right? Is we need to figure out which of these um, provisions apply to just the front and which apply to the entire building. So are there any thoughts along those lines? Agreed.

I said, I think it should be all the way around all the way around, right?

Yeah. Remove the word front front.

Okay. So we can, We can look at that and come up with more green text or maybe we'll pick another color. We'll figure it out, but we'll... Is there any further discussion on that or thoughts?

Yes. Chris, the question I have is the existing drive-ups, you're saying now that they want to make it internal?

So there's one project that's being proposed that is on Monroe Avenue. It is an existing self-storage that has the drive up. And they have area on their site where they could build more. And rather than building more of the drive up, they are proposing an internal building. And so that facility will have a mix of both the drive up and internal. So essentially it will have two principal permitted uses the way that the code is written now. And that project is very, very early in the process. It has not been brought before you all. It's still going through the concept review on technical staff.

So there's an acreage requirement for drive-off versus internal, right? Minimum.

We are proposing that, yes.

So would that mean for that project, and I know I'm getting off subject here, for the Monroe Avenue project, would that require a combination of the acreage?

Well, see, there you're getting into the complications of having two principal permitted uses, right? is we have two different acreage requirements. Now, I'm not familiar enough with the site to know if it meets both of them, but you start getting into those nuances of what applies to one versus another if there's separate principle-permitted uses.

I could see why somebody might want to do that, though. Yes. Okay.

And back to this text, when we say we're going to remove the word front, So it says facade design and orientation. I think under three, we would also need to remove street facing so that it says for internal facilities, facades. Yes. So you don't have, okay, got it.

Yeah. So you have a property that, you know, it's four sides. One of them faces the street. The other two might be surrounded by woods on each side, so now you're requiring more detail on the sides that aren't even really visible. So I think there needs to be some type of leadway there. I think if it's sitting in the middle of a residential community, yes, there should definitely be architectural design, but how much of it can become a problem because you're jacking the price and ultimately it goes to the consumer. developer or builder isn't going to build something that he has to put an extra $50,000 into without passing it on and construction costs keep rising.

The only thing I will say to that is like the example I sent to everybody yesterday and that is not even backing up to a neighborhood but that has four sides of architectural details um i mean again if a and that didn't deter them and it just opened a week ago so if a developer is going to build something they're going to build it i just don't think that that and i think that was so fake windows but it just was which i thought we were saying no just well the only thing i would say then is of course

Might not be anything beside you now, but it could be later. So it's the whole thing of I'm here and no one else is going to surround me. So you should actually build it. I mean, I don't mind fake windows. I've seen a lot of them and some of them. They all have different looks. Some of them are better than others.

But then the other part of that genesis is that when you, I understand totally what you're saying. From an appearance standpoint, if you do one side and then you do three sides with less attention, it really does look like it's half built. You just put gingerbread on the front, and you did nothing to the other three sides. So I would just say, to your point, it's totally relevant, and it has merit. We should, as a commission, have the flexibility to say, you know what, we're gonna give you relief on that backside. There's nothing but, it backs up to a stream, it's gonna be wooded forever, and there's 200 feet of woods before you get to anything that could potentially be developed. We should be able to give them relief if it's warranted. At the same time, as a stated objective, We also don't want it to look half-built, particularly if it's going to be on a high-traffic road.

I agree. And we need language then that will say we're feasible. So it's not boxed in, because when you say all four sides without some type of...

Relief, potential relief.

Yeah, then you've got that. Not everything can look like the Taj Mahal.

So can we say may be required on all four sides?

No, it should be. I would say all four sides is the rule and then open up that there could be an exception to all four sides.

If... Woof. Yeah. Good luck capturing that. But you get what you get.

Oh, I totally understand what you're saying. Yeah. Yeah.

Your thoughts. And having said that all four sides will be architecturally treated or whatever, the planning and zoning commission may end at sole discretion. Blah. Okay. Okay. Good luck with that. To look with the blah.

Which gives us the opportunity to, when we meet with the developer and they come here, you know, at site plan development or whatever, we can say, no, this has to be done.

Keep in mind, before it comes to us, there's a design committee that will look at it to kind of ensure that So the guidelines that we set, we want them to be able to...

Interpret and follow.

Right, and say, so it's not just us. Right.

Now I hear you.

All good.

All right.

So I'll continue down through here. So... So again, we talked about these two questions, front facade versus the rest. We took out some of the wall treatment requirements that we talked about. And building materials and colors at the last meeting, there was a desire to take out most of the recommended text there. And that's where we ended on September 2nd. So the next section is relating to massing and composition. So looking at the building composition and how it fits within the neighborhood as it were. And this I would submit is speaking primarily to the internal. type of facility where you're talking about larger buildings and so that when you're multi-stories that you have a defined middle and top and various architectural items such as cornice lines and banding that differentiate the ground from upper floors. If there's a ground floor retail component, various types of design elements. Entries clearly expressed in the overall massing, focused on primary street front with primary uses oriented to the front. Service uses, parking, and utilities should be accessed from non-primary facades and fully screened. So the supporting type of HVAC, if there's accessory parking storage, that that is not out in the front of the building, And then there's always the scenario where you have a corner lot. And so you have essentially two fronts. And so establishing which is the true front of the building and making sure that that's appropriate to the primary roadway. So any questions or discussion on massing and composition of the structures?

When we talk about the front, this is cool that you bring this up, the corner like that. When we conceal I've noticed that on a couple of buildings that we've approved recently, when we, when we require concealment of a rooftop HVAC or whatever, do we require those parapets just on the front or does it go down the sides as well? And the back where the parapets that hide that, the mechanical stuff that's on the top. What, what, what, What's your suggestion there? And what are we saying here in terms of concealment and screening and that sort of thing for mechanical equipment?

So as it applies here, I was thinking more of ground level, dumpster enclosures, those sorts of things, right? You don't want the dumpster enclosure on the front facade of your building.

Agreed.

As far as what you're talking about on the tops of the buildings and the parapets that screen that, have we put anything in here on that?

Wouldn't that be the same as HVAC on top of Walmart? Sure, exactly. So it should be the same for this as it is for those existing retail places.

I would have to go through and review. I'm not sure if we have anything that addresses that particular scenario.

So many of those rooftops are flat, and they're usually like a rubber membrane or something on them. And there really is nowhere else to kind of put it like on the side that makes it functional for the buildings.

I'm just saying, but from a visual standpoint, it'd be nice to conceal it with a parapet. Yeah.

And I may be totally wrong, but I think that's more of an industry standard than not.

Yep.

Agreed.

So Mr. Smith may have more thoughts on that.

I mean, even on apartment buildings, everything has... parapets on it just to, like I said, to pretty much put everything back there. So, I mean, it's more of a standard. I mean, even schools these days have some level of it.

Any other thoughts on massing and composition?

Okay.

Office and parking, this is in black text, so this is from our current code, so not proposing any change there. Essentially that an office can be located on the site and employee parking and so on is needed and that parking for employees can't be rented and used for other uses. For the next section is access and circulation. Again, there's black text that is in the current code regarding vehicular traffic, and that two-way traffic should be 20 feet wide minimum, and then it does allow for one-way traffic aisles with units on one side, maybe 15 feet wide. So again, this is speaking more to the mini storage type. What Michael Baker has proposed is adding in a couple of clauses recommending that internal circulation shall be designed to provide clearly defined ingress and egress and to prevent vehicle backing movements into a public street. And that cross-access easement shall be provided to adjacent commercial or industrial properties where feasible. Again, my commentary would be that number three is something that's not unique to self-storage and it is something that we look at in general when something's proposed from a commercial perspective as far as what kind of interconnection could be possible. it's difficult to require it because then you're talking about a third party that's not involved in it to provide access, but it is certainly something, it's a best practice, it's something that we would discuss. So whether number three needs to be specific to self-storage or not is certainly up for discussion.

Thoughts?

If it's not there, is it then interpreted that they don't have to do that?

So it's a best practice that we would be looking at regardless as to the type of development. Putting it in code, Does that draw the attention to it that it should specifically be looked at? Sure. Is it something that's specific to the commercial development of self-storage? That's debatable. I think it's a best practice that should be done regardless of the type of use. Interconnectivity of parcels is always beneficial, and in some cases it can help reduce the curb cuts to the main streets and so on and so forth. But you do need to have cooperation then with your neighbors, and that cannot necessarily be forced.

I don't see a problem with it leaving it.

Leaving it in, yeah.

Next, we get to outdoor lighting. Again, what's in black is already in code, indicating that it should be shielded and focused to direct light onto premises and away from adjoining properties. What's in red has been recommended. I do want to point out that number two, maximum illumination at any residential property land shall not exceed 0.5 foot candles. We do not have a code requirement. regarding the amount of light trespass that is allowed on other properties. However, it is our policy to require a lighting plan and we absolutely comment if there is any light trespass. And so there is a policy that that is zero at the property line. So I would question putting into code something that is less restrictive than we already do as per policy.

Take it out. I agree. Okay.

Yeah. That's for taking it out?

Yeah.

Okay. Yeah. And then there are the additional recommendations on that lighting fixtures shall be fully downward facing fixtures and that freestanding light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height in commercial districts and 15 feet when adjacent to residential property.

How tall is this room?

12, maybe 14 where it's recessed. What do you think? Is that 14 foot to clear? I don't know. I can stand up and try and touch it.

Honestly, I'd say it's probably in the middle there, probably 10 foot. Yeah. This would be 8 right here.

8 and 10? Yeah. Okay. I'm in. All those in favor? No.

All right.

Um, next section is screening. And so, um, again, what I would point out is that, um, uh, we have a, the County has a landscape code. Um, the landscape, the purpose of the primary purpose of landscape code is for screening. Um, and, um, what's in black text, basically reinforced that structures, storage units, parking areas, and so on shall be screened from view offsite in accordance with Chapter 157, which is the landscape code. So, that's... I guess normal for any commercial development and we have it described here. On September 2nd, there was some discussion indicating a desire to require enhanced landscaping, especially if visible from certain types of locations. So you're talking about large mast buildings, perhaps having some additional landscape type requirements along at the base of the building to help to break it up and to make it more aesthetically pleasing. So I think that discussion started on the second, just wanted to see if there was further thought.

But I watched that September 2nd meeting.

I don't think there was any decision made on any of that. No, it was not. I remember the comments about 100-foot trees and things like that. And there was no resolution or no recommendation. There is screening, I think, needed. Yeah. But it's...

I think the concern was oftentimes screening is, I don't want to say minimal, but it's not like beefed up with bigger trees or something like that. So if it is facing a residential area, I think we thought it should be a little more

substantial right yeah because and you know in janice yeah i mean we that makes sense yeah i agree totally yeah and and in terms of depth you know putting one row of yeah leland cypresses it doesn't do it particularly when they go out and they install three foot high leland cypresses it's going to take 10 years before there's any concealment But at the same time, if you buy a more mature, substantial tree, its odds of survival aren't great. So I get why they plant the small stuff. But having one row. Maybe layer. Agreed.

we have a landscape code that establishes those minimums. And so that's what you see is often presented to you all on any type of project is our landscape specialist has ensured that the developer is meeting the minimums. And very specifically, there's screening requirements but when you have a commercial butted up against a residential. So there are screening requirements there and we have minimum requirements in the code. Certainly if you all during those discussions felt that more screening than what the minimums are, that's certainly a discussion that could be had with the developer when those projects are in front of you. If you have the desire, we can certainly bring our landscape specialist here and present some of what the landscape codes minimums are for further discussion if that's something that again, globally, you felt were something that you wanted to look into.

Let me ask a question, Chris. The most recent project, I guess, that was done was Liberty Road with all the houses behind there. That whole strip center. The the pines that were put back there, is that part of our standard landscaping, or is that what they, because they were fairly good size. I don't often see that when a commercial project is finished. So is that something the developer himself said, oh, I'm gonna beef it up,

I don't know off the top of my head, but we can certainly check to see if they were meeting the bare minimum design requirements or they voluntarily went above and beyond.

You're saying, Janice, that you liked it? You thought it was bigger, better? Is that what you're saying? Absolutely. Because, you know, there's a warehouse that was put in and completed across from Freedom Park. And the people in those new townhomes asked for relief, and we required landscaping. And the landscaping that they installed, it will never mature to the point that we needed it to. And again, that's one of those things I look at, I said, that's on me. I didn't... you know, the guys raised that concern. We said we've taken care of it. What they did is not, it wasn't enough. I feel like going out there at night and mid-summer and landscaping myself. Because it just, it is, it's horrible what happened there. I won't do that, by the way. Thank you.

I think it's a good idea to have the landscape folks, whoever, come and present what options there are that they probably discuss with the developers. And then from there, we'll have a better understanding of, okay, we got something that's gonna go right up against the development. From the menu, we require number nine, or whatever it is, and all that kind of stuff. That would be helpful.

So you probably have heard the terms. We have type A, type B, type C screenings and so on, and they have different definitions and so on. Please don't ask me to explain them today. But I think that would be a valuable discussion. So you all are familiar with, County code says that when you have commercial up against residential, this type of screening is required, and what are the minimum specifications on that? And I think that would lead to a good discussion.

Okay. So how long do you hold a bond on that requirement? So if a developer plants 80 trees that are supposed to be 18 feet tall, and they all die. Yes. They replant them, half of them die. What's the requirement on the bonding, and how long does that last?

If I may, I will defer that to our landscape specialist to explain for sure. But I can say that there is a bonding requirement and an inspection. I believe it's three years. And then there's survivability rates and so on. So getting into those specifics would be exactly a good reason to have a presentation to you all and what those specifics are.

They're pretty tight on making sure it's viable and gets going.

I mean, it's just like with one of our solar installations that's Very close to me. Yes. Every tree died. Yes. So somebody's got to go out there and say, let's replant this mess. Yes. And, uh, And that's what I was wondering about.

Yeah, and so those were replanted the beginning of the spring. But as you know, we've had very little rain through the beginning of summer and so on, and so I believe they have died again. And so that is a continuing obligation that we are working with that property owner that they need landscaping that survives.

Maybe they need cactus for the next time.

Or just do some maintenance, like water. Yeah.

I had clients that sold property to Department of Recreation and several of the trees died years later and the county came back and decided they'd be good neighbors and fixed them so maybe developers will do the same.

Chris, here's the other question I have and this relates to everything here I think. There's some solar projects that have been put in that have no screening whatsoever. There's no retro on any of that, is there?

Correct, yes. So if they already are in the ground, then they probably were approved by previous code. And if that previous code had no landscaping requirements, we can't go back and force them to put those in.

That's why I asked about the bonding, how long it lasts. Yes, yeah.

Solar screening, I can't remember if it's three or five years for sure. But we do bond for it, and there is a maintenance survivability that's required to release the bond.

I didn't want to get too far off track here, but I wanted to know how broad this is. If it affects one group of people, I think it should affect the other also.

So is there any further discussion regarding landscaping requirements adjacent to the building? So again, typically the landscape requirements are along the perimeter of the properties for screening purposes. There are some interior and Forgive me, this is not a code that I delve into often, but our specialists could speak to it. But there are some requirements, like in parking lots, regarding the islands and things like that. But is there any interest in further discussion about adjacent to the building as part of the breaking up the architectural look and feel of the massing of the buildings?

You know, I've... Like I said last time, spent a lot of time when we're driving back and forth specifically to the beach and down near the ocean, everybody's got self storage. But honestly, I don't recall seeing landscaping against the building. And it didn't seem to deter. And a lot of that down there is right by neighborhoods.

And so again, like I also mentioned, we are looking at the small area plan amendment and perhaps As we discuss the Freedom, Maryland 26 corridor and so on, the whole purpose of the overlay district that we've talked about is are there some additional requirements above and beyond for that corridor that maybe want to be contemplated? And that could extend to include landscaping. So that is absolutely a discussion item that can be brought up.

I just think we should always be cognizant of what it does to the neighborhood. Yes. So I think we need some wording in here that talks about residential neighborhoods. So that we're always, we need to protect the neighborhoods. Yes. And people are concerned about things like the lighting and the, the traffic and all that. And so I think we should keep some language in here that just talks about residential neighborhoods. The rest of it.

kind of open for discussion yeah and then that is a very important aspect of our landscape code is is that buffer between commercial and and residential one of the primary reasons is headlight trap and trespass as at night and when people are driving into that commercial you don't want those headlights coming into your into your windows screening yes

And the trees or whatever can stop a lot of that. You're right. If people back up to something, their headlights are on in the guy's bedroom window. We don't want that.

And we have code that addresses that.

Agreed on that. I think more what we're talking about is like the facade of the building. I know. So that wouldn't, I mean, while it looks pretty, it wouldn't necessarily impact anything. So like seeing. I had a thought and it left me. It'll be okay.

Please interrupt. Okay, so we'll move on then. So item J is a use limitation. uh... so again what's in black text uh... already exist in the code that the site shall not be used for any activity or use except storage as specified herein the uh... consultant has recommended further restrictions i don't believe maybe i just haven't seen it maybe it does occur but i am not aware that we have had issues i can check with anastasia our zoning administrator but uh... of of contracting businesses operating out of self-service storage facilities and so on. But the consultant recommended that this is an issue that sometimes occurs and it's not something that would be desirable. So things like retail sales, contracting businesses, repair operations, commercial workshops are prohibited.

And yes. Some of the things that you do see with these facilities is that there will be a large U-Haul franchise operating out of that facility as well so they've got a supply of various vehicles and trailers and that sort of thing and so while it's not a contracting business it operates like one because you have somebody who will fix those trucks you know wash them down that sort of thing so there's a natural and it makes sense to me that that would be a function that would be allowed But again, while it's not a contracting business, there are minor repairs going on and that sort of thing that are taking place on those vehicles when they're returned and something's happened to them. So I think we need to make allowances for that and also protect neighbors from it. Does that make sense? Yes.

Yeah. So what I will, um, I've made note and, and I, in my mind, what you've described as an accessory use of, of, um, related to the business, the latest of, of moving supplies and, and, uh, moving equipment. Right. So, um, I, I apologize. I can't remember if that's addressed in here, but I've made a note. So we'll go back and look at that, but totally understand what you're saying.

And I think. That, if it's allowed, would be more appropriate in the areas where they have the outside storage as well. Right, yes. And roll-up doors, not an internal one. Yeah. That's how. Yeah, that makes sense. But I honestly, I guess they're maybe on 140, they have something there that does that, but they're all the roll-up kinds. Right, yeah.

Under J2, there's a prohibition on outdoor public address systems. I'm not... I'll be honest, I'm not sure why a self-service storage facility would have or need a public address system, and we don't have this kind of prohibition anywhere else in the code. I'm not saying it's not a bad thing to consider, but again, I'm not sure if it's specific to self-storage or whether it's something that, is there a problem out there that these are prolific and we need to address it?

I don't know. Yeah, so you've got a unit. and you've been given an electronic card. This sounds like I use these things a lot. My daughter has one in Nashville. So you go over there, you swipe your card, you have a problem. There's nobody on the premises. So all of a sudden, the intercom comes to life. It's not a public address system, but the darn thing is loud. Okay. So, you know, and if I was doing that at 10 o'clock at night, which I've done, you know, and I'm having an issue trying to get in because I'm just shoving stuff in there for my daughter, if I was a neighbor... and it's 10 o'clock at night, that would be a thing. Because again, it's worse than ordering fries at McDonald's. I'm just telling you, it is really loud. And neither would be great to live next to. But again, I don't think that's public address. It's a flipping intercom. But I'm just telling you, the volume is startling.

And that would potentially be covered by the county noise ordinance. So if it was too excessive at inappropriate hours, that would be covered by that.

I would leave it.

Just out of curiosity, are these located in the southern part of the county, or where are these really loud self-storage?

This is in Nashville, so it's really southern.

I was just curious, because the ones I've used over the years, I'm not saying they don't exist.

No, this is run by a national company. There's nobody on premises. You swipe your card, and if you've got a problem, there's a tool.

Yeah, there's a number in the Westminster area that you go in and there's a keypad at the entrance. You type in whatever your code is, and then it'll say, you know, door opening or whatever. Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly.

And a lot of them have phone numbers that you call directly. Exactly. I don't think that's his. Maybe in Carlisle where this guy exists, they've got a lot of that.

Although when my wife and I lived in York, We were in a townhouse, and our camper, we had to keep it at a self-storage lock because you couldn't go to the HOA. And when you would scan your card, it was like a big gate, and it had an alarm when it was... Like, every time the gate opened, I guess somebody was standing there and saw the gate open. And granted, where this was, it was completely industrial, but... you know i mean i i can certainly understand why it's in there because there was literally an alarm on the gate to let you in that was a siren basically yeah that sounds like the gate at the airport when you go in for your plan carroll county i'd leave it okay there's certainly no harm in keeping it yeah yeah

Because when it's not in there, somebody will say, ah, we can do this.

Fair point. Item K, I believe there was some discussion that hours of public access may be limited by the BZA. And we struck out the putting in the hours because that's really a BZA discussion as far as if there are concerns. Any concerns with the way it's written? all right so I'm gonna leave it never go on move on sorry no proposed changes regarding hazardous materials and signage since we already had those addressed I don't know if there are any additional concerns that you all may have we're in those no I think that's pretty standard okay uh... maximum facility size so we set a uh... maximum gross floor area uh... not to exceed a hundred thousand square feet in the c two and c three districts would have to ask michael baker that i'm not sure but again

But it fits multi.

It's like four or five stories. Four or five stories. You're only 20,000 or 25,000 square foot of floor. Well, there could be four, though.

Yeah. So when I read through this, I wanted to put it in context. And does anybody want to guess what the footprint of this building is from a square footage perspective, to put it in context? Pretty big. $25,000. Dead on.

You're paying for the beer. By the way, I don't drink, so you're getting off light. It's whatever you can say.

Yes, yes. This building's footprint is 25,000 square feet.

Five acres. No.

No, no, no. Acres. Acres, $43,560.

It's an easy one. $43,560. Nice round.

So any questions or concerns about that recommendation in the C2C3 districts? No. Like that number?

So how much acreage is required then? I mean, you can't put that on that.

Play occur. I think we do have an acreage recommendation. I think it was farther up in It was one or two eight five to two The drive up minimum lot size is two acres and for an internal self-service storage facility one acre So if you've got a you would not be able to put a one-story 100,000 square foot on a one acre, yes. Right.

So there are guardrails.

Yes.

But you could do multiple stories, yes. By doing that, we're basically saying you can go up to 100,000 square feet on an acre, which is basically five stories.

Except that you'll run into the other bulk requirements, that there's a limit on how tall the building can be.

Love it.

Yeah, the Carvana.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, the Carvana model. Yes, there we are.

Okay.

Anything further on the size requirement? Okay. There's a section that's recommended regarding incentives that they may exceed the maximum gross floor area by up to 20% if there's a ground floor, if the ground floor includes active commercial frontage or the building is integrated into a mixed-use structure containing retail or office uses.

Chris, I have a question here. Yes. If this building would be allowed for commercial frontage and mixed use, now you're talking about more area for everything. Yes. So, again, are we mixing and matching here things that we shouldn't? Because you're going to have a bigger parking area, required parking if you have mixed use. Yes. You're going to have all kinds of stipulations in there that might not be in concert with the two acres or the one and a half. I'm not sure this is compatible here.

It turns into a commercial.

I don't think it's compatible actually at all. Yeah.

So you're essentially talking about a planned commercial center then, right?

Yeah, we've just opened up another whole can of worms with this, with the traffic. How are you going to handle that? Where's the in? Where's the out? Where's the screening? I don't like this at all. I just don't like it at all.

I agree. I think this was... more talking about when they kind of repurposed to build it and it was out in carlisle which is a lot different than carroll county yeah they took a k-mart that was the example he specifically gave right and they reused it um yeah yeah yeah

You could sort of contemplate something similar here in Westminster. Now, the Cranberry Mall is in the city of Westminster. It's not a county. But you could imagine that if they wanted to repurpose that, you could potentially turn one of the storefronts into a self-storage of some sort.

We're talking about county.

But we're talking about county, right?

Yes.

They can do that in the city.

Yes, they can. Those requirements are all, that's up to them. But we're talking about trying to make our county be better and more consistent on things. And I am totally opposed to this.

Okay. Yeah.

Totally.

So strike section O that we use?

I think...

It would also then, we're also, I think, then talking about Section P, the adaptive reuse. Yes, we are. Yeah. Yep. So you're interested in striking both of those?

Yeah. Okay.

I can only imagine what we'd be going through with that one.

I guess what I would say is that I think adaptive reuse and so on in general is certainly something that is positive. Yes. The question is whether self-storage is one of the things that we want to encourage for adaptive reuse.

I'm thinking about the zoning areas that we're talking about. And now we're into that. And so I'm... That's my recommendation from my perspective.

I agree.

I mean, if we had more, if we had an industrial, you know, for storage units and stuff, that's a whole different, but we don't.

And I would take it, I would strike that.

Okay. Section Q, related to accessory outdoor vehicle storage. So the recommendation is that accessory outdoor vehicle storage shall not exceed 20% of the total lot area. and then where it's located shall not be between the principal building and a public street or between the principal building and any residential zoning district. So we're talking about boat storage and RV storage and so on, that that can't occupy more than 20% of the total lot area and you don't want it at the front of your facility and you don't want it between your building and residentially zoned district.

So 20% of two acres could be for vehicle storage. And there's the half acre.

And again, this basically provides some guardrails for, um, or guidance for a developer to propose if that's an accessory use that they want to include. And then they would bring it before you all for, for discussion.

Okay. And so we've got, and we've got this, the screening would apply to this. Yes. Um, I mean, obviously I, I think it's needed cause in, in Mr. Smith, I'd ask you to chime in cause I think you, You've actually done this. I mean, we're talking boats, RVs. What are we talking? Yes, exactly. Yes, okay. All right.

Yeah, like I said, where we kept ours at, it was a completely... I mean, it was industrial. It was along 30 in Pennsylvania, which runs east to west. But it backed up even where it was. Like, it was a very large hop, but it backed up to wood. So there was nothing behind it. Yeah, I mean, I just don't know how we could just say that.

I mean, I guess is that appropriate for a C2?

It's 20% enough would be the question I would have. Because it seems like, because, you know, I know there's a place outside of Westminster here that was a repurposed commercial building. That is, they rent it all for storage. And, you know, he said he could rent 10 of them buildings for storage, and they have some outdoor stuff, too. I mean... and so you're it's 20 percent enough i don't know is that that's your question not only one so i don't know what the demand is but it sure looks like whenever i drive by a self-storage there's a lot of boats and campers and trailers of all kinds parked around them so I don't know how big of limits I would put on it. If it's outdoor, they have to do stormwater on any of it anyway. You would think as a business they would limit their size because it would cost them a lot of money.

You can't get a whole lot of stuff on a half an acre. No, you cannot. That's not much area at all.

it's not but then there's also the inch versus them all right it's all money so are they going to try to shoehorn you know stuff in there and have it look like a junkyard or a parking lot because anything more than that you know they might start running out the parking spaces and stuff like that

So I'm not sure what the basis was for that 20% number to speak to whether it's a good number or not. We can do some investigation to see if we can find some existing uses out there and what the percentage is and come back with some examples. I don't know whether 20% is a good number or a bad number.

I think they took a lot of it from the large scale properties that they used as examples. So I think they were pretty good size.

Which a lot of were in industrial areas. Right. Yeah.

Not a lot of vehicles.

So different.

We can set that one aside and we can come up with some examples for you for further discussion.

Okay.

And then the last provision in this is that vehicles stored outdoors shall be legally registered. That prevents the junkyard from developing. Next is security access, security and access control. So this is specifying that security fences or walls of some sort between six and eight feet in height with a controlled access gate, video surveillance cameras. And then there's some... some restrictions on what those look like. So fences visible from a public street or joining residential property shall be constructed of decorative materials including ornamental metal, masonry, composite or similar materials. Chain link fencing may be permitted within the interior of the site but shall not be visible. Barbed wire, razor wire and similar secured deterrents shall be prohibited unless specifically approved as part of a conditional use application. And then more details about the security system and so on. including the operations that cameras operated continuously and recordings maintained for a minimum of 30 days and made available to law enforcement. Thoughts on those sorts of requirements?

I think this is written for a customer, you know, and it makes sense that they would want their facility, excuse me, secured. So I'm okay with it.

Anybody else?

And then I think this is the last item, which basically says that that self-service storage facilities in the C2 and C3 districts shall be subject to review and approval by the design and it should be architectural review committee prior to approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. I guess some caveats to that is that DARK does not have any sort of approval authority currently within how we do things. So they are strictly advisory. and any commercial-type development, we present to them, and they make recommendation. If there is a desire to keep this specifically in the self-storage code, I think we need to refine it a little bit so that we're not stepping on what our current policy is, or we revise our policy.

So our current policy they review like all the commercial stuff, correct?

Then why change it?

Yeah.

No.

Sounds fair to me.

OK. So strike us. All right. So that's, that's all of the code. Um, we have some homework to do to look at a couple of things, uh, and to can bring this back. Um, the other thing that I would like to do is, um, is do a little bit of a comparison to what some of the other local jurisdictions, um, here in Maryland do. So city of Westminster and some of our surrounding counties and so on, just so we can, now that we've kind of expressed what your desire is for the code, Let's see how it stands up related to some other jurisdictions. And that may prompt some additional ideas one way or the other. So I'd like to work on that and bring some of that back to you all.

And, Chris, in that comparison, will you look at the industrial piece of this?

Yes, we can look at where other jurisdictions allow and what zoning districts they allow them. Yes, we can provide that.

Thank you.

Chris, this isn't for self-storage, but you talked about the overlay in landscaping. I know there was some conversation at some point about treescape going down. Would that be put on the owner's property? Is that something the county is looking to do?

Yeah, we have not had any discussions about that yet, so I can't answer that.

Okay.

I mean, the basic answer would be what property, is it within the county right-of-way or is it on private property? So that would indicate who would be responsible for it, but.

Yeah, I guess like the thought would be like down 26, that whole landscape which is stave road. Yeah. But I'm pretty sure they're not going to put trees up for it, so.

Yeah, so that's a. Yeah, that's a discussion for what are we looking for the corridor and what are the design elements and then, yes, whose property it's on. If it's on state highway property, then yes, that would be their responsibility unless some other sort of agreements are met. So yes, we're not quite there yet to have those discussions.

Okay. Okay.

Any other questions, comments from the Commission? Peter, no? Any public comment? Okay, please step up to the microphone. And if you haven't already, sign in in the back. State your name, address, and talk into the microphone. Comments strictly limited to three. Minutes per speaker. This is not a Q&A session. Questions may be directed to staff after the meeting. And any individual who fails to comply with these rules, planning and zoning commission chair, may call the person out of order and may require him or her to leave the meeting. So it's all yours.

Good morning. My name is Audrey Novak. For 36 years, I've lived at 6505 Carroll Highlands Road in the Freedom District. I'm here today because I've been on this mission for over four years. And I tried to look back to see where we came to this point. And I reviewed a lot of the videos from prior meetings. And I just want to call to your attention that in December of 2019, All of the former commissioners, none of whom are commissioners now, voted to bring all this forward. And one of the comments that really upset me was one of the commissioners who, in a derogatory way, labeled our community as Nibbies, not in my backyard. This is in my backyard. This is in my neighbor's backyard. When I look out at my backyard, I see little children in my neighborhood playing. And this is why we are so adamant about the storage facility going on the Carroll Highlands property. I know that some of you have visited that property. I would hope that you are in agreement that it was not appropriately zoned. At that time, the young lady who was in charge of the planning staff, They rezoned 30 properties, C2. Not one of them was C1. And the point of rezoning was to make a compatible zone to the BNR. The property in question at Carroll Highlands Road was BNR, Business Neighborhood Residential. the compatible zoning for that under her explanation of you know keeping up with industry standards should have been c1 and mr. Hein was just mentioning

how we should look to see what other counties have done.

And I did that. I looked up, I Googled C1, C2 in Maryland. And C1 is zoned neighborhood commercial. And the purpose is to serve the immediate daily needs of nearby residents. Restrictions, it should restrict limits, excuse me, strict limits on building size, height, and traffic generation to keep the area quiet. The lot in question should have been C1. I feel for the developer. I think he's been led down a road where he's pushing now to build on that property with the zoning regulations that are in place, and we're not even allowing the process of the consultancy to come to fruition. All of the consulting work will be for naught if the Carroll Highlands project is moved forward. You have the power and the responsibility to correct the zoning, move it back to where it should have been zoned appropriately. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other public comment? Okay. So we'll move on to, well, we'll be back to this. Yes, we will. You got some homework you're going to do?

Yes.

Item number 12, general public comments.

All right, I've got something. And y'all watched last week. the last meeting we had, and I watched it from... September 2nd. Yeah, I was out of town on client business, so I watched it from my hotel room. And, you know, Elizabeth, I'm not sure how to do this because I'm initiating something from here. and I didn't want to do it through email with my compatriots up here because I thought that might actually be against the law. And at the same time, Michael, I don't want to hijack the meeting because I don't want to be a bull in a china shop. So I'm kind of running. I don't know what to do. So I'm going to ask for everybody to tell me what you want me to do with this. But I wrote a memo, and basically, frankly, and this was not planned in any way with the public comment that was just made, Agree entirely with what she just said I think some properties were zoned c2 that should be c1 or something else a neighborhood Residential there are properties along there that have deed restrictions that prohibit them from being commercial and We didn't take that into account when we did this I think I think genuine mistakes were made when we rezoned some of those properties along the 26 corridor. We may have made mistakes along 140 and 27 as well near Marineri. I don't recall what all we did, and I'll just apologize. I haven't gone back and looked. But I've written something, and I'd like for you guys to take a look at it. You don't have to agree, but I would like to talk about it, and I think it's a good time to talk about it because it does come into, we're talking about the overlay district, we're talking about all of these things, but I think we should take a step back and really look at, I think what we've done with this text is terrific. And I think that's exactly right. But I think the other component of this is whether or not mistakes were made in zoning that are really adversely impact the health and safety of people who currently live there and that's my concern is the health and safety of those current neighbors and so i've written something i'm gonna we're gonna i'm gonna no no one has seen this and again so this isn't done elizabeth is this the right way for me to do this publicly like this so are you looking to i'm just trying to get a grasp on what you're trying to do here yeah i'm not i'm not real sure i'm trying to initiate a review of what we did when we rezoned those properties to c2 because There are currently only three properties in the entire Freedom District that are C1. And I think when you take a look at the depth of the properties, where they're located, the deed restrictions on some of the properties, I think there are – we missed some things. And that's using the own – decision tree that planning and staff developed for us that said, you know, if it's this, then it's that. And we had like five, if there were like five blocks and if three or more of them were, of the criteria were not met, then it had to be c1 and i think we missed some things and so i think some mistakes were made so so are you looking to hold a discussion amongst the group and have a just a starter i would like this to be on a future i would like this to be on a future agenda and i've and i've i've written this to to initiate that conversation we don't have to do it today but i'd like to distribute this i'd ask you guys to to think whether and and and if you think i'm off base which i can't have been in the past and i'm sure i will be in the future but i think this has been some merit and i think um i i'd just ask you guys i'm just asking your patience because i do think some mistakes were made and i think if if we were if we were honest with ourselves up here um i think we would we would say we probably ought to take another look at it because if you look if you look at some of these properties it's like wait a minute we did what okay

So yeah, so if I may, that process is already in process. So the mechanism of doing a comprehensive rezoning, there is a process related to that. And that was part of when the 2018 Freedom Comprehensive Plan was approved and then a comprehensive rezoning to match the plan occurred and so on. That is a comprehensive process that's done transparently and so on. And then ultimately the decisions are made. The Planning Commission absolutely weighs in on that. And then ultimately the Board of County Commissioners makes those decisions. So that all transpired over several years, starting around 2015 until 2022, right? That whole process. We recognize the concern that you have brought up, and that was why we recommended to the Board of County Commissioners that we initiate this small area plan amendment. So that a small area plan amendment is exactly what you're talking about. It's a revisit to a defined area. It's not a complete rewrite of the freedom area plan. It's not a complete comprehensive rezoning. It's a specific region that we look back at and we visit those types of concerns that you have. whether things should be comprehensively rezoned and then we've taken the next additional step beyond that and what we've talked about in this overlay district is Is there a benefit to having specific code requirements only applicable to the Maryland 26 corridor? And so that's part of the project that we're working on. So I believe that everything that you've just expressed is something that we are working on, and we will be discussing in the near future with the Planning Commission.

Love that. Peter, I'm going to blow a little sunshine your way here. I have the same feeling you do. The consultant work has been important. I understand that. But I've set up here and I keep thinking that a lot of this consultant recommendations and the things that we've been going over is trying to put lipstick on a pig. And it just – we're acknowledging a mistake, and then we're saying how can we cover this mistake up with this ordinance and that ordinance and everything when it could have been stopped by saying let's take a look at the comprehensive zoning down there.

Right.

And, I mean, I've felt like that from day one. I haven't been able to express it in the way you have here. But, yes, I totally agree that freedom is such a unique area. We don't have an area like that anywhere in Carroll County. You might look at it in Hartford or Baltimore or Montgomery or whatever. Frederick, who knows what's going on up there.

Mm-hmm.

But in Carroll County, it is so unique. And I think we need to treat that area as that unique area and say, Don't do things that's going to harm the citizens that are trying to stay there and have a better life, and that's what we're doing. So I totally agree with you. We just need your guidance here from legal and the staff. It's just one more thing that we're piling on you, but I think this is one of the most important parts of what we've been talking about for the last, what, five, six, seven months.

I'll say it. I agree with a good deal of what you're saying. I was one for a part of all that along with you. I was too. But we did, I mean, the planning department brought those to us they put it out to the landowners to see if my memory serves me to see if they wanted to convert their properties and those that did came back through and said yes we would like to move forward with it and In the end, there was, because we were into that COVID period, so we did, I think it was go-to meetings at the time, and we did have public that often were more on the video than we see in person here. So, and granted, there are, probably plenty, including some further down in there. I agree that freedom is unique. Most areas like them are incorporated, of course, and have their own councils, their own tax base and all that, which, of course, freedom doesn't. So it falls back into the county. So I do think that looking at this on cases by case, not a blanket overhaul is probably worth doing.

Well, so what I'm just going to ask is, I'm going to, we're not doing this back there. We're not doing this, I'm not going to these guys one-on-one. I'm circulating this today, voicing my opinion on it, you know, and, and I'm also going to ask County staff, I'm happy to send this to you electronically. I'll hand it to you. Yeah. Because, um, again, I just, I feel I was watching it last week and Ralph again, I was just, this is good. This is hard work, but it doesn't solve the issue. And the issue is. We did some things back in 20, and I was here. So I own this as far as I'm concerned. And I don't mean to be possessive about it because other people are up here with me. But I'm just saying, you know, we did something that we shouldn't have. We did some things that I think, it wasn't that we did it poorly. It wasn't that it was, you know, we weren't trying to pull anything, a fast one past anybody. I just think, you know, we are now living with this, and we're like, wait a minute. This isn't right, and I think we've got to fix it. So this is my attempt to shine a light on it.

And I think we have the... Gateway, Segway, however you describe to do that with the other plans. Some of this though, don't beat yourself up too much. because some of this was a result of spot zoning that took place 20 years ago, 25 years ago, and here we are, and we have an opportunity to correct it, and that's what we'll do. And that's why I asked for the review of all the C1, C2, I1, I2, all this stuff related to, you know, look, The elephant in your room, right? The storage facility on Liberty Road.

That's it, that's the driver.

And we're gonna fix it. And how we fix it could get interesting. I have some thoughts on that myself. I won't say them here. But we'll get it right. And who was it that said it earlier? It might have been, I don't know if it was Ralph or Matt. We operate, I think it was before the meeting even started you were talking. You know, we operate with guardrails. The zoning code and land use and all, that's our guardrail. And we operate within those. And some of us have been, I've only been on four years, some longer. But I think we really now fully understand that we can say, whoa, whoa, whoa, or we can change things. Whereas when I was a rookie, I was like, okay.

Agreed. I agree.

Makes sense. It's allowable. It's within the code. It's within the text. It's within the guideline, within the guardrail. So, okay, let's move it forward. But there's a lot of things that came before that that have allowed these situations to come to fruition.

And that's what we've got to try to fix.

And now we have the master plan that I think we're working on that we can address it as well. Right. And, and all these, uh, offshoots that we're trying to rectify the past wrongs. And I think we'll get there.

So if I may, um, I think one point of clarification I would like to make is just that the process that we are constantly within, which is the development of planning documents, whether it's the Master Plan or the Freedom Community Comprehensive Plan and so on, they refresh every so many years and we revisit every so many years, and then related to those as visions and goals change. We then look at comprehensive rezoning to support the master plan documents. We revisit codes to support the rezonings and the desire of the master plan and so on. It's an ongoing process. At some point, decisions have to be made. And through the process that occurred from roughly 2015 to 2022, we went through that process and decisions were made. Certainly with hindsight, looking back and some of the ramifications of what those decisions were, they should be revisited. Absolutely. And that's what we're proposing to do. The concern I have is when it's said that things were done wrong or improper. They weren't done wrong or improper. A proper process was followed, a legal process was followed, and ultimately decisions have to be made. We can look back at those decisions or even at the time of those decisions and disagree with them, but decisions had to be made one way or the other and decisions were made by those who were elected to make those decisions. um they're absolutely appropriate to go back and revisit and so on and that's that's the process that we're currently going through we we are working with a consultant and hopefully in the next month or two we will be back before you and start having those discussions as to looking at the freedom area comprehensively at the 26 corridor and and what what is appropriate from a a land use perspective And then those things, the dominoes will then continue as far as, okay, from a land use perspective, what is the appropriate zoning? And then we have this extra concept of an overlay district of, okay, what perhaps should we consider for specific codes specific to that corridor that will help further the goals and desires expressed in the Freedom Comprehensive Act plan?

Okay, and just in case I misstated it, I want to state it again clearly. I was in the room when these decisions were made. I approved these decisions. I feel ownership of these, and the outcomes, now that I'm seeing the outcomes of some of this stuff, I want to fix it. I'm not saying I was misled. I'm not saying... The information provided by staff was shoddy. I'm not saying any of that. I'm trying to fix something that I was in the room on. Tom wasn't here. Janice and I were the only two who are still here who have the legacy memory of God, Moses, I remember saying, and it all made sense. But as I sit here, it doesn't. And so how do we fix it? And that's what the memo, I'm trying to fix something. And so, Elizabeth, I'm going to send this memo that I've written. This isn't being done secretly. I'm just going to send this memo to Chris and anybody who wants it. You can do whatever you want to with it.

I would just send it, if you wouldn't mind, to the Planning Commission mailbox, and then it will automatically get distributed amongst the necessary staff.

Done.

You all as well, so you have a digital record, et cetera.

Yeah, and I've already made some handwritten, because there's a typo or two in there I need to fix, so I'll do that on the version that I email. I've hijacked the meeting, and I said I wasn't going to. I apologize. Thanks.

Very good discussion. I appreciate it. Thank you.

have a couple comments on that number one who is actually on that email list because we've gotten some very very lengthy emails from from certain individuals that does it just go to staff and us it doesn't go back out to all the people that have been talking about that unless they include them in their email when they send it back

Because they're not consenting to receive communication from everybody else about that topic, then we would be creating additional, potentially a large staff position, which would be required to weed out, okay, what topic goes to who, and creating new lists.

Well, that's what I thought, because a lot of the comments, I mean, you know, they're pointed towards the general people, but otherwise they're...

Yeah.

Degrading us, pretty much, the way I look at it. Yeah. Not all correct, either. Okay. And then a couple of other questions. Talking about the Carroll Highlands, I mean, you know, we've been looking at that for four years, five years now. And it was a permitted use to begin with. Number two, we did go back. I know we talked about it. I think it's in code now that we changed the setbacks and the height restrictions and all that to accommodate it. So it goes back to the mixed use. If we turn it down, it's going to go to BZA and get approved anyway. More than likely because it was an approved use. Now, like Peter said, was the permitted use wrong? Should it have been C1?

Probably.

Probably.

But.

We did everything we could within our guardrails to navigate and try to make it better. Exactly. And then I guess my other comment was on the Freedom Area. Yes. So the Freedom Area was set up. What year was the Freedom Area set up? How long ago? Oh, my goodness. Good question. And the initial public sewer and water was paid for. And the initial public sewer and water was paid for by the county as a whole. And currently there is no municipal taxes in that area. And so currently all the infrastructure, you know, while they have fees for sewer and water, does that pay for all that cost involved with that, number one?

Yeah, there's an enterprise fund that covers the cost of operation of the water and sewer system.

So the fees cover everything to do with that. So the only thing the county really does is the roads. Because normally a municipality pays for all road improvements and everything, except for state roads.

So the utility infrastructure is the county also. It's just that it's funded through the enterprise fund. And so the utilities division is responsible for that, and there's an enterprise fund that pays for that and so on. But it's still the county.

Well, because I see in some of the comments from time to time that maybe it should be a municipality, an incorporated area. And if it is, what would that do for the businesses that are currently there and the people that live there? It would be taxed. Currently, the whole county pays for those other things. I just wanted to bring that out just because.

Chris, one more question about that area that I don't quite understand, and that is I think I have this right. Riding Our Way comes out of Nell's Acres, right? Yes. Okay. It's been on, it's been off, it's been on, it's been off. From everything that I've heard, the chance of ever putting that through is like, what, zero to none? And we keep putting it back on the CIP, and we keep... Who's pushing this, and why are we doing this if it's not going to happen? I don't even see any... I don't see any end of that tunnel. So why are we continually... It's like we're trying to beat our head against that wall all the time.

It's not a train and it's not a light. It's just not lit.

Well, I know, and I don't... I mean, can't we have our efforts... put to something that's going to work somewhere. And I hope this is not a criticism. It's just a question that I don't understand. And when I asked the question at the last meeting, I think, or maybe the meeting before, about that, I kind of had a blank stare. And I will tell you, I got an email later that said, I'm sorry I had no answers for you. There was no explanation why there were no answers. And I'm kind of frustrated about that. It just seems our efforts could be utilized elsewhere. Maybe there's no answer to that, so let's just forget about it.

So I can explain that. Planned major streets have been identified since the beginning of the county master plan. And actually, the very first county master plan was primarily planned major streets. That was a large component of it. And Ridenour Way, as one of those planned major streets that was identified early on as being something that would be beneficial to the transportation network. And we're talking about Ridenour Way basically from Fallon Drive connecting to Maryland 32. So that is a, from a planning perspective, a line on the map, and that the concept of a service road running parallel to Maryland 26 would be of benefit, and by the county identifying that it's a planned major street, what that means is that any development that occurs along that alignment, needs to contribute towards the construction of Ridenour Way. Now what that contribution is could vary. It could be that you're required to build your segment on your property. It could be that you need to set aside right of way so that it can be built in the future. Or it could be that you contribute funds towards it. But it's looked at on a segment by segment basis to figure out what portion of it that is feasible at the time of that development could be built. Now, when Ridenour was put in place as a planned major street, most of the corridor was already developed. So, for example, Carroll Highlands we've talked about, that neighborhood existed when that was added. And at a planning level, it wasn't contemplated as far as, okay, what houses might it have to go through and where exactly it's going to be. It was basically just a line on the map connecting point A to point B. Over the years, as development has occurred along that alignment, there have been places where it has been constructed or right-of-way has taken. Winifred Manor, we've talked about from an age-restricted perspective. That's along the alignment. They did not have to build any part of Ridenour, but they did set aside right-of-way so that if development or opportunities occurred on either side of it, then the ability was there to construct it, right? The county over the past, since the 70s, has not made a concerted effort to pursue land acquisition or construction of that alignment. Again, our attitude was always as development occurs, that's when it would be constructed, right? what we have uh... are currently working on is uh... we have uh... we hired a consultant to look specifically at right now and also dickinson and do more than uh... and evaluate that line on the map so what they're doing is they're looking at from point a to point b how could that possibly be constructed and from a segment by segment basis what is the cost associated with that not only from a construction cost perspective, but also property acquisition and everything, right? So how much is it gonna cost? And then we can also then talk about what's the benefit. So there may be certain segments along that alignment that the cost is just way too high and the benefit is way too low. And then from a planning document perspective, we can remove that segment of Ridenour because it doesn't make sense. But in order to make those determinations, you need to do that initial engineering analysis to figure out, is it feasible, what the cost would be, and so on. And that's never been done over the past few decades.

So is that why, because of the consultant and trying to figure out an answer here, is that the reason it was set up as number one priority?

Number one priority.

Are you talking about a list? They were listening.

OK. You see where I'm coming from. So you're talking about the segment. It's just one segment of Ridenour from Fallon to Panorama. and that was involved in the mitigation, the traffic mitigation for Nell's Acres. So that segment has been designed. The one remaining piece that needs to be figured out is Baltimore Gas and Electric and the domestic gas lines that run there. So the domestic gas, that takes some time for BG&E. We and developers are not allowed to do that design. It has to be done by BG&E. And so we are at their mercy as to when they figure that out. There's some talk about Colonial Pipeline running in that area. That is not the issue. Colonial Pipeline is not impacted, to my knowledge. It's the domestic gas that we are still waiting on the design for that, for BG&E. So regarding that segment of Ridenour, There are a couple of concepts or reasons for contemplating it. One of the reasons for Ridenour in general is to reduce the number of access points from businesses and so on directly onto Maryland 26. Curb cuts, however you want to term them, access points. So by constructing that segment of Ridenour from Fallon to Panorama, we would eliminate two of those connection points. So that's moving towards the goal of why we have the service road. So that's one benefit. If there were some sort of accident event at Fallon Drive and Maryland 26, potentially there would be no way to get back into the Nell's Acres community. If Ridenour went to Panorama, now they would have another way to access because you could bypass something right at that intersection. there's also discussion about how much the traffic and those intersections and how much traffic goes there. People leave Nell's Acres and are coming to Nell's Acres from all points of the compass, and certainly if you are traveling east or west or north, you are going out to Maryland 26 and going those directions. By making that connection of Ridenour, it will intersect Sunset Drive. Sunset goes south. and has interconnectivity with all the neighborhoods that are south of 26 there, and continues to Ridge, connects to Ridge, and you can take that down to, all the way down to 70. So you can go all points south from Nell's Acres without having to get onto Maryland 26. And so we don't have a traffic study that has queried people as far as what directions they travel, but there is some percentage of travel of people that leave Nell's Acres and are trying to go south. And all of those trips will be able to go south without going onto Maryland 26 once that section of Ridenour is built. So what that percentage is, I don't know, but there is a percentage, and by removing them from having to go into Maryland 26, it decreases the amount of traffic that wants to go north, east, and west, and frees up some of the timing there. So there are absolutely benefits to further the concept of Ridenour to construct that segment and other benefits to the existing communities there. So that's why we recommend it as being included in the CIP for consideration because it is going to be basically ready to go sometime in the near future as soon as we're done with the BG&E aspect of it.

Well, I'm not sorry I asked that question then because when you see the history, and then you see the, debacle that occurred at Nell's Acres, as far as I'm concerned, now I start to see it. But up to now, it was like, well, we have it on the CIP, but it's never going to happen. We see it. It's not going to happen. There's a pipeline. There's a BG. We need to know what kind of pressure we need to put on whoever to get this done. Yes. And I think there's where I'm heading with this, because whether it's the delegation, whether it's the commissioners, sorry Tom's not here to hear this, but if it's the commissioners, then we need to do what has to be done. That would just be one problem, one problem taken care of down in that area.

And that's essentially what we've done, right, is that we have submitted that segment of Ridenour to the commissioners for consideration to add into the CIP. And so that will be debated by the commissioners as to whether they want to fund that or not. That's their decision. It is our recommendation as the professionals involved working here at the county that that is a worthwhile segment and it's a segment that Nell's Acres was constructed understanding that the county was going to fund this and they contributed towards that.

I have a whole new perspective now on why After your explanation, I'm sorry that this explanation wasn't given to us before. Maybe we didn't ask the right questions.

Well, you know, Ralph, part of it is the image. The picture's worth a thousand words. And the image shows Ridenour paralleling 26 all the way up to flipping Ridge Road, which goes through half a dozen living rooms and an abandoned bank building and all this kind of thing. I understand where you're coming from.

I totally agree with you, Chris.

So anything can be constructed with enough money, correct? But that's where the decision will need to be made following this study by the consultant. Every segment of Ridenour can be constructed. there's going to be a cost. With engineering, you can move the world, right? Exactly.