Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good. Okay. This February 4th, 2026 hearing of the Board of Zoning Appeals in Sykesville is now in session. We're going to hold this hearing pursuant to section 180-105 of the Sykesville zoning ordinance. Uh the case the order that we'll conduct this hearing is one our applicant will put on its case. The then the town staff will discuss their report and and responses and recommendation. And number three, anyone in opposition to this uh appeals application will also be allowed to testify. And then four, anyone who has not yet testified but decide wishes to do so will then be allowed to speak. And number five, the applicant's attorney, Mr. Bower Sox here, will be allowed uh up to 10 minutes for rebuttal and the closing statement if if he wishes to do so. All those who are going to testify at this will be sworn in by Carrie, our town clerk. And at that point, uh, we have a slight change in what the agenda was for this evening with regard to case number 2025-02. Mr. Bowox, you can explain what your request was for that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, everyone. Yes, it is. Okay. Um, good evening. I hope I keep these numbers straight. Um, there's three cases that have been brought to you by Warfield Companies and Thrive um, between the two entities. Warfield appealed a planning commission determination in what I believe is case uh, number 20225-02. Is that so far? So good.

That's the appeal of the planning commission decision. Correct. You have already heard Warfield's request for variance in case 2025- excuse me 2025-03. Correct.

And that's pending before you. Um the issues in that variance still yet to be decided once resolved could influence uh and inform probably is more accurate the manner in which the applicant warfield companies may elect to proceed in in that case ultimately instead of going through that case tonight. We're asking for that case to be continued to a later date. Um because depending on what you decide in the variance,

yes, until we know where we are with that, it's you know, it seems like a investment of a lot of time. um not just ours but yours uh and resources to hear it.

Uh we're not pulling it, we're not withdrawing it. We're asking that it be continued uh to make certain that what is uh germanine to that issue on appeal is presented as cleanly as it can be presented. Um we are asking to move forward with Thrive's appeal of the zoning uh administrator town manager's decision in case 2025-04 which is um an appeal that was filed by Thrive. um that is not as intertwined so to speak with the pending variance as case 2025-02 and we feel we can move it forward tonight and at least hopefully get some disposition disposition of that issue out of the way. Um so that's that's what a request is.

Okay. Uh appropriate for the uh board to make a motion and to vote on the request for continuance at this point. Yes, we don't have a select date at this point, but we can go we can we can deal with that later in the year. If you're okay with that, so I would make a motion that we uh keep case number 2025-04. Put that on the continuence. Pick up the O2. I'm sorry. Procurement O2.

I'm sorry. O2. You're correct. Amend that case number 2025-02 to continue that to a future date. Uh after 2025-3 is decided. I hear a second. Second. Okay. All those in favor? Oh, good. That motion is carried. We shall do. Uh we want to deal with dates possibly later because we have several dates to to deal with. Yeah. After the four hearing, I think.

Yeah. Okay. So for case number 202504. Uh I would say who's going to be testifying on that right now? Uh principally it's going to be Shawn Davis. Okay. Morris Richie Associates. Anybody who's going to be testifying right now with Carrie will swear you in. Yes, sir. Okay. Okay. We may have others depending on how the testimony goes in the proceedings. You all right? Yeah. I'm trying to stand up. I think it's stretch. As an individual who wishes to testify in case 2025, we can do them individually.

In case 20254, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give at this hearing shall be the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. All right. U go ahead and proceed to present your case, please. Okay. Um, Mr. Chairman. Yes. We got to read the state. I guess the opening statement just verify the case. Oh, all right. We go ahead and do that. I had that in another Go ahead.

Sorry. So case number 2025-04, request for an appeal of the town man and enforcement of the plan amendment process established in the plan employment center zoning district was properly advertised twice through the Carol County Times with one being at least 15 days prior to today's meeting. The case was properly posted with signage on the subject property and all adjoining neighbors were notified via certified mail. Thank you. Okay, any other input at the before? Go back to our agenda then.

So, initially I would like to move into the record materials that I believe you're familiar with. Um, one would be the application for appeal that was filed in this case. The August 28, 2025 letter of Mr. Costantini as town manager, zoning administrator making his determination. Um, and what date was that? August 28th, 2025, I believe. Right. Yes. Right.

And um there is a staff report that was also circulated. I don't know if that's in the package that they have. Um for the sake of completeness, that is something we would like to also have incorporated in the record. the staff report to clarify. Is that the one October 29th?

Yes. Yes. All right. That's the one lead I've seen. Thanks. All right. So, those are going into the record. All right. 4205-04. Yes, sir. All right.

Okay. Uh, good evening. Um uh I'm here I'm going to present Mr. Davis as principally the witness on behalf of the um the applicant of Palunteer Thrive. Uh Mr. Hobson, one of the principles in the Thrive entity is here tonight as well as are representatives from Warfield companies, the owners of the property. Um Mr. Davis. Uh, could you let us know your name and address?

Uh, Sean Davis. I'm a principal with Morris Richie Associates. My address is 1414 Key Highway, Baltimore 21230. All right. And what do you do for a living? I'm a planner and a landscape architect. All right. And you're here tonight testifying on behalf of the appellant Thrive. Correct. Correct. Are you familiar with their appeal to the board of zoning appeals? I am. You're familiar with the subject matter? I am. Uh I'm going to show you something I'm going to distribute.

Mr. Baras, can I just ask a question? Are you going to be presenting Mr. Davis as an expert simply as a fact witness on this? Well, I'm to the extent I ask him for his opinion and expertise that's implicated, I I would like to do that. And I my intention is to try to streamline the qualification in light of um his prior recognition as an expert by this board in I believe it was October. Okay. So I just just want to make sure that's clear that that he's being presented as an expert and he was qualified as an expert in o in the October hearing if I recall. Yes. And so that will carry over and I think I just want to make sure we're clear.

Could I ask him to identify the subject matter on which he has an expertise for the record because I you know it conceivably could be different. No, I Mr. Davis um has a law degree but he's not testifying. He's not going to give a legal opinion. Um, I have him uh here tonight for his expertise if needed in uh land planning, design, the zoning and regulatory approval. Um, I do have for the record a copy of his CV.

Might not hurt to put that into the record just for some How many? Just just a walk. Just give the car. Yeah, that's fine.

Yeah, thank you. All right. One other thing before I go further with Mr. Davis's testimony. We would like to uh move into the record uh the record of the proceedings prior in case 2025-01 I believe it was which was the conditional use application of thrive for this site that the uh that is the subject matter of our appeal tonight.

Was that the special exception case? Yes. Conditional use. My apologies. Conditional use. Yes. Yes. Last spring. Um, Mr. Davis, are you familiar with the applicant's conditional use application? I am. From from April 25. Yes. You were not present for that though, were you? I was not. Okay. Uh, do you know that request is for an assisted living facility on parcel B at Warfield? Yes. Um, do you know was that a unanimous decision to approve that by the board? Yes, according to the minutes.

All right. Had the planning commission previously reviewed Thrive's assisted living proposal prior to the BCA's uh hearing? Yes. All right. Did you know if they made a recommendation to the board? Yes. And was that favorable? It was. All right. So, are you familiar with parcel B and Warfield uh generally? Yes. And by Warfield, I'm talking about the Warfield um property um and the the uh planned and plun um campus center, the PEC plan. Yes.

Um what Thrive, excuse me, Thrive um submitted an application. Um, Thrive has had conversation and correspondence with Mr. um, Constantini about their desire to move forward and begin processing a individual site plan for that assisted living facility. Are you aware of that? Yes. All right. Have you participated in other reviews for individual parcels development in Morfield subsequent to the

PEC plan uh concept plan and preliminary plan approval? Yes. Those reviews generally are they joint reviews by the county uh uh bureau of development review and the towns yet? Yes. Yes, they are. Okay. And are you familiar with Muster Constantini's August 28, 2025 letter and determination about the manner in which that individual site plan is to be handled? I am

all right. There's a in that letter there's a reference to a PEC approval process set forth in town code 180-144. Are you familiar with that? I am. Does the PEC code also prepare provide for preparation of a pattern book to guide development? It does. All right. Would that be section 180-143? Yes.

All right. Is there a specific site development process that's set forth for improvements of individual sites in the Warfield PEC project in the pattern book for Warfield? There is. So a pattern book has been approved. Pattern book was approved as part of the overall PEC preliminary plan process.

All right, Mr. Constantini in his August 28th letter refers to processes um for the PEC. Um but is that the same process that's set forth in the pattern book for individual site development plans? There are two it's different.

Can you explain that to the board? So, the way it was set up through the zoning ordinance was that the overall development of Warfield went through a three-step process. There was the PEC, what we call the PEC concept plan, which was a bubble diagram for lack of a better term. And then there was the PEC preliminary plan for the entire project. And then after that, each individual parcel would come in for the their final plans, if you will. that is referred to not in the zoning code but in the pattern book. The process for those individual site site plans or subdivision approvals was established in the pattern book. All right. And were were you involved in the Warfield project at the time the pattern book was approved?

Yeah, I wrote the pattern book. Okay. Um, how long have you been involved with a Warfield project? Um, I know you provided this testimony back in this before, but if you could reiterate with the the applicant uh with the Warfield company since 2015, but with Warfield since the town's design chet. God, I can't in the late 1990s, early 2000. Okay. But, uh, a pattern book was prepared. Um, was it adopted? It was.

All right. I'm going to show you something that I'm going to have marked as exhibit number two. I believe the CV was number one. And ask if you can identify what this is. This was the or this is the approved uh pattern book um dated October 16th, 2017 is version six. Now, is that the entire pattern book? No.

All right. Um can you explain what this is? Uh can you tell from what you're seeing? If you um turn to the third page in the um in the handout, this is the introduction section of the pattern book. Okay. Now you mentioned before a uh specific process for individual site plan approval.

Yes. Um can you tell the board members where that is? On page two. Um page number two. Page number two. Introduction page two. Now, can you can you help us uh understand what this means uh and how this process is supposed to work? So, objection. The document speaks for itself. I'd say continue objections noted to continue on with that.

Okay. Sorry. Um so the process that was laid out in the pattern book is that we had been through if you look it's it's the bottom half of this page too under process. Every applicant that proposes development within Warfield will follow the process shown below ensuring the smoothest and most expedient approvals pro possible. The process begins with an initial discussion with the town staff and consultant team to discuss a proposal, then continues to preliminary and final plan engineering submissions that will be reviewed and approved, pardon me, and approved by the historic district commission planning commission concurrently before proceeding to the next stage of approvals. The first box that you see there is the PEC concept plan that was approved. The second box was the PEC preliminary plan and development pattern book which were approved. From that point we were then going into individual sites. We first went into the individual parcel ENF subdivision process and subsequently we went into what was called building F and parcel D uh which were individual site submissions.

Yeah. Just for clarification or the board's benefit, parcel enf was the Parkside project. Correct. That's correct. It's the Parkside neighborhood. Okay.

So, we had been through the PEC concept plan, gotten that approved, been through the PEC preliminary plan, gotten that approved, and now we were going into the individual parcels, and the process is uh clearly stipulated here. you have a discussion with the staff um and the consultant team. Um and then you have a discussion with the historic district commission and the planning commission. Um and then you go into the preliminary plan submission process um with the staff and the HDC and the and the uh planning commission and then you go through the final plan final site plan or subdivision process. So we're calling these individual site preliminary plans and final plans which is what we did for both uh park side and building F and parcel D.

May I ask a question here? Sure. Um Mr. Davis is the and this is really for my edification. But this preliminary plan is that the subdivision or is that the preliminary is the next step simply the concept plan? Which preliminary plan are you referring to? Well that's what I'm I'm trying to Okay. There are again there are kind of two processes. The first process dealt with the overall property. Okay, that was the PEC concept plan and the PEC preliminary engineering plan. Okay, that's that's important that that's not a preliminary plan or subdivision. It's preliminary engineering plan. That's a preliminary engineering plan. Okay. Correct. And that's for the entire 90 acres.

Both of those were for the entire 90 acres. And then we assumed at that time that what would happen is individual parcels would come in for their detailed engineering and planning approval and that they would go through a preliminary approval process either preliminary site plan or preliminary subdivision plan and then they would go into a final uh site plan or subdivision plan for that parcel and only for that parcel.

I guess question on that and that is um would not any parcel need to be subdivided to allow the any structures on that property? So, you're saying either preliminary plan, a subdivision or a site plan. Wouldn't it have to be both? So, the PEC preliminary plan had subdivided the property out into a series of parcels. Oh, it did. Well, now you're saying the parcels. So, you're saying that's already been accommodated through the overall through the PEC preliminary plan. Okay. Okay. And now we're coming in for parcel B in this particular instance. The site plan approvals, the site plan for parcel B. Parcels Z and F, the the park side was a preliminary subdivision plan, right?

And then a final subdivision plan. Okay. So you have site plans when there's no subdivision involved and then you have obviously subdivision when you're further subdividing an individual parcel, which is what happened with Parkside. Yes. Question Sean. In the preliminary plan, when you go from preliminary plan to then partials, the parcels include common areas and roads and through through roads and streets.

Yes, as they did with uh Parkside. So when we went in the PEC preliminary plan had laid out an overall site plan and some general engineering and stormwater management for parcels ENF parkside and then we came in with the preliminary subdivision plan for that parcel which clearly delineated the common open spaces the roads all of the detailed storm water management facilities a variety of the the it's taking for lack of a better term it's taking engineering from 25% at the PEC preliminary stage for the overall development down to 50% for the preliminary subdivision and then 100% for the final subdivision. So it's just an evolution of the approval process from something more general i.e. the prelim the PEC preliminary plan to something more specific. Now we're just dealing with you know parcel B uh the site plan for parcel B. Um, and so we're getting into much greater engineering.

I guess maybe I didn't make it clear. I understand that within the ENF, all the roads and streets therein were included in those plans. I'm talking about the main road coming in from 32. uh the main the C traffic circle and the main road going up through past all the parcels, the main streets that go to the back of the the uh the plot, the back back of the area, if you will. Right. So, Warfield Avenue continued from the roundabout all the way over.

Those aren't changed by the individual partial developments, are they? They're not the alignments, the the locations. Is does is that changed? Well, in in particular in parcel in building F, parcel D, we did modify what was proposed within the Warfield um Avenue rightway, public right ofway um for the specific site plan for building F of parcel D, which was different from what was approved at the PEC preliminary plan. So, the actual right of way did not necessarily change. the actual road right ofway didn't change but what happens within that right of way was modified such as

we added parking we added additional parking on Warfield Avenue parallel parking um actually it was angled parking angle park was that an an expansion of the width of the street no the right of way did not change so you detracted from the width to to assign it to parallel parking perpendic or it was it was angled parking angle parking that's correct and that modification happened after the PEC preliminary plan was done and we were doing the detailed design and engineering for the building F site plan and that was how was that handled in terms of the approval as terms of the preliminary plan.

So we submitted a preliminary plan to the the planning commission and it was reviewed and uh it was approved for preliminary and we went forward into final engineering. Uh and we've got all of the county comments on storm water management on uh utilities and whatnot. And that was also approved by uh the uh planning commission. So we have final site plan approval for building F in parcel D. So you went back and got the planning commission and the county all that approval. You redid the preliminary plan to No, you had to to put the parking in.

No, we did not. Okay. But it was presented to them and I know this is gets confusing. I'm trying to make it as simple. There's the PEC preliminary plan for the overall. Okay. That has not been modified since it was approved. Okay. We made modifications to that what was shown in the PEC preliminary plan for the overall along Warfield Avenue in parcel in bu for building F parcel D as part of the preliminary site plan for building F parcel D.

Can can you ex can you explain if I may how that change came about? Um, so the county as part of the detailed engineering process for building F wanted additional storm water management for that building during the PEC preliminary plan. The stormwater management was very conceptual. Yeah. Let me get my in building F. You mean in partial F in in in parcel D? It's the existing. You know where Nexion is?

Okay. It's the building. If you're standing on Warfield Avenue and you're looking at Nexion, it's the building immediately to the left. Yeah. That's building A. Okay. Okay. This. So, we had a a proposal to renovate to rehabilitate that building to add parking and a variety of other things. and we went forward with that specific site plan. Okay.

Okay. So, the changes that we we made um after the PEC preliminary plan was approved as part of the building F preliminary site plan and final site plan approval. We modified the parking um pretty significantly. There was actually two bays of parking that were coming through that parcel um as shown on the PEC preliminary plan, but because we needed to added some additional storm water management as required by the county, we changed that and became a single bay of parking through that. And because of the parking that we lost by adding those storm water management facilities, we a extended the entrance um of change modified the entrance for building F from what was shown on the PEC preliminary plan the overall on that specific site plan much closer to building W, which is further further down the road. Again, you have Nexion, then you have building F, then you have the W building. So we made and then we added the additional parking within the Warfield Avenue that compensate for the parking that was lost within the individual site of building F.

Okay. On the opposite side of the right way. Is that correct? That's correct. Sean, please. Um, forgive me. I want to get this terminology straight. I think it's really critical to what we're talking about here. I'm familiar with When I hear the term preliminary plan, to me it means a preliminary plan of subdivision. Now there could also be I understand a preliminary site plan. Mhm.

I understand very different. You're talking about the preliminary plan for the PEC, the entire development. Was the entire development subdivided before you went into individual parcels? Yes. and the subdivision. Then can I assume that it was what I see on on this plan which shows parcels A, B, C, D, EF, and then the Cary Dorsy Park. Correct. Which plan? I should I should clarify. I'm looking at what is called concept plan

and that would you consider that to be the initial the was that property subdivided as such? others. Will you show parcels that are denominated um with the letters we have here? Mhm. A through F, excuse me, and or A through G, sorry. Um they they were formally subdivided, recorded among the land records, Carol County. Is that correct? Okay. Then we talked about individual parcels. Mhm. Um when you did this initial preliminary plan, I guess in let's say final, it was a record plat. Um yes, it was actually recorded um long ago by Wilson T. Ballard.

Okay. This is PEC1 down in the corner. Uh this Yes. PEC-1. It's a concept plan. Can I actually look at that a little bit more? Can we designate it somehow for the record? Yeah, I want to get you what make sure you correct drawing correct. This is the map in case it just got continued. This is this is one of the map.

I just want to make sure we're using the right. Absolutely. The right You got the big one. You got the same one you have. I don't know that I have the big one. Well, no, but I mean the Yeah, that Yeah, it's PC1 dated uh I can't read the date. Micro fun 92 2025. I need a magnifying glass. I know. What's the date on that one?

Can you read that? This I can maybe offer a suggestion. Maybe we refer to the map that's in the pattern book that designates parcels. Okay. Yeah. That's interesting because I I don't know that I personally don't know that we ever submit this plan to Well, I I just want to point out that there is a plan that we talked about as the concept plan that everybody agrees is the approved concept plan. Start with that and I I'm glad we're going through this because I want to make sure we're dealing with it correctly.

This is the one you submitted with 03 2025 case 03 the uh variances. So Joe, there's one in here that is Yeah. Yes. Page 13. I don't have page 13. That document that was taken out of the package for the matter that's been continued, right?

We're not going to refer to it and it may or may not have been submitted in error. I can say I never formally submitted included. Yeah, I don't have page 13. We found the date on there for you just so you have it that one. We didn't point two or seven. We need to use the correct 25. Dr. Can I make a suggestion? Yes. Approved PEC concept. That's the date. Do you have a copy that? I do.

This is the approved PEC concept plan. Can we submit that into the record? Well, it's got my notes on it, so I prefer not. I think there's one. Can you can you project one version of it or we can I thought we used to have boards here, but They're gone. I see on pages 13 and 14 in the pattern book, it says site plan, a concept plan. Is that in fact the approved concept? Oh, he's got the whole pattern. That's an approved preliminary. The PEC preliminary.

Okay, let's start with that then. Can we can we we can agree? We can all agree that what is shown in the pattern book on that illustration right there is the approved PEC um what page is that illustration pages 13 and 14 I know this is only I got full you mean in the portion of in the xray in this otherwise we have to get it into I don't think it was in I don't think it was electronic copy the staff

the clerk is um a copy of the preliminary plan online and I would suggest Mr. Chair that pattern plan sorry um I would suggest Mr. that we collectively agree that that page is going to be added to this exhibit that the applicant is putting in and that after this hearing a paper copy will be printed and physically attached to the exhibit. Does that mean with your approval? Yes. All right. But that word for everybody

just to clarify we're talking about pages 13 and 14 in the pattern book. is 13 because it begins on 13 and then continues on.

May I uh at this point offer yes exhibit two? Uh he's identified it and he's talked about it in his testimony. I'm not sure I've formally moved it in. Is that the same? Um, it's the same thing. As in That's pages 13 and 14. It's pages 13 and 14 in the approved October 16th, 2017 version 6 pent. Right. It's everything that you you're seeing there. It was just we put it in the center fold. All right. So, when we refer to the I don't have that. Yeah. When we refer to the preliminary plan, how PC preliminary,

the PEC preliminary plan, that would be pages 13 and 14 of the approved pattern book. Correct. And that those parcels that are shown on the PEC preliminary plan were legally subdivided. And that subdivision occurred well before I That was when the town owned the property and Wilson T. Ballard was was working on a plan those that subdivision um was effectuated then.

All right. So this is you're you're what you're saying is that when for example in parcels ENF which you refer to as Parkside as it's the residential development that is currently actually been built each of the separate lots each of these townhouse lots as have been recorded now in the land records they have been through okay through the preliminary and final uh subdivision process that happened after the overall PEC preliminary plan was approved. All right, so let's let's get our terminology straight again. I want to make sure because we're batting around the words preliminary plan, but they seem to have two different meanings.

The biggest context that I could say is whenever I say PEC preliminary plan or PEC concept plan, it deals with the overall property all 90 acres. So it's not plan. Correct. Correct. That's correct.

Okay. this the property had already been subdivided. We were going we went through the concept the PEC concept plan and the PEC preliminary plan process were all 90 acres and then this is the term of art was because of the county's storm water management review process made us modify some of the terminology and then we went into the individual parcel site plans or parcel subdivision plans preliminary and final. So even though the this is working I every time I think I have it you sort of get me off here. So just bear with me for a bit if Mr. Chairman I hope you don't mind. No no I should we need this

um the the PEC preliminary plan is you have a concept plan. Was that the first document that was approved? That's the bubble diagram right? That's what looks like this. The PEC concept plan shows all 90 acres and this is what it looks like. Right. Okay. Okay. Okay. Without my That's fine. Right. Can we put that into the record as the concept? It's already this has got my notes on. I prefer not to. It does not be. It's it's part of the overall approvals for the the concept. I mean, it's already part of the town's records.

M. Is it part of the record? So, I'm concerned about the testimony because you said you referred to this, right? And and I don't think that this is actually a document that's in the record. Um, okay. So, if it would help, the PEC concept plan was approved in 2016. It's the approved PEC concept plan from 2016. Is that the one we've been referring to in the pattern book? No, that's the PEC preliminary plan. Oh, concept.

This is the concept. It's the overall bubble diagram. And then you've got the PEC preliminary plan. Is the concept plan, but the preliminary overrides the concept. I'm saying is it part of I mean meaning it's approved. Yeah. Reinforces. It's get to that's exactly right. M. Yes. I think the concept plan is critical to what the board is addressing tonight because the letter from the town administrator opined that the um preliminary the the concept plan needed to be amended. Right. Concept plan.

No, it was the preliminary plan. I think the concept

we need to have in the room. I think we need to have it forever. Um, if the applicant isn't going to put it in you, we can put it in afterwards. I don't think I don't have a copyr. The concept claim was already entered in that you would put a copy of the approved concept. That's what Oh, yes, I do. All right, let's get this. I mean, I could just tear these off and just say, "Here it is." I just sent the concept plan to Carrie back on. That's the approved.

I just sent it to her electronically like three minutes ago.

Copy that. We want to verify with Sean that it is the last latest approved. I believe you want you want Here and this is there's a couple terms used in here. All right. Yeah. Unfortunately, again, the process, the nomenclature of the process got a little screwed because of the stormware management approval process in K County and how they call what they call their specific approval process for stormware management.

So you had to adjust all the terminology to comply with their see what I want. What's important here is this. It seems to me that for purposes of this review that's we have a concept plan was approved in 2016 easy concept plan. Right. And Carrie, do you have a copy of that? Has that been that in your I think in my email. I'm trying to pull it up now. Clarification. Is this the PEC-1 concept plan? If that's the document we're talking about that was already entered into the record on 2025-03. If it's the same document, we can just pull that document.

If it's the same document that I saw, that is not Let's keep one at a time. I can't keep track of all printed and added after. Okay, if that works for the board, I couldn't hear you. Sorry, I was trying to make sure it was okay with them. I'm going to make a similar suggestion to the previous suggestion I made, which is the clerk is pulling up the And there it is, the um content plan. And um if we can all agree that that's what that is and say that's going to be an exhibit and you can put whatever number or exhibit on it then when this is concluded it can be printed and physically added that

we're okay with that. If the board's okay with that then we'll have an exhibit in the record that is check the dates in the sense that sounds good. So you want to is there a way check the dates on that block? Uh they're not. Do we have a specific number name for that? Let me confirm first. It's the right plan. Carrie, what's the U? Are we into exhibit three or four? We are number three. Three. Yeah.

That's super cool, though. All right. So it it might be helpful to just step back and talk about the overall process to help maybe address some of these questions. When we have we reach an agreement on this? Yes, that is the approved 2016 PEC concept plan. So is it going to have an exhibit number? But there'll be exhibit three. I think currently is that correct? Yeah, I don't mind if it's three. Okay. All right. That's that's the first step of this process is the concept plan. We now have the approved concept plan in the record as exhibit three. Yep.

All right. The next step in that process is what you referred to as the preliminary plan. No, the PEC preliminary.

The P my apologies. PEC preliminary plan. And that for cl purpose of clarification here, that is not a subdivision plan. It's not the property had already been subdivided years and years before the the property owner uh took acquisition of it. It was actually subdivided by the town as part of a subdivision plat that was prepared by the S&T dollar. So when the applicant or when the the current property owner when the Warfield companies acquired the property, they acquired it subject to the subdivision. Okay, which created parcel A, parcel B, C, D, E, F, G.

So what you see, what we see in the concept plan as parcels, as you said, E A through G. H, I think. Oh, there's an H. You're right. Apologies. Uh, A through H has it was already subdivided. They were already subdivided. Yep. Okay. They were pre-existing. In other words, I did not realize that my Mr. May I I I just want to clarify. Speak up, please. I I can't hear you. I'm so sorry. I I I think we need to clarify one other thing because I think I think the witness was talking about building F and building E as something distinct from the parcels. Am I correct about that?

Yeah, you ask ask your question. I I'm just again for the because we're trying to clarify what we're talking about when when when the witness was talking about the parking adding the parking changing the parking in the rightway building building app which is se something different from parcel app correct correct parcel right okay that's that's all

yeah I was okay there um my my point trying to get some clarification was I'm referring you in Joe's letter he goes process file follow the same steps as original PEC approval colon concept plan preliminary plan and final plan/s subdivision. I assume that when we say concept plan here it means PEC concept plan. I believe he does too and that's one of the reasons why we're appealing okay that lever and and PEC preliminary plan and PEC final plan subdivision. It's they're all PEC correct? No it goes except for the site plans. Correct. I guess PC concept PC preliminary and then you go into the preliminary and final.

I'm just talking about the 90 acre drawings. Correct. So you we went from that concept plan which was approved in uh 2016 to the overall PEC preliminary plan which includes the entire property. Right. It is package that the town is is in the town's records. It was approved. Okay.

Is seven pages long. Okay. You have a cover sheet. Then you have an existing condition sheet. Then you have the grading plan. Um and then you have um the uh this is the proposed grading. And then you have the um proposed landscape plan and the um proposed storm water management plan and then the proposed phase plan. So this covered all of those things for the entire 90 acres. Okay. And this was based on that subdivision that had occurred prior to them. So all these parcels were subdivided, part of the PEC concept plan, part of the PEC preliminary plan. All that was done.

Okay. And then we said, okay, the first parcel that we're going to go into and do detailed engineering work for is parcels ENF Parkside. Yeah. So we submitted a preliminary subdivision plan to the town and to the county for their review and approval of that. Things got a lot closer. and grading, storm water management, utility locations, connections to homes, um the subdivided lots, all of that was included in the parcels ENF preliminary subdivision plan.

So when you had parcels ENF that was essentially resubdivided into the numerous lots and park side, that's correct. That you have that is now park that was previously ENF is no longer ENF. It's whatever the denomination is. It's park side. It's It's But it's still I would assume each townhouse lot has its own individual address and all that. Absolutely. When ENF was approved Oh, yes. It's built. Okay. Oh, yeah. But when that happened, were where it materially changed the the bordering roadway, the I guess that's Warfield Road, right? So forth.

Did that have to have to be reflected back on earlier approved? No. 90 acre plans. No, there were modifications to the preliminary subdivision plan for parcels ENF and the final subdivision plans for parcels ENF that changed from the PEC preliminary plan as we got more into the engineering and there was and the plan evolved. We had to make modifications to that to to the PE I'm sorry to the preliminary which part the preliminary subdivisions lines just for parcels ENF even that's what I'm saying never went back in and

beyond ENF outside of ENF were there any material changes caused by that that were never reflected on the the larger the 90 acre drawings? No, they were never we never went back in and modified the concept the PEC concept plan. No, I didn't ask you if you did it. I said, were there changes made physically, construction, engineering, and changes that were not then reflected on the overall site plan uh the entire Warfield plan drawings? No. If I if I'm understanding your correct your question correctly, I want to make sure that you didn't affect the overall you only affected ENF. That's correct.

Okay. Okay. That's what I was trying to correct. We had we had made modifications during the preliminary and final subdivision plans for the NF that were different than what was shown on the PEC preliminary plan. If you had made a change that would have going to like change the alignment of Warfield, would that have had to been reflected back on then the other drawings? It was not required when we went through the final the preliminary and final site plans for building F. Okay. Okay. Built. Now you're in another building. That's a different That's partial. It's It's We've only been through two. Okay. Parcel. Did you change the alignment of the road? We added all the parking to it. You added But you didn't change the alignment of the road.

We didn't change the alignment of the road, but we added a lot of parking to it. We changed the access point from Warfield Avenue into Did you change the width of the road? Didn't change the width of the road. No, we changed We changed the access point and we changed the park and we added parking into that. Parking is striping. Oh, no. No. We added I'm sorry. We added paving to account for that parking. Then you did change the width. Correct. We did change the width of the paving section, but not of the the road itself. Mr. Chair, if I may. Okay. So, essentially what you're saying is that the road as it was reflected in the original subdivision plan, the rightway width and the um it its alignment did not change.

It didn't. Okay. The center line stayed the same. The center line stayed the same. Basically, the lane width stayed the same. Oh, no. The lane widths changed. We we modified we narrowed down the lane was there was a lot of paving out there. So, we used part of the paving for parking and narrowed down the the travel lanes, but the approved right ofway width did not change. The rightway width did not change.

Well, that that's the bottom line. I I think at this point I want to put an objection on the record as to the relevance of this entire testimony because the issue with respect to the that's before the board tonight has to do with the fact that a change of use from the preliminary from the concept plan and the preliminary plan um is being proposed here. Unless there is testimony that parcel ENF were ever going to be developed without parking, then there's no change. the fact that they moved it from one place to another place um with respect to the development for those parcels, it's not comparable, it's not analogous, it's not relevant.

Um I I don't know that we're talking about that at all. Yeah. Yeah. I'm not I'm just trying to see how it's how it was handled. Alyssa, in the development of other parcels, if there were areas affected that were not within the parcel, but that were part of like I would call it a common area, but I got to be careful. I know the terminology here, but the the common road. And we're discussing partial B, I believe, tonight. Correct. Yeah.

Partial B for the Thrive partial. And if there are changes down there which reflect beyond just within their curb, if there are changes made that reflect back on the main streets, then that we want to know, we want to understand what the correct procedure is. Uh how many plans have to get updated.

Okay. But that's a thing that's going to happen at some later stage of the development, right? They're going to bring you a a site plan for the parcel that's going to show you where the parking is and where the building is and all of that other stuff. That's not what the um town uh the zoning administrator told the applicant was requiring the revision to the preliminary plan. Okay. Well, let's you can I would suggest that okay the Mr. Mr. Chairman, I was just that the objection be noted so that it be overruled because I think it's all been helpful to clarify what we're discussing this evening.

Yeah, I I understand that, Alissa. I would I I think we're just going to ahead and overrule that, but we're going to note it. Uh and I think we're going to be focusing on the presentation here of your appeal because we've got to understand the It's helpful to have the background. It is especially with the terminology of these plans. Yeah, unfortunately the terminology is not great. I I want to be clear. I'm not objecting to any of that. Just the only thing I'm objecting to is the line of questioning the testimony of the witness as to the change in parking for the ENF. I'm just trying to find out.

We're talking about a process here. I think that's the subject of this hearing. If I'm mistaken, I don't think anybody talked about a change in parking on ENF. No, but we're talking about I'm sorry. Building building. We're talking about a process here and let's just continue on question. Let's move on. All right. Go for it. Sorry.

Um, so Sean, I think you've you've correct me if I'm wrong. your testimony is that on the uh page number two of the pattern book uh the Roman one and Roman two concept planary plan are for the entire acreage rate large or the entire project. Is that correct?

That's correct. and they don't necessarily have a lot to do with the details of improving one of the particular parcels or more than one of the parcels with actual improvements or a subdivision. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. All right. Keep going.

All right. Um, what? And forgive me if I've already asked this. I'm trying to remember where where you have been already. Um, what did Mr. Constantini's August 28 letter determined as far as the processing of Thrive's individual site development plan was concerned. Objection. The document speaks for itself. I can't hear.

Sorry. Objection. Because the document speaks for itself. I still couldn't understand what she objected because the document speaks for itself. It's already in there. Which document? The It's the He's referring to He's paraphrasing what the August 28th, 2025 letter from the um zoning administrator to Mr. Bowers says and um the letter itself says what it says and paraphrasing it doesn't add to the board's understanding of the case or what's in front of it. I was asking a question and I'm sorry if I didn't use

No, listen. I need I need as much clarification as possible because the terms seem to be floating here and I need to make sure that with what that we're in alignment with what Joe is uh the town manager has put in this letter versus what the appeal is concerning and I need to clarify that understood I would suggest that the proper witness for that is the person who wrote the letter but that's what we're appealing understood but if you argue well let's let's share what you're appealing because maybe you're appealing maybe you're mistaken exactly in the letter. Well, that's that's what I want to say.

That's the issue. That's why we're here is we're the zoning administrator wrote a letter identifying an approval process and we don't agree with what that recommendation or what he has determined as the approval process.

Yes. All right. Well, I will note the objection there, Alissa. um on point of order, but go ahead. I'm I I would like to hear this. So, the con Mr. Kentini's letter specifically says the town site plan process begins with a concept site plan submission to the planning and zoning commission. This step provides the commission with sufficient information to determine whether the proposal is practical and suitable to move forward. Once the concept is approved, the applicant may proceed with submittals through the technical review agencies in Carroll County. That process can be detailed and require several iterations. When all agency reviews are fully completed, the applicant may return to the town's planning and zoning commission for consideration of final site plan approval. If you look at that, if you read that statement and you look at the approval process as identified in um page two of the pattern book which we've just reviewed, there is no concept site plan submission. It goes directly from preliminary plan and the preliminary plan goes directly to the county and the town

for development for the development review process. So there's no consult to final. It's preliminary to final. And both the preliminary and final require um the county's involvement in that review. And that's what we're that's what we're asking for is to there's no reason to submit a concept site plan for for this. So and again you're referring you've just talked about something referring to an individual site development plan. Correct. Yes, that is correct. Okay. It goes on to say, it goes on further to say, uh, in cases where a proposed site plan does not conform to the approved PC preliminary PEC plan,

where are you?

I'm on the second third paragraph. In cases where a proposed site plan does not conform to the approved pre preliminary PEC plan, a PEC amendment is required under section 180-14 of the town code, which governs amendments to the plan Employment Center District. This process follows the same steps as the original PEC approval. Concept plan, preliminary plan, and final plan sub subdivision where the zoning administrator determines an amendment is not substantive. The concept and preliminary phases may be combined into one preliminary plan submission. In the case of parcel, and I'm skipping down to um I can finish that paragraph. Let me just each step requires review by the planning and zoning commission with technical review occurring through the county in parallel. All plans must be prepared by a licensed architect, registered civil engineer, professional landscape architect or other qualified land planner. In the case of parcel B, the concept site plan that was that has been shown through the conditional use approval process proposes modifications to the internal roads and parcel entryways that are different than on the approved preliminary PEC plan. These changes can affect the design and functionality of environmental features across the larger warfield development. For this reason, a PDC amendment is required so that these impacts can be accounted for comprehensively prior to the individual parcel development moving forward. Accordingly, parcel B may not proceed independently of the PEC amendment process. So that is the second part of what we are appealing that we do not believe that the changes that are proposed in parcel B for the conditional use are substantively different than the approved PEC preliminary plan and therefore we don't need to go back through the PEC concept plan and PEC preliminary plan. We can move straight

to the preliminary site plan and prelim and final site plan with a technical review by the county as we did with parcel with building F and parcel D. Internal roads had changed in building F and access point had changed in building F from what was shown on the approved PEC preliminary plan. We were not required to go back in and change the PDC concept plan nor the PDC preliminary plan to account for that. We were allowed to move forward and get those site plans approved which we ultimately did and got final site plan approval in 2019

the relevance that I've alreadyated and I understand what the board's position is but I'm putting that on the record. So it's not the objection. Just note the objection. Yes. To the relevance of what happened with Hartwood building at ENF. All right. So noted.

We went through a basically we went through a process and we're asking basically to go through the same process we went through with building with parcel B. We went through a process for parcels E and F. We went through a pro process with building F. We want to go through the exact same process for parcel B and we're saying and the the zoning administrator Mr. Costantini has said no you can't go through that process you got to go back in and change the concept the PEC concept plan and the PEC preliminary plan before you can go through that process or concurrently with going through that process. The issue that you have here is when you go through the detailed engineering it informs the PEC preliminary plan. Okay. What we're showing here would go back in and you would technically get the approval and then amend the PEC preliminary plan. We're trying to amend the PEC concept plan as we speak as as we as you know through our variance request and through the submissions that we've made. So, we're in the PEC concept plan revision process now anyway. But the detailed engineering for parcel B where we're putting the storm water management where those roads actually tie into Warfield Avenue and and uh the access onto uh the North Clement site. Okay. The grading the there's a there's an under uh there's a gas line. How are we going to relocate that gas line? We showed it generically in the PEC preliminary plan. When we get into this level of engineering, you're going into a much deeper dive into it. It's taking engineering from 20 25% to 50 to 75%. That informs the PEC preliminary plan. Otherwise, we'd be stuck in this circle of, okay, we're updating the PEC preliminary plan based on what we know. But now, we're going to go in and we're going to update the the preliminary site plan for parcel B, which is going to show changes from what we showed then

because now we know more. Oh, now we got to go back in and update the PEC preliminary plan again. And it's just an iterative iterative process. That's why we went through that this the same process we're asking to go through here. That's why we went through it in parcels E and F on Park side and building F because we knew going through that detailed engineering process was going to inform the revisions to the PDC plan. Is Warfield being developed? Uh are there multiple partals being developed concurrently? Um, not not at this time, but ideally there would be.

There ideally there would be. Yeah. So, if you're making material changes that would inform the preliminary plan, it seems to me that those might impact some another project that's going on that also needs that that site plan to be correct or accurate or most up to date. is is which which preliminary plan the other PC preliminary any other sub any other partial plan

it's not I mean in any large multi-partial development like this individual parcels come in as you have a specific user with a specific you look back to the overall approval we believe that these changes that are being proposed in parcel B are minor and they're not substantive and therefore we don't need to go back through showing an access point onto the onto uh Warfield Avenue and onto the access onto um the the north of Gumman site is not material in in my pos my opinion because what would happen in parcel C would be informed by that.

Who where where is the control point in this development? Who is controlling it? Is there a central point of control as to how each parcel gets developed and how it may or may not impact adjacent or opposing parcels. I think that's collectively the applicant in the town. I think the applicant has come comes from So Joe represents the town. Our town manager represents the town in terms of a point of control. Correct. Okay. And and and we do too. And and you're going deeper into the engineering. Correct. And you're doing this detailed development. That's correct. Okay. So, there's

and so our opinion is that the change that we're asking for in parcel B is minor and we don't need to go all the way back through the to the beginning to the concept plan or the the PEC concept plan or the PEC preliminary plan. We can move forward with the preliminary site plan. Okay. And it would be a preliminary site plan, not a concept site plan. So, is your appeal accurately then detailed here on the this part of your application has specific details of appellants's appeal of town manager's decision. Is is is all that information correctly represented in here? We're trying to explain that to you now. Okay.

Mr. Chair, mayor. Yes, sir. Uh Sean if let's say whether this happens or not I don't know but let's say you develop partially as you seek to here but it turns out that there are going to be impacts on let's say the alignment of Warfield Avenue or other potential impacts on issues that are shown on the preliminary PEC plan. Would it be your position then that that you then need to go back and amend the preliminary PEC plan

after that we get through the detailed engineering and approval process for parcel B? Yes. and you would not be able to get final approval of parcel B unless and until then you obtained the the necessary amendments to the preliminary PEC plan.

No, no, because again as you move through the engineering process it gets more and more and more refined. That's what we learned with parcels E and F. That's what we learned with building F. things were changing because of sewer connections, water connections, so on and so forth. So I think the most appropriate time if we don't think it's a substantive change to what was shown on the PEC preliminary plan, let's go through the approval process, the site plan approval process, preliminary and final site plan approval process for parcel B and then we can go back in and we can revise the PEC preliminary plan to reflect those so that the next user would come in and they and that would be accurate. And that's what we're we're in that process literally right now in terms of trying to amend the concept plan and then from there we would amend the PEC preliminary. I'm sorry. We're in that process to amend the PEC concept plan and then we would amend the PEC preliminary.

Mr. Davis, let me ask this. Isn't the appeal in case O2 of the planning commission's um decision isn't one of the changes you're looking to make in your revisions dealing with some of the um open space issues that were created in in other words in addressing the open space areas that were addressed that were included in parcels ENF when that was ultimately subdivided. Objection.

The applicant asked to postpone the consideration of that case and we the board postponed the consideration of that case and and I'm I object to the testimony about what they are or are not asking for in that case. We're just using it as an illustrative example of so noted it's set forth in our application in that case. I think it's from a conceptual standpoint we're trying to do do an analogy. Um All right. Is that Do you have any anything else? Yes. Okay.

Um in his August 28th letter, did Mr. Constantini um determined um that the that he believed parcel B plan um was different than the approved Warfield concept and PEC preliminary plan. Was that a question or a statement? It's a question of witness. Oh, okay.

So, um yes, he did. He said that there was differences enough. He never says um substantive differences, but he says there are differences enough that in Mr. Costantini's opinion, it requires modification of the PC concept plan and PEC primary plan. And you may have addressed this before, but do any or all differences between the um individual site development plan and the approved PEC concept or preliminary plan require the go back to the beginning process that Mr. Kosantini discusses in his letter?

Yeah. All right. Can and is that having to deal with the substantive change you referred to earlier? That's correct. Objection. And is the objection? He's leading the witness. Okay. Is the substantive change actual language in the code? It's not substantive change is not defined in the town's code. But if a change doesn't the code discuss what happens with a change that is or is not substantive in terms of that process?

Correct. If it's determined to be substantive and you go back for the PEC concept plan and the PC preliminary plan. If it's not substantive, you can move forward. Why do and are you familiar with the uh differences that Mr. Constantini has identified between the parcel B plan that we're here about tonight and the um uh approved PEC concept and preliminary plans. The what is stated in his letter is proposes modifications to the internal roadways and partial entryways that are different than on the approved preliminary PEC plan. Those are the only two things that are identified as modifications.

Excuse me. Would you agree with that? Yes, they are different than what was shown on the PEC preliminary plan. I just don't think that they're substantive. Right. In your opinion, uh why are they not substantive?

Well, I mean they they don't change the storm water management any of the storm water management design. They don't change necessarily the grading or, you know, they may actually reduce the the need for some retaining walls from what was shown on. Um I think as part of the conditional use it was approved that was approved we it was determined that there was less traffic than with the proposed use than there was for the uh existing approved hotel use on the site. Um there's no impact to the existing um multi-purpose trail under Route 32 to Warfield Avenue and Kerry Dorsy Park. It's a less impactful plan than what's currently shown uh in parcel B. And and I I I think that the internal roadways and partial entryways, we've dealt with that with building F. We made modifications to the internal roadways and entranceways on building F and it was determined that that was not substantive enough to require us to go back and modify the PEC concept plan, the PEC preliminary plan. So I mean that that is um if you will, you know, a course of action that the town's taken and that's what we were relying on. So you're acknowledging that there may there are or may be differences yes in parcel B versus the PEC concept and preliminary plan.

Yes sir. You don't believe they are substantive. That's correct. Um and you've talked about other sites parcel ENF parcels ENF and then building F1 parcel D having gone through Y to completion. Correct. final approval of the individual site development process. That's correct. Were there different and you talked about some differences particularly with um building F on parcel D between that site plan and the Warfield PEC concept preliminary plan. Did you not?

I did. In your opinion, were those differences of uh the of similar impact to the ones uh that you've identified as differences um in Mr. Constantini's letter?

I think they're very similar. The changes that we made for the um preliminary site plan and final site plan in building F are very sim compared to what was approved in the PDC preliminary plan are very similar to what's being proposed uh for parcel B for the Thrive facility. So any changes are are not um of a different nature than ones that have already allowed building F. No. Yes. Building F and parcels ENF to move forward. That's correct.

To final approval. Um Can any ultimate differences that are to that are shown to exist between what happens on parcel B when it's to be built out? Parcel B we're talking about right here. Parcel B. Yes. The Thrive parcel,

the conditional use parcel. Can any ultimate differences between what happens on parcel B through the individual site development process and the Warfield PEC concept and preliminary plans be identified without the benefit of processing the individual site plan for the Thrive site for parcel B?

They can't. That's what we were talking about earlier. you would get into the circular process where okay, we're submitting a revised PEC preliminary plan based on what we have today, but then we're going to go through the detailed engineering process with the county and the town, which is going to make modifications to that PEC preliminary plan. We're going to have to go back to the preliminary plan and modify that. And as we continue to go through this process to to do the detailed engineering and approval for parcel B, we would constantly be having to update the PEC preliminary plan uh to mod to to to match those modifications. It would just be this circular process, which is why again why we went through the process that we went through on building F. So, can any revised Warfield PEC concept uh or preliminary plan uh be processed incorporating any changes in the Thrive plan without the Thrive plan being reviewed beforehand?

It would be fruitless. No, I mean, they can't. I ask a question. Go ahead. I have a couple. Well, can you Mr. Constantini indicated he stated here in the letter uh these changes can affect the design and functionality of environmental features across the larger warfield development. Um you're telling us you're suggesting here that the changes that you're proposing here would not do so. I there's no definite or there's no delineation of what those environmental features understood. Can you and I don't believe that there are any changes.

Can you though tell me let's say theoretically can you tell me theoretically the type of changes you think could affect other um other changes across the larger development? Can you conceive of in other words give me an example of if you think this is not going to affect that what kind of changes would affect the larger development

stormwater management probably the single most important thing if the storm water management changes where we could not handle storm water management for parcel B on parcel B and we had to all lot for storm water management on another parcel to handle what is being proposed here that's a substantive change you mean like a drainage ditch Well, you know, they don't do drainage dishes anymore. They do these bio retention facilities and, you know, um, a variety of different techniques. If we can't handle that on parcel B and we have to go into another parcel to handle it, that's a substantive change. But we don't see that. That's something you think would require a preliminary plan change before you get to this particular sub.

I I mean, that could rise to it. I don't personally I I don't think that that would be necessary because again you would have to go through that process and for the record what's being proposed on the Thrive plan is less impervious surface than what was proposed on the approved PEC preliminary plan for the hotel for parcel B. Yeah. For parcel B for what was the hotel and parking and all the improvements are are we are proposing less impervious surface than what was proposed there. So there will be no impact elsewhere on the property as a matter of you know now because because of that fact that storm water management on this property will not have any effects elsewhere on the property on the field property. That's correct. Okay.

We've been a we believe we've been able to address the necessary area for storm water management. But we will go through that process with the county. That's part of the technical review process in the preliminary site plan. And if the county determines that, let's say sake of just this example here that that the county says, you know, we don't agree with your proposal for storm water management and we think you need additional, you know, larger storm management, whatever it would be that could have impact elsewhere on the property. Mhm.

What would you do at that point? I think we would come back and sit down with the town and the county and talk about it and see whether or not we need to go back in and and revise the PEC concept plan and PEC preliminary plan at that point in time because again we we would get back into that circular approval process where okay now we're going back in and revising the PC concept plan preliminary plan based on a 30% design of stormwater management but then we get to 75% we realize oh we don't need that anymore. or we're able to do X Y and Z and that's not necessary. So it it just changes again. You got to go through the engineering process to appropriately inform the revisions necessary to the PEC preliminary plan.

So Mr. Davis, if I may to follow up, Mr. Tal just gave you a a what if about a serious um or substantive uh change and we've talked about storm water management that would uh affect more than just parcel B in some significant way. Is there any way to find out if the storm water management needs for the site are in fact of that magnitude unless and until you go through the individual site plan review process?

No, there's no way to find that out. We we we have to go through the detailed engineering approval process um for the detailed site plan. Well, let me uh pause this at the moment. I've got the information. There is a page here which has I think your delineated specific points that is that composes comprises your appeal. Is that correct? Uh they were various aspects of the August 20th letter. We're trying to boil this down to

I'm trying to find out what your appeal is and what relief you are seeking. what is your proposed solution? Because I want to have the town manager have a chance to present his

letter and the reasoning behind it and the the the processes that have been in place here uh and how we can bring these two sides together and get this resolved. Simply stated, we would like for the Thrive parcel B site development plan to be decoupled from the need to be included in a PE a Warfield PEC preliminary or concept plan revision at this time as as we have done with parcels ENF and as we have done with building F on parcel D

and then how would you ultimately then what what are you you're proposing is that you would develop that individually and then go back and update the PEC preliminary plan accordingly right and we're in the process well we are in a stalled process of trying to do that now at what point would you feel that you're ready to update the preliminary Once we know what the impacts are, that's the engineering process. That's the final engineering. Exactly what we did with parcel with building F and parcel D. All right. Is there any other testimony you want to give that will further confuse me or or further?

Oh, I I understand. It's uh not for the get I'm trying to get this down to Charlie Irish's final figure here. And uh yeah, you got to be old to know what that simply we want to follow the process that was identified in the pattern book. We want to be a process and I want to make sure that the town has their their process properly represented. The same process that we were we were permitted to do with parcels ENF and with Fair enough. Fair enough. Um is there any other substantive testimony or you think it's good time to hear uh the town manager? You have anything? Okay. I don't have any questions of Mr. Davis. If I could have a brief recess and speak to my clients. Sure.

Find out. All right. We'll take a brief recess for the moment uh for about 5 minutes. So, can I just establish if we're having recess, it's not to discuss Mr. uh Davis's testimony? No. Okay.

All right. This meeting is back in session. All right. If there is no further, I have no further witnesses in my case and chief. Depending on what comes up, uh, I'd like to be able to cross-examine Mr. Constantini and we may need the need for some rebuttal thereafter, but

I think we can handle that. All right. So, now we should hear from the town staff, Mr. Kosantini. Be sworn. You need to be sworn. That's right. As an individual who wishes to testify in case 20254, do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give at this meeting shall be the truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Um, I'll walk through kind of the staff's position uh and the reasoning behind the letter that is subject to appeal tonight. Um so the appellant has challenged the the explanation and the appropriate review process uh for a site development plan for parcel B within the work district.

Please keep the voice up.

Use the the outside voice. Uh they have argued that the letter is arbitrary, capriccious, unreasonable, and legally erroneous. Uh staff's position is that the letter is none of these things. The letter is straightforward application of the town's code requirements uh within the PC zone. So when reviewing a claim uh that an action from administrative official is arbitrary or eccrecious, the board must determine if the action was based on the town code as written and the facts presented. Uh if both are present, then the decision is not arbitrary or effrecious. Uh even if the appelllet disagrees with the actual conclusion in that letter. Uh so the core question here is does the proposed parcel B plan conform with the approved preliminary PEC plan. The letter states that a site plan can be submitted at any time and details the review process for a plan that is consistent with the PDC preliminary plan and one that is not consistent with the PDC preliminary plan. Staff then indicates from the information we've seen thus far that the site plan is not consistent with the PDC preliminary plan. Want to keep the nomenclature as clear as possible. Um and that it should be noted that no official submission has actually uh actually happened. We haven't received any plan yet. Um, what we're saying is the use and the layout of that plan doesn't show the same thing on the approved preliminary PEC plan. So, the town's adopted process is clear under code 180-144B where it states any amendment to the plan must go through the same three-step approval process referring to concept, preliminary, and final. This is a mandatory framework. The code does not invite judgment calls about whether differences are minor, inconsequential, quincential, quincual, or refinements. The uh it simply requires that changes from the approved PDC plan go through the same three-step as three-step approval process as the original plan went through. So, in reviewing the information available for parcel B, staff identified multiple inconsistencies with the

approved preliminary PVC plan, including internal circulation, parcel access, development cons configuration uh elements, including the use of the parcel itself and the overall uh development mix that that effect would have on the overall project. Because these deviations cannot be reconciled with the approved plan, staff correctly determined that the PEC must be amended before or concurrently with the site plan approval process. This conclusion directly reflects uh the code's requirement and therefore is not arbitrary, capriccious or unreasonable or legally erroneous as the appelllet claims in their application. The appelllet list six reasons why they believe the determination is improper and I'll address each in turn. Uh number one, their site plan should be processed solely under the 2017 development pattern book and once approved, it supersedes the preliminary plan. So the pattern book is uh an essential design document for certain, but it does not override the town code. Neither the pattern book or any local procedure authorizes the site plan to automatically supersede an adopted preliminary PDC plan or bypass the PDC amendment process. The code gives the preliminary PEC plan legal significance. The pattern book implements the preliminary plan. It does not replace it, alter it, rise above it. Any change to it must follow uh 180-14b and staff's advice simply follows that requirement. So number two, any difference between their plan and the preliminary uh PDC plan are not substantive or material. Again, the code does not create a threshold for materiality. It allows staff to wave a PEC procedure because changes or it does not allow staff to wave PEC procedures based uh because changes seem small or reasonable. The standard is not whether a change is substantial. It's whether a change exists. Once the site plan no longer conforms to the approved P preliminary PEC plan, the amendment process is triggered. This is an objective

standard. staff does not did not and cannot apply sub subjective judgment about how different is too different and this is specific to use of the property. So it's a very different use that's happening on parcel B as what's approved in the preliminary plan. So this is the exact opposite of what arbitrary decision-m it's adherence to the code. That's it. So number three uh there were no environmental features designed or technically reviewed at the plary PDC stage. The pre preliminary PDC plan includes land planning elements that were officially approved. Those approved elements including environmental areas, open space uh patterns uh and site organization including uh commercial business mix cannot be altered without a PDC amendment even if technical engineering was deferred to a later later phase. Uh the code again provides the mandate staff to simply apply what the code says. Number four, differences in internal roadways and parcel entryways are mere refinements of the sort normally addressed during technical site plan review. Roadway alignment and parcel access are core components of preliminary PDC plan. If an applicant proposes to reorganize those elements, uh that is precisely what the amendment process exists to ensure coordinated develop to ensure coordinated development along the entire PEC district. Uh number five, other site plans with similar refinements have been processed without PDC amendments. So the applicant has brought in no examples and no documentation, no record to support this claim of parcels where uses themselves have changed. So on parcels E and F, it is a it was a townhouse development as part of the original PEC plan. It is a townhouse development today. On building F, it was an office building. It was it it was proposed as an office building. It was just minor parking that was changed around it. Uh and then number six, so for other uh reasons as the apology may present, staff is confident that the record

already contains all relevant considerations the letter sent uh fully explained in the and appropriately tie the requirements to the town. uh as far as uh so it's been suggested that because the planning commission and the BCA unanimously included a conditional use uh for parcel B uh of the assisted living facility there on parcel B that the town somehow waved or eliminated a requirement for a PEC preliminary plan amendment uh with respect the interpretation is not uh either supported by the zoning code more consistent with established planning principles when the use changes the overall mix in the entire development has changed so therefore the plan needs to be preliminary plan and concept plan uh of the PEC zone needs to be updated. A conditional use approval for the PEC preliminary plan uh serve fundamentally different purposes. A conditional use evaluates whether a specific use type, in this case an assisted living facility, may be permitted on a particular parcel as a matter of land use compatibility. The board's review uh properly focused on operational conditions such as neighborhood impact, traffic generation, and other criteria directly tied to the appropriateness of the use. But the conditional use approval never substitutes, alters, or supersedes the town's requirement for site development to remain consistent with the governing PEC plan. That requirement is codified under 180-14. It applies to all development within the plane employment center district, no matter how many times the planning uh planning commission or board of zoning appeals may vote on an individual use request. So to put it plainly, a conditional use approval determines whether a use is allowed. A PEC plan deter determines where and how the project physically fits within the larger coordinated development framework. These are not interchangeable processes. They do not overlap and approval under one does not excuse compliance for the other. In the case of parcel B, the approved conditional use did not and cannot modify the approved PEC preliminary plan. The PDC plan for the warfield is a master plan document,

a master development document that dictates roadways align roadway alignment, parcel access points, internal circulation, and the coordinated relationship between multiple parcels. The applicant current the applicant's current proposal changes several several of those elements. Those changes cannot be reviewed, evaluated, or approved through a conditional use hearing because a conditional use hearing does not examine the broader master plan impacts consistency with the overall PEC layout or effects on adjacent parcels specific to the PEC zoning context. If the board has intended to if the if the board had intended that the conditional use supersede or alter the underlying PEC preliminary plan, the board would have had to explicitly state that intention during the zoning code review. Uh but no authority for the BCA to amend the PEC plan uh exists even if it wanted to. Under 180-14, only the planning commission can amend the PEC plan and it must occur through the prescribed PEC amendment process. The unanimous conditional use approval simply confirms that an assisted living facility is appropriate is an appropriate use for parcel B if it can be designed in a way that is consistent with the approved PEC plan or if necessary properly amended. The conditional use approval was not a waiver. It it did not rewrite the PEC and it did not grant the developer permission to disregard, bypass, or reinterpret the zoning code. The correct process remains exactly the same as it's always been. If a site plan is inconsistent with the approved PEC preliminary plan specific to the use of the property and how that use is going to affect the overall mix in the PEC plan. Um, as the case is here, the concepts previously submitted, the developer must attain must obtain a PEC amendment before the planning commission can consider the site plan approval. This protects not only the integrity of the zoning ordinance and the uh PC preliminary plan, but also the interests of every other property owner and parcel within the plan center who relies on

that plan for predict predictable coordinated development. So to address the uh suggestion that the PC amendment process required by the code creates an endless review loop that would prevent the developer from ever moving forward on parcel B. This claim is simply just mis mischaracterized both the process itself and the purpose behind it. The town's process is not endless. It does not create repetitive cycles of review. It is a linear predictable well-defined sequence established in 180 144 of the zoning board. with the zoning orders. The steps are straightforward. Concept, preliminary, final, supported by the county's technical review. The only reason this process appears more complex in this case is because the applicant has proposed a site layout that does not match the approved PEC plan and the use that's contained therein. In other words, this is not an endless loop created by the town. It is a complica is a the complication created by the applicant's decision to propose a use entirely different than what was already approved in the PEC plan process. If the developer had submitted a site plan consistent with the approved PEC plan that could already be in technical review today. However, the applicant is proposing a change to key PEC elements, most importantly the mix and distribution of those uses within the site. This triggers a PEC amendment not because staff prefers it but because the zoning ordinance requires it. The change affects not just one parcel but the coordinated functioning of the entire plan employment center. The town cannot and should not ignore those impacts. It's important to emphasize that the process not is is only lengthy when the proposal is inconsistent with the approved uh PEC preliminary plan. It is the responsibility of the applicant not the town to prepare a well integrated project that aligns with the approved PEC or when necessary proactively requests an amendment to update the PC. When the applicant brings forward a coordinated plan compliant with the land use percentages requirements uh of the zoning code, the process moves predictably. When the plans are presented that do not fit the existing framework, they create additional steps.

This is not an endless loop. This is a natural consequence of a plan that has not yet met the standards established in the ordinance. At its core, the PEC process is not a barrier to development. It is a safeguard. A safeguard that ensures every parcel fits together in a coordinated, functional, environmentally sound, and compliant manner. The town has a responsibility to uphold that framework, not set it aside because the applicant finds it inconvenient. The suggestion that the project will never move forward of the uh uh move forward if the zoning code is followed is inaccurate and misplaced. The true path forward of uh to the true path to forward progress lies in a complete plan consistent with the consistent with the PEC framework in a properly submitted amendment. So, finally, staff notes that the appellet requests any and all relief available. The BCA's role here is narrow. Uh, the board can review whether the letter correctly applied the code, but the board does not have the authority to wave, rewrite, or overlook the procedural steps required by 180-14b. In summary, the staff staff provided the uh information via letter theel the appellent requested. The code explicitly requires the change uh follow the PEC amendment process and therefore the advice was not arbitrary, precious or unreasonable. The appellant remains retains viable pro procedural avenues including presenting their review to the planning commission through the concept review pro process and for these reasons staff respect respectfully requests the board to affirm the letter uh to the appellant dated August 28, 2005 was not arbitrary, capriccious, unreasonable or legally erroneous. And I'm happy to answer any questions the board may have or any cross-examination from Mr. Bar.

I I have a question. When we in April of last year when we approved partial B for thrive, there was a condition on that approval. Do you have a note? Can you find that and read that back to us? Sure. I have it here.

That was our I want I want to get it out of the town's records. Thank you.

Uh board chairperson Makavoy. Motion to approve the conditional use request made by Thrive at Warfield for an assisted living facility located on parcel B of the Warfield Commerce and Cultural Center with the following conditions. One, the applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local rules and regulations applicable to the licens lic licensing establishment operation and maintenance of assisted living facilities. Two, the applicant provides additional information regarding the number of deliveries, timing of deliveries, and the types of trucks being used in order to appropriately assess the impact these will have. And three, the town shall strictly adhere to the town's Warfield Commercial Center new construction design guidelines and standards for signs 2017 edition when addressing bulk regulations and site development rules. This approval is based on the finding that the request is in compliance with the 2030 comprehensive plan the planned employment center zoning and meets the requirements of 180-109 of the town code.

Okay. Thank you. And that was what your letter reflected that it it not only requires that that it goes beyond our decision to approve that that we can't approve anything that falls outside of the the town code that would that would violate any part of the town code process. That's certainly true. Th those recommendations are specific to the use on the site. Yes. Um, you know, again, my letter is more referring to uh the approval process for how they can get to the point to develop that.

Exactly. So, I just wanted to clarify for the record that our the board's approval uh stayed within the confines of where it needed to stay conditional use and issues surrounding the conditional use and within the conditional use definition of the new usage, right? not plans and drawings and correct approval processes. Additional use request is specific just for whether or not that use was an appropriate use correct somewhere on that site. Thank you.

So if I may chairman question on and this is my apologies for my lack familiarity with the process. So when a condition of use application is submitted, there is no site plan that is submitted with that that shows where the building will be located, where parking be located. That does not go along with Well, actually there was a drawing. Okay. Yeah, we had a drawing for never conceptual approval of the conditional use was justification. All right. So one of the six

let me ask you this question. Um, Mr. Davis testified that um, stormwater management could be a substantive could result in a substantive impact on that property that might have impact on the rest of the Warfield development. And if that was the case, I believe he also testified then that he would agree that that then could trigger a an amendment to the preliminary PEC preliminary plan and to to reflect the the impacts elsewhere on the larger property. Mhm.

Um, so are we, but yet he can't determine that if I understand correctly, unless he goes into the more detailed site plan proposal that they want to go into here. So, are we in a situation where the cart is before the horse? In other words, are we in a situation where we can't really determine if there's going to be an impact on a larger property? Yeah. unless and until they go through the site process which would then potentially trigger that.

Yeah, I think I think one of the other elements to think about is not just the environmental elements but it's also the the mix of the overall uh commercial development within the site. So again, there are specific requirements within the PEC district that have certain percentages uh land use requirements, floor area ratios, things like that. A change on one of those parcels does have an effect on how the rest of that development can be then coordinated throughout the entire parcel. So a change on one parcel, say the intensity or the the overall floor area ratio increases in intensity from what's on the approved PEC preliminary plan. Well, then that has a trickle down effect to every other parcel around until there's a coordinated plan that's kind of put together to show how that new coordination is going to happen, how that new um business mix can still meet the conditions of the code. So, in short, what what we're saying here is that Mr. Davis is focusing on the engineering aspects of the property and you're saying we also have to look at the use aspects of the entire absolutely

development and that's not being considered in this that's correct in this application. Okay. May I um so there is a stage at which the engineering considerations will be reviewed and um uh approved. Correct. Yes. And what is that stage? So well again after you get through concept and preliminary uh PEC plans get approved then you do start going into individual site review

and they won't have to come back and change the PEC zone at that point. They can modify the site plan that they're submitting. That that's correct for the site that they're looking at. Exactly. So the review of the PEC um preliminary plan is an assessment of the way the entire parcel work the entire project works together.

That that's right again. So the the the land use percentages that are within the PEC zone within the zoning ordinance itself are very specific. You know they have to meet so many uh so many percentages of acres have to be commercial or residential or or industrial whatever. Um, so again, when you start changing the uses on the individual parcels, not only does that potential have a commercial like road alignment issues or changes, there's a there's a different mix of businesses that are now uh need to be allocated within that within that. I'm sorry. Go ahead.

You can supersede me. Is is the uh conditional use that we approved uh categorically different from what was on there originally? The No, it's still uh it's certainly still commercial. It's it's commercial related. Yes. Yes. It's the same commercial use as shown on the but we don't know how big it is. So again, how large is that commercial use compared to what's ratio? What do you mean by what what what quantity are you talking about? Well, how big is the footprint compared to what's on the preliminary plan? The approved PEC preliminary plan. You mean the actual building? Correct. Right. The hotel versus the uh

because the hotel itself has a uh number of square feet that's associated with it and then there's another distribution throughout the site of different commercial uses. Well, once you change the one, it affects how you can potentially redistribute the rest of the potential uses throughout the site, which is why you need to update the concept. You update plan so we know what the mix actually looks like. Excuse me. Mr. I'm speaking with my if you need to speak, go outside. Yeah, we this is on the record. It's tough, you know. Yeah, just tough to may I So,

so the original use for parcel B on the prelim uh preliminary um plan, the PEC preliminary plan was a hotel. Correct. And is it true that a hotel um serves the other uses on the property in a particular way that an assisted living facility does not? Right. So the the current PEC preliminary plan shows a significant amount of office use. So a hotel is supplementary to that. It you know it it's uh can't think of the word. Um

well it supplements the use of of an office. So if people are coming in to visit for uh you know meetings or whatever they have a place to stay. We don't know how an assisted living facility is going to then be coordinated with some of those office uses or what what's what's currently shown on the approved PC plans. So again, it's you got to update the plan to show how those mixes actually uh conform to one another or can can supplement one another. Again, that's one of the one of the key elements of the PEC zone is that it's supposed to be coordinated well thoughtout development, not individual parcel by individual par. Is that because it's a planned employment zone?

It it is. So again, it's it's a planned zone. So again, you're supposed to have an overall plan so that you can show how all of those different uses kind of work together. That this this may I But I need to clarify one thing and then yes. Uh the numbers I'm hearing uh from Mr. Presentini are numbers that are developed from the footprint of the uh assistant the Thrive facility itself. Correct. You're talking about square feet. I'm saying like the what they've shown is different than what's on the approved PEC plan in terms of square footage of construct of construction. Correct.

That's only because it's not a hotel. It's a it's a different facility. Again, what we're talking about is numbers. square feet area, right? Based on a a design, based on a a specific Yes. size and shape of a building and the interior layout and all that. That's correct. So, it has little to do with the land around it. The land is the land. It's going to be parking for one, it's parking for another. I there is less but maybe some square footage of pvious paved area changes slightly or whatever but the numbers you're talking about in terms of usage is the building. Correct.

That's right. Not the land, not the site. It's part of it because that building is what's on that site. I get that. But but the numbers are determined by the design of the building, not the layout and the storm water management of the site. Correct. That's correct. Does that make sense?

Mr. Chair may one quick question. In your letter August 28th, you state specifically that the proposed modification to the internal roadways and parcel entryways um that this change proposes modifications to those specific things, internal roadways and partial entryways that are different than the approved preliminary PEC plan. First of all, can you explain to me how they are different and then how that you said these changes can affect the design and functionality of environmental features across the larger warfield development. Can you explain that a little bit more?

Sure. Sure, I think I think that particular comment was uh related to so again if you look at the approved PEC preliminary plan uh parcels A and B are combined into one full parcel where the proposal for parcel B is specific only to that parcel and it shows that those parcels have now been separated again. Um so again they're they're not being combined into one single parcel. uh we don't know what the overall impact to you know the environmental features that keeping that road in between those two parcels is actually going to be until we have a chance to evaluate you know what that looks like with a updated concept and preliminary plan.

But was the is the current preliminary PEC plan does that reflect parcels A and B or is it simply one parcel and this proposal is proposing to separate those? the the approved PEC preliminary plan shows them combined into one parcel and the the site plan for parcel B shows only that parcel being developed. Okay. So that that does propose a change inherently to the preliminary PEC plan. Yes, it does.

Okay. So what would be the next step? I think Mr. Bowers ask a question. Not in the meeting in the No, not in not hold on. In the next if if we strictly adhere to this, if this is the controlling process, what's the next step? Since like uh Mr. Davis says they they don't know a lot of the design elements until they get into a deeper engineering issue.

They they still have to update the PEC concept and PEC preliminary plans to reflect the change of use on parcel B and the roadway layout between parcels A and B. I think at minimum. Okay. Is that is that something that you already know? Basically, you don't you know that the roadway where partial B ends and partial A begins. I mean, that was part of the concept for the Thrive facility, was it not?

So, unfortunately, there was a very important part of the amendment process that was left out of Mr. Constantini's discussion here. He says any amendment to the of the plan must go through the same three-step process. and he says, "Period." Well, that's what it says in 144. No, what it says, it goes on. There's a second sentence there, which is the really important sentence in our opinion. If, however, the town's zoning administrator believes the amendment is not substantive, then the concept preliminary approvals can be combined in one preliminary plan. That's what we're suggesting. We believe these changes are not substantive. Not substantive enough to require us to go back to concept and pet preliminary plan.

Okay. He he's basically saying any change what I heard was any change you got to go back period. There's no whether it's he he even said minor any minor change you got to go back and that's not what the code says. The code says if however the town zoning administrator believes the amendment is not substantive. He's determined that it's substantive. We don't believe it's substantive. That's why we're here. That's for you. That's our opinion. That's your decision whether or not it's substantive or it's not substantive. That's why we put on the testimony that we did. All right, fair enough point. In addition, I would say that there's no square footage that's shown for parcel B on the PEC preliminary plan. No, it's a six-story hotel,

right, with 125 rooms. No square footage. So, and there's the floor area ratio that is permitted on Warfield. We will never be able to achieve the floor the total amount of square footage that is permitted within this within this project. So there's from a square footage standpoint that to me is a erroneous argument because there was no square footage that was shown on this. Do you have a proposed square footage for the drive? Not yet. We can't we that's part of the pro this process. Okay. So you're not you're not even close. I mean we've identified it as 170 to 190 room facility. Okay.

That's it. Just like it was 125 rooms. So our our contention is a very critical aspect of the amendment process was left out of Mr. Constantine's uh testimony and it's that second sentence that says the town zoning administrator believes the amendment is not substantive. He's saying it's substantive. We're saying it's not substantive. Sorry. May I? Yes. when the preliminary when the PC preliminary plan was approved as it exists showing the hotel use on it

and all of the other parcels with their various proposed uses no engineering work had been done correct I mean I'm sure some engineering had been done because they had to make sure it was it was a reasonable request but the kind of engineering they're talking about tonight and detail 100% engineering on every single parcel was not done yet and yet it was possible to adopt a PEC plan which preliminary plan that scoped out basic relationships between the basic uses that were shown on it. That that's correct.

And took into account the various uses on the various parcels in providing a vision, a comprehensive vision for the entire that that is the intent behind this approval process is that it's it's clear that there's an overall thought process that went into how all the different businesses and mixes would work together and make a cohesive development. Okay. But if I can, it was also clear. Wait a minute. Hang on. All right. I are you are you done or did you have more? No, that was that was my answer. I had a a question uh with regard to that second sentence in 1814. Yep.

B. It says, you know, is not substantive. Of course, that's a that's a real trap of a phrase because that leaves it subjective. Yeah. So, well, the only thing that sentence does is it combines the concept plan and preliminary PDC plans. The plan still needs to be amended regardless. It's just whether or not you go through a concept and a preliminary update to the uh PEC plan or if it's just straight to preliminary PEC update. It doesn't avoid it if it's not submittive. It just doesn't you can do the two steps as one. That's correct. That's you gentlemen follow that?

I do follow that but prior practice of the town with parcels E and F and with building F was that there were changes. They were minor and there we did not need to go through the revising the PEC concept plan and the PEC preliminary plan. We were able to go straight into the preliminary site plan and the preliminary subdivision plan. So the prior practice is of the town and that's all we're asking for the same application of the of what the town has done in the past regarding Warfield to this particular parcel.

Mr. Chair, a witness cannot also be a lawyer. If Mr. Davis is a witness, I would ask there was no question pending. I would ask that he be treated as a witness. he be allowed to testify in an orderly fashion in accordance with the general rules of the of an administrative process and that if there is argument to be made that it be made by Mr. our size. Well, fair enough. All right. Now, that prior process, you never went through step B. Step B, 144, item B.

The prior process you're referring to that you're that you're referring to building F in parcel D and parcel E and F which became Parkside. Is that correct? Yes. We never did that. Okay. And the planning commission approved. When were those done? Uh, building F was in 2019. I believe Parkside was in 2017 or 18. 17. It was prior to the building F. Okay.

Um, have I answered your question? Yeah. Creating more. I know. I know. Do you have any questions, gentlemen, at the moment? While I'm thinking, go ahead. Um, Mr. Constantini, can you describe exactly what the the change was that was made to building F on par? Uh, if I recall, it was just a reconfiguration of the parking.

All right. And if in fact for purposes of clarification and M I'll ask you for a little leeway here. I would I'd like to ask Mr. Bower sockox if he has a recollection as to exactly what the change was to building up on parcel. Is is that accurate? Parking was part of it which was necessitated to be changed due to what the county's storm water review told us. Not until we started going through the independent parcel development process, right? They can't be known.

Okay. Um um so I understand one other question. Can if I may just clarif you tell me exactly what the change or changes were on parcels E and F on the park side. Well what the par the building F was more than parking. I was not directly involved in the project at that time. Mr. Davis can illuminate what those changes were.

I just want to understand exactly what those changes were. Mr. limited purpose. I would ask Mr. Davis to limit his statements to exactly what that was so we all understand here exactly what we're talking about. I can show you. I have plans here that I have the approved piece. Please just Is it easy enough to just describe what it was?

I'll try. The parking on the PEC preliminary plan for building F was all within parcel D. We modified that and we moved some of the parking into the Warfield Avenue right ofway. The connection between building F and the existing Nexion building had two access points and it went down to one. The access point from building F onto Warfield Avenue moved several over 100 feet closer to building W. So there were entrance point modifications, parking was relocated outside of the parcel and access points to an an existing parcel, an existing use were also modified. And after that was done, was the preliminary PEC plan amended to reflect those changes?

No. Okay. You tell me also what was done exactly on parcels ENF was

probably the most important side. Probably the most important thing is on the approved PEC preliminary plan, we had a large storm water management facility that was designed outside of Parcel's ENF in what is now Kerry Dorsy Park. During the approval process for ENF, the county said we don't want that type of a facility anymore and everything moved inside uh parcel F. All the storm water management which was being handled outside the parcel in Kerry Dorsy Park moved into parcels ENF and became a bunch of microbio facilities and whatnot that are sprinkled throughout the community.

Are is storm water management are storm management facilities reflected on the limit plan?

Yes. said the conflict that could change. That's supposed to be information. We still have Mr. Kosanti.

Mr. Kosantini, should those plans not shouldn't they be amended through this process to reflect those changes even though it may not have been done in a timely manner at the time for whatever reasons? I can't think I wasn't here involved with it. I think as they're going through the the concept plan update, the PEC concept plan update, those changes should be reflected on the new the new plan.

Is that a this uh can that they can be combined? Do you think is that minimal enough to be combined or is that not is that substantive that needs to be done separately? You're talking about can they just go through a PEC preliminary plan update instead of a PEC concept and preliminary plan update?

Whatever that end of that yes in as in 144B it says then the concept and preliminary approval steps can be combined into one preliminary plan approval. I think if they're updating everything that's currently built and the changes to parcels A and B and the use uh the uses within the zone I think that is substantial and it shouldn't be combined into just one step is that a so that's individual processes correct concept process and a preliminary process

would that be the time to include B and and also start putting the information to B into the update Okay. Yes. Question, Mr. Cosantine, on you mentioned you just mentioned now there's going to be a an update concept update, but when changes like this are made as they were to let's say parcels and F storm management changes or the access changes to parcel D, wouldn't that require an update of the program plan at that point in time? Do you have to wait periodically for a major update or could they simply apply for that? And I'm I'm asking for thisformational purposes.

Sure.

Yeah. So, uh, you know, changes like that. I'm not sure what the what the process would be for that or what would trigger an update for that. You know, again, we were asked to look at, you know, specifically parcel B and what are the what are the things that are changing on parcel B that at least in my opinion would reflect the need for an update to the concept plan and preliminary plan. And again, it is that relationship between parcels A and B and the fact that there is a pretty substantial change of use on parcel B compared to what's approved in the preliminary plan. Mhm. Um, as to whether or not they can be combined into one step, you know, again, I I think they're substantial enough that it it shouldn't be that way is that they they should have uh the requirement to go before the planning commission, have the planning commission actually analyze how this new use is going to affect the overall plan for

Mr. Can you remind me when you started with the city? October 2019. So after the parcel EF changed after parcel was it after build the building F change? I don't recall. I I think I remember seeing that commission. That's where it was going. Thank you. You read my mind.

I thought I remembered a change of guard. Uh all right. I think. Is there any other testimony that anyone wishes to make towards this case? With your indulgence. Excuse me. With your indulgence. Go ahead. You is this your rebuttal or no? Your closing state? I haven't even asked cross of Mr. Constantini yet. You haven't appropriate. Is that what that's appropriate? Okay.

Mr. Constantini, you spent a lot of time telling the board about section 180-14 and its implications. You're also familiar with 180-143, I presume. That's correct. Dealing with a pattern book.

Yes. And the provision in there that says once a pattern book is approved and you're not asserting that the pattern book was never approved for the work. Not at all. All right. Once the pattern book is approved, the pattern book shall govern pattern book shall govern the development of the PEC planned employment zone. Is that correct? The site planning process Mr. Can you just tell me exactly what's in what section you're reading? 180-143A.

A Okay, thank you. As part of the preliminary plan phase, the development approval process, the applicant shall provide the commission, meaning the planning commission, with a pattern book that will address site planning, architectural, landscape, architectural, and signage requirements for the proposed development. Right. Once approved by the commission, the pattern book governs development of the PEC planned employment center. Period. Correct. That's that is what it says. Yes. Okay.

And it goes on to list the different elements as to what's required in the pattern such as um uh an introduction, the site planning principles, architectural design, landscape architectural design, and a signage plan. Now, you've made a lot in your testimony out of a change in use. Uh the hotel was that a commercial use? Yes. And is the assisted living facility as proposed a commercial use? Yes, it is.

And you heard that. Did you remember hearing that discussion during the hearing before the board of zoning appeals in April that it was a commercial use? Yes. Yes.

Do you remember submitting a staff report to the uh planning commission in March of 2005 um for 2025. I'm sorry for it's been a long night. uh addressing um their upcoming review of the proposed Thrive conditional use for their review and recommendation for to for the planning commission to review and give a recommendation to the boards. Yes, I did.

You never mentioned the change of use at that time, did you? It was they were asking for a conditional use to then be added to the uh overall development plan for the work. Right. But it's the planning commission and they were considering whether this is compatible or appropriate given the overall comprehensive plan. Correct. Whether or not the conditional use was something that could be incorporated into Warfield. Part of what the planning commission is to consider is is it consistent with the comprehensive plan. Is that correct?

This is not proper cross-examination. It goes beyond the scope. I can't understand you. I'm sorry. This line of questioning goes beyond the scope of direct. It's not proper cross-examination. If this is this is appropriate to clarify here, can you be more specific? that witness didn't testify about anything that happened during the um previous proceeding regarding the conditional use.

He has spent a lot of time talking about how important this change of use from one commercial use to another commercial use, neither of which can really be identified in terms of their overall impact to the parcel B property, much less the entire site. It is such an important thing to consider in sending this because of the parcel B application back for concept and preliminary plan approval. You're suggesting that he should have known. I haven't finished. Let's make make the point clear and then if you have a question uh you can ask it. But finish your point. Sir,

you spent a lot of time doing that. I'm I'm I'm I'm addressing Miss Leanne right now. Um my question to Mr. Constantini is there there was no discussion about the impact of a change in use in his report to the planning commission because that's not the process for which that kind of analysis would happen. And you don't think that was important for enough for them to be aware of? For who to be aware of? The planning commission.

It's that wasn't what was before them. They were they were being asked to determine whether or not conditional use should or should not be incorporated into the overall Warfield site. That was it. It wasn't about what other changes might uh might have to occur within Warfield. There's there was no question about that because it wasn't right yet. We didn't know if the conditional use was going to even going to be approved. So now that the conditional use has been approved, then now is the time to then go forward and say, well, how is this use going to be incorporated into everything else that is being proposed or is being planned for the Warfield development. But the staff report does go into detail in describing a number of conditions that were requested to be imposed on their recommendation, including uh information about design guidelines in the pattern book. Is that correct?

Not design guidelines, the pattern book. There's a there's a separate design guideline document that needed to be the 2017 guidelines for Warfield sign standards. New construction guidelines. I don't think that's what the condition said. That is exactly what the condition um and the planning commission recommended unanimously the approval of conditional use. Did they not? the the planning commission did recommend to the board to approve the conditional. Yeah. Um

without any analysis on how that use was going to be incorporated into the overall site because that comes after the board the board of zoning appeals would approve the conditional use. All right. So in fact this board of zoning appeals unanimously approved the conditional use. They did with conditions which were very similar to the ones the planning commission made. Yes. Why would there be the recommendation in the report to include an enhanced traffic analysis and all of these other you know the enhanced traffic analysis and some of these other factors?

Objection. This witness can't answer that question. He authored the staff report. Yeah, but I can answer that question. You asked why the decision. I understand the staff report was not what was approved. The planning commission approved the application. That's not the staff. Yeah. Recommendations,

but that it's a very limited scope, Mr. Box. We have a limited scope. When we're asked to approve a conditional use, we get testimony with regards to the conditional use. The potential impact as outlined in our code. There are specific a list of items that we consider for every request for conditional use or variance. And so we look at those items and we did that evening and we approved it because it meant that that had nothing to do with plan employment center concept drawings anything like that. It was strictly it was like a it's like a go no-go situation. Does it does it pass the test for meeting all of the requirements that this board is tasked with assessing? And it did and we were okay with that. And the apparently the planning commission knows what we do and they that's what they knew that the scope of what we were going to be looking at and that's why they unanimously recommended but that was just one step in a multi-step process for this development. That's I know we're only part of that.

I uh Mr. Constantini you also talked about a change in the footprint. Um, what was the square footage or footprint of the hotel that was shown as a commercial use on parcel B? Shown in the concept plan. I'm looking for the concept. There's no uh specific square footage listed just as 125 extended. There is none. That's correct.

What is the proposed square footage footprint for Thrive? The parcel B. Well, the footprint that was shown was quite a bit larger. Do we know the square footage? But um okay so your comments were speculation as far as that's concerned. Is that correct? Objection. He's he's arguing with the witness. No, I'm asking a question. What are they are they speculative comments or not? Question. I mean what's the point of the question? What? What are you saying?

He's using that as a basis for claiming that we have to go through a two-step process because of a change in footprints. We don't know what the footprints for either are. How how can that be basis? That's why they call for the process to determine that. You have to determine that. You got to come up with some basis, some delta if there's an impact on a plan. So those let me those footprints are still unknown. Is that correct?

The exact square footage is still unknown. The concept plan shows what a footprint of the hotel is going to be and what was submitted as showing what the Thrive building would be is much larger. The footprint is much larger. Plus again the use is different because again a assisted living facility is not an extended stay hotel. Are

are you suggesting that the approved PEC PEC plan fixes the use in Warfield for another use that's either another permitted instead of another permitted use or a use that a board of zoning appeals approves unanimously is appropriate. at that location. I think that's when the updated concept and preliminary plan would come into play. Okay. When you have changes of of use, changes of size or uh what's called intensity on any particular parcel, it does have trickle down impacts that can't be evaluated through a conditional use request.

It needs to be evaluated through the concept, the PDC concept, PDC planning. So, is there any reason why, as the planning commission and your predecessor, the interim uh manager Frank Schaefer, determined with parcels E and F and building F that the that the individual site plans could go through and and address any need for PEC or preliminary plan thereafter. Why can't this change in use be one of those that's reflected in a subsequent once we have even more information about what other impacts may be modification of storm water management perhaps maybe modification of square foot of uh uh street entrance or something like that. Why can't if they were if that's the way it's been interpreted before, why can that uh change in use not be reflected on a subsequent PEC concept preliminary plan amendment?

Again, the change in use on parcel B. Why is that qualitatively different? It's a change. It's a complete change in use from what was originally approved. But parcels parcels E and F were 145 town houses, correct? On on the preliminary plan, right? That didn't change.

Uh, building F is an office building. That didn't change. The use and the layout of parcels A and B, and the change from a hotel to an assisted living facility is starkly different than what happened on ENF or building. But what is kept what is so different about them that a change such as we're talking about with the Warfield PEC concept preliminary plans for lack of a better lumping them together cannot be done subsequently to a individual site review and and then incorporate it in that subsequent

Mhm. PEC concept and preliminary plan amendment process. So instead of having the two-step process, just have the one-step process.

Why? and still updating the preliminary plan. Once we know what other changes may be needed, if any to the PEC preliminary and concept plans, once we can dive into some of the technical reviews that are going to necessarily inform a subsequent revision of a PC concept or preliminary plan, why do they have to go separately? Why can't that be done? Because at no time has the planning commission weighed in on whether or not this change of use for parcel B and its subsequent impact to the rest of the Warfield development actually makes it a well planned well-designed wellthoughtout development as required by the purpose statement of the PEC district. None of the other changes that have happened on some of the other parcels included a significant change of use.

What about the finding that this board made and I believe the planning commission made on the conditional use application that this did satisfy the purpose of the PEC code the purpose code? No purpose section.

That's that's not what it did. So the this was a determination the conditional use is a determination of whether or not a use can then be folded in to what uh to the the PDC zone. The next step would be then how does that use actually uh filter in or mix with everything else that's being proposed there? How are they um uh collaborative? How are those uses uh supplemental to one another? The planning commission's never weighed in on that. Can we know what those impacts will be before we have a site plan to evaluate to determine what the size of the structure is or any of those other factors? What I'm saying is I don't see a distinction of any substance between a use at this point until we know more about what this use is going to do to the site. than we did when you we did in building F with its physical changes

or parcel ENF.

So, so for example, I'll just say because of what the uh approved preliminary plan shows, PDC preliminary plan shows, it shows a lot of office use, and I'm not saying that's ultimately what's going to be built out there, but that's what at least the approved plan shows. Parcel B shows a hotel that was evaluated as saying, "Oh, hey, this is an appropriate um uh collaborative use with the office space that's there." No, the planning commission has not had an opportunity to determine whether or not an assisted living facility is now appropriate for a collaborative use with everything else that's going to happen within Warfield because they haven't seen that approved use applied to the overall PEC preliminary plan. That's why we need to update it. We need to show here's where the here's where the uh uh thrive facility is going to go and how is it going to interact with all the other uses that have been proposed.

Didn't the planning commission find they did not do that? Let me ask one my question. Didn't they determine that the uh use proposed had less impact on the site than the hotel?

Less impact from traffic. Sure. To the to to the roads. Yes. How does that use interact with the other uses that are going to be built within the overall development? That was never evaluated. How how is how is an assisted living facility supplementary or uh give extra value to the other businesses and the other planned uses that were within that zone. That's the purpose of the PEC district is to have a cohesive, wellplanned, collaborative development. We don't know if we're individually just letting parcels develop oneoffs. We don't know how they're all going to interact together. That's the purpose of the PDC.

So, it's it's unknown at the present time. It's unknown how an assisted living facility is going to interact with other uses within the existing approved Warfield development. Um I I believe that I have a question. Could they come back and say it won't work? The planning commission potentially. Why were we given the go-ahad or recommended to approve the conditional use? I I'm I'm not

defending anything. I'm just now wondering what we did last April. If if if we're still back at ground zero, square zero, and now we have to go say, will this work? Well, wait a minute. Why did you even suggest it? If you weren't sure, I didn't know if we got the cart before the horse or not. That's No, no, no. So again, I think conditional uses are again the reason they're conditional is because before that use can be implemented into any plan, it has to be evaluated as to whether or not that particular use is going to have special conditions or special criteria that that use has to adhere to before it can even move forward with an overall plan. So in other words, we evaluated it without regard to the rest of Warfield.

Right? So now that it was determined that yes, you can incorporate that into the overall plan. Well, now the next step is to do that. So let's show how that use is then going to interact with the rest of the uses that are being proposed in the warfield and give the planning commission their opportunity to make a determination as to the appropriateness of the entire plan. Is that also not a dynamic condition that we haven't determined what all the rest of Warfield is going to be used for yet, have we? Well, we do. There's an existing approved PEC preliminary plan that shows us,

but like plan B changed other uh parcels may change. Is that still that's possibility? That's what we hope to find out through that through that process. Okay. Yes. to in the PEC zone. I guess there's a table of uses. I understand that. Yes.

Um but the delayed use percentages are these categorical use correctly. Correct. So if the um and you said that the change from a hotel to assisted living facility a change of use but it's still they still both within the same category of use that is would be within these percentages. Is that correct?

Yes. So if that is the case, why would the planning commission then be required to evaluate the impact upon the entire development if it's still within the same category of use? Sure. And if you don't mind, I'll flip to the the purpose section of the plan employment center zone, which specifically says to encourage orderly stage development in a comprehensively designed mixeduse center to create a mixture of office, retail, recreation, hotel, institutional, light industrial, and residential uses within a single structure or within multiple structures where all related structure uh structures, parking, open spaces are designed to function as a cohesive and integrated site. while protecting the residential character of surrounding neighborhoods to ensure compatible compatibility of proposed land uses within the internal and surrounding uses by incorporating innovative standards of land planning and site design. The purpose of the district is not just to say, well, you can do whatever you want as long as it fits within these categories. It adds another element that basically says you you have to make sure what you pick is coordinated and they're they're complimentary to one another. That's the idea behind the PEC.

Okay. Thank you. So, good question.

Mr. Coentini, in your March 3rd staff report 2025, you go through an analysis of the impacts uh the benefits frankly um and other impacts that the proposed conditional use could have including number one the number of people residing or working in the immediate area concerned Uh and you say this this can cause an increase in local real estate demand for new families wanting to move in the area and can have a positive effect on the demand for new local businesses including medical clinics and small retail to serve the additional population.

Excuse me.

What is the question Mr. Bowers? Are you saying that this was this recommendation's been made without considering the rest of Warfield? I I'll say this again. So, a conditional use is not a waiver of any other process. The conditional use sets whether or not the use itself can even be evaluated as part of the overall plan. You have to go through that process just to get permission to even look at it. Now that you've received that permission, now the planning commission has the requirement to then be able to evaluate how that use is going to be incorporated into the overall uh warfield plan. It's not a one-off. It wasn't just a one-off. It can't be just a one-off thing. PEC zone requires coordinated collaborative uses to be incorporated together.

So, what are the metrics used to measure that? That's all for the planning commission. That's the purpose of the planning commission. It's the that's that's the purpose of the PC zone, but the planning commission has to evaluate. But the I can't

but the planning commission saw what was proposed just like we're seeing it tonight. No, no real significant changes and and and they recommended the approval of it and found it to be consistent with a comprehensive plan too. I don't I I don't What is the metric? I mean, I'm trying to find out just what's going on. I I'll say it again with what you're trying to get at. I mean, I'll say it again. The conditional use approval only determines whether the use is going to be allowed within the district.

So, it subjects it a the PEC plan determines how all of those uses then work together. That's the purpose of the PEC zone and the planning commission is the one that makes the determination as to whether or not those uses are being incorporated appropriately. All right. So substantive as used in um 14 uh 180-1 144 uh doesn't necessarily say substantive site development reasons or substantive use. It just says substantive. Correct. It does.

Yeah. Um, and is substantive defined anywhere? It's not, but the only thing that section does is combine a concept and preliminary approval. That's the only thing it does. The overall PEC preliminary plan would still have to be updated and approved by the planning commission before a site development plan could move forward. I think we need to to move along here and and wrap this up. Uh in terms of the case, are there any other I have no further uh questions from Mr. Kosanti. Is there any other testimony that is

um let me let me check with my witnesses.

Mr. So you have written test

Mr. May we may we clean up his notes to reflect what he actually said and then submit it sure afterwards. Great. May I ask your indulgence for a uh quick break so I can use a mantrum? Um yeah, maybe very quickly because I think we're we're going to wrap this up. Okay, I understand. Okay, very quickly. Well, thank you. All right, we'll be in recess for five minutes.

Okay. Hearing is back in session. Uh at this point in time, if there's no further testimony to be put into the record, I want to make a motion that we continue this at a future date, which we will try to determine tonight, at which time I believe we will be going into close session. Right. And be before we render a decision. That's correct. That's correct. and we'll come out of close session go back into a public session to render a decision.

I think didn't u the applicant has a chance to do like a closing statement. I thought we'd been through that. I'm sorry. Okay. I'm afraid not. All right then. That's Please, sir. Yes.

Do we do it now or at the beginning of the next hearing? Well, may I chair? I think what we'd like to do, I think what the board would like to do tonight is to um conclude testimony this evening. And that's not to say that the case would be closed. very specifically will not be closed because we would like to we will the board will be requesting the applicant and the town to be submitting memoranda as we did for the variances. So there will be an opportunity through that and that I don't know if that changes your determination to how you want to proceed this evening but we do want to conclude all the testimony this evening. We do not want to come back and have any additional testimony but again the case will not be closed.

All right. So if if that one other concern just pragmatically speaking is um we'd like some resolution of this as soon as possible. What is the memoranda process you're considering in the rescheduling look like we can do in terms of time? I would say look this is really in a sense up to you and Miss Leanne because I think it's a question if you want to have an expedited schedule of submitting the memoranda that's fine. Um we're not trying to delay this under it. You know I I think I I think I speak for the board. Oh yes, I'm

happy to see this thing get resolved. Um, but timing issue is really a determination for you. I mean, I would ordinarily suggest 10 days for you to submit, but if you can do it in 5 days, that's fine. And and I would say that um and how I mean, Miss Lean, you know, do you have any particular problem with an expedited um briefing schedule call? I have no problem with it. But I am in the middle of um preparing a memorandum of law that has to be filed in court on Friday. So it would be I would ask for time that you know reasonable time next week

to to do that. I understand that. Um so I'll let you suggest what what time you would like to have here. I think we can move on. Are they submitted concurrently or are they going to be Yeah. If we are submitting concurrently then to try to expedite this ordinarily you would submit as Le would submit a response you would have a rebuttal as you did with the variance memorandum but I mean I leave it to you all to determine how you want to to deal with this I frankly I think on behalf of the board I don't think there's you know it makes much of a difference to the board as long as you get your issues

your address on the got to be dealing with the same issues, right? If the if the memoranda are essentially closing argument based on what was said tonight and new issues are not going to be raised, I don't have an objection to it. That's I think that's fair. Yeah, I think that that was but certainly I think it's important to understand that the memorandum should not include any issues not raised this evening but they should be limited to the issues that were raised during testimony of your case and and the um testimony by the Could you could you repeat that?

Yes. That the that there should be no other that the memorandum should not address any issues other than those raised. No new issues. Correct. In other words. Okay. Correct. Okay. I mean, I'll ask the board. Is that is that your understanding? Is that what you If it's okay with councils. Yes. All three councils are excuse me.

You're good with that, too? Yeah. All right. Got your calendar pulled up. Yeah. Let's get them out. Yeah.

Well, we pick a date and then make a motion. We'll see you back here next Wednesday. if we're submitting concurrently. All right. So, it would be helpful. Yeah. To determine when a resumption date would be scheduled, but let me let me throw So, neither of us is short changing.

Let let me throw a little monkey right into that a little bit. that is that um the board would like to meet again very shortly, maybe next week if possible, so that it can meet in close session and make a determination on the variance issue so that you can then determine whether you are going to move forward with the O2 case or not depending upon the outcome of that case. And so I mean I I we do not want to delay this any longer and I think we have all the memorandum or have been submitted on the variance on the varian cases. That's right.

I'd like to make a determination on that. So you can then make a determination to whether or not you're going to move forward on the O2 case. Can we do the that and this? Yeah, I was going to say I don't if if you can that may be too soon for the for this case to be determined by that. Let me see. Maybe we can go to the following, but I think we need more time. Okay, we're not more time to to really digest the memoranda. These are complicated issues. I understand I understand what you're saying. I I appreciate your your trying to work to get this all done,

right? Um, when arguably would a hearing or a new hearing date on the O2 be scheduled? And when would a hearing resumption on this deliberation be scheduled?

Well, this is a continuation and the 03 is a continuation and the notification public notification requirements for an O2 hearing. Now, that's a new hearing. That's right. O2 would be a new hearing if if we proceed with that sometime after. We have notification requirements that would take place or it may not upon the outcome of the variance but these are continuations. So this what not I don't know what how much notification do we need on these obviously we have to post an agenda and do all those that's just a normal uh you know 72 hours in advance

for the continuation of O2 continuation but 04 we're doing that's a new case right that's what I'm saying that one would have to go through the same legal advertising process but right now We're talking about continuing 04 and and 03. We can pick whatever. We don't have long notification requirements for those. We got to get an agenda post. All right. Next week. We're going to be back here next week. I have I have an idea. Okay. What we'd like to propose and hopefully it won't blow up in all our faces. Um

no no storms. Not a chance. Um, next Wednesday we could reconvene for a determination on the variance. The 11th. Is that the Is that the Yes, it is the 11th. Yep. On the 13th, Miss Leanne, we can file the memos on this case. Is this case in this case? Friday. Can we What's the 11th? Can we Can we go to Monday the 16th? Okay. I mean, well, that's President's Day. Does that bother you?

It never has before. Um I don't see how it would um I'll wear a stove pipe if you want, a hat if you want. Um, and could we do the resumption of O2 if we're going to resume O2 on February 25th? It's not a resumption. Let's be clear that that would require when you're saying that would require new advertising and all that. So, it may be a little more. It may there may be a lengthier whatever the verbiage correct verbage. Okay. Real quickly, I think if I can real quickly,

next week you meet and you on Wednesday the 11th and you determine the variance. You're going I don't know the numbers. I'm just going to say the variance. Okay. Yes. And then Monday the 16th, the memos are due on this appeal for thrive for 04 both for both parties. For both parties, it's due on the 16th, right? And then on Wednesday the 25th, we reconvene. Okay. How about the 26th? You have a meeting. What happened to 04? That's what I'm saying.

I'm trying to set up the reconvening this hearing. The memos would have been in on the 16th, you know, a week or so after that. Maybe the 24th is the 24th. Do you have a meeting? That's a Tuesday. That's a Tuesday. Um the 4th would be the week one week from the 25th would be good for me. That's not good for me. 25th would be okay. But the 25th's not good for the There's another town meeting. Yeah. If you go into the next week, the 4th would be Well, I I could make the I'll I'll have to do some shifting around, but I'll make the 24th work then. Be awesome. Thank you. All right. And the 24th would be the resumption of the Thrive parcel B hearing 04,

right? No. 04. Okay. And then we'll deal with O2 after we get to variance. Well, on so right on the next Wednesday night the 11th there will be a determination made on the variance case. We will go into close session to discuss it come out of close session. The board will take a vote on that's the um 04 case and sorry 03 the variance variance is 03 right um the uh memoranda on the 04 case will be submitted by the will be on the 16th of February they'll be submitted by or received by well rece submit they'll be

they'll be given to to the board by then because we're going to put this in a motion here Right. And then um I guess at that point we have to determine a then the next date we talked about the 24th would be the night at which the board would go into close session to discuss the '04 case. That'll be the continuation of vote for correct and then come out of close session presumably take a vote that evening on 24th and then the O2 case we'll leave in bayance for a moment. We'll figure that out. Not really, but I mean All right. Well, let me make a motion and listen carefully, Mr. Chairman. Real quick, sorry.

Yes, sir. 6:00. Okay. For For which one? All of them. I'm sorry. Can I selfishly request earlier for the 11th? If not, it's totally fine. But yeah, I can't make it any earlier on the 11th. Are you is earlier meaning the 6:00 or 7? No, he's saying earlier than six again just selfishly if it was possible but if coming out of the dentist appointment on the 11th so I'd rather keep it at so I'm not talking like this you know it might still be like that pain could be really problem.

All right let me make a motion then. All right. I move that we continue this session uh this case uh 202504 on February the 24th at 6 p.m. that we meet to conclude, if possible, the varianc's case, case number 2025-03 on February the 11th at 6:00 p.m. and that all the memoranda for case 2025-04 be submitted and filed by February the 16th.

Okay. Any seconds? Second. Second. All in favor? All right. That's passed. Move to get that car. All right. Thank you very much. All right, gentlemen. Then with without any further ado, I will adjourn this meeting. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Gentlemen, please do