Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

This is the town of Mount Planning Commission. Our first item tonight is a required public hearing and public comments on the town's designation of water and sewer allocation categories within the town. The reference for this is 109- 19.4. And as a bit of background, the town per the code and with a great deal of work from the town engineer and the town staff in total has to every two years do a number of things that are called out in the code to define priority areas, available water capacity yield, available sewer capacity. And then once those two things are done, then again we have the last thing to do and that is where do we want to allocate that available yield whether it's water or sewer capacity. And so where we are tonight in this journey that I've just outlined is we're at a point of designating how much of the available water yield and sewer yield goes into the 13 categories that are called out in the code reference I mentioned at the outset. One of those code uh one of those categories the number one category is the priority area. The priority area is in simple terms where the planning commission recommends to the council, to the mayor, to the town staff that we should focus future growth over the next two years, 2026 and 2027. As I mentioned, we've already done that. We did that at the last planning commission meeting and we designated the priority area to be approximately the

downtown zone plus an extension of Center Street going east toward 27. And I'm sure the commissioners recall that that was a unanimous vote to have that area designated. that area for historical perspectives is has been the priority that we have set and I won't go into the rationale other than to simply put that aim of that priority area is to keep the downtown zone vital revitalized growing a bit of a logic that it's the heartbeat of the town. So let's think of it in terms of being a priority area. So, we're past that designation and now we're into the town engineer doing calculations for available water capacity yield which if I recall is 19,272 gallons per day and there's also a large number for the available sewer yield of our need. And so tonight uh we're going to talk about and allow the public to talk to us about how that allocation of that um 19,272 flows across those 13 categories. Right.

Yes.

So uh may I first see a show of hands of those who want to comment on that allocation? I see one others two. Very good. And I'm not restricting it to these gentlemen. Certainly after they're done, I'll ask again if anyone wants to come up and make a comment. Um because we have to uh I'm going to set the timeline uh the time limit, excuse me, for each comment to three minutes. We'll keep a a timer up here. If I remember to turn it on, it'll designate three minutes. We'll ask that you kindly come up to the microphone that's on your left up here and I believe it's currently on.

Yes. Okay. And um the only last rule I have is just uh give us your name clearly so we can record it here as part of our required public hearing. And I do not need your address, street, and number. Just please tell me if you're a town resident or not a town resident. just simply that that binary in the town or out of the town after you give us your name. Um and so I'll ask for either of these two gentlemen if you want to be the vanguard of comments come forward again name and or not.

Right. Good evening. I'm Steven Deoter. I live in the town of Mount Ary. Um so uh regarding water capacity yield and water allocation, the department of environment states that having an adequate water supply to meet the existing and future water demand in a community is vital for the protection of public health. So in January and February, the council took two votes on two resolutions on water capacity yield. The one in January set a yield of 6 63,815 gallons per day. That was found to be an error. It was an inaccurate number. So the town then um had an amended resolution in February and arrived at the 19,272 number. In both occasions, I brought up comments that um the town did not follow its own code. it did not post the methodology to the town's website. So, I had a problem verifying those numbers. Additionally, the water and sewer commission uses a different methodology than the town. So, that that's an issue. So, I tried to rectify this. I went through a thought process um following my guiding principle of applying lessons learned and fostering continuous improvement in government. And with no clarity or guidance available locally on this issue, I did my own research that led me to going to the Maryland Department of Environment and I had some conversations and email exchanges with a series of questions and they replied in writing and I have those recommendations and requirements in writing. So I want to hit my key comments here. First one is regarding use of point of entry versus a wellflow volume which is the issue at

hand. MDE states that using point of entry flow data underestimates the actual water withdrawals and would make the system appear to be using less of its permit than it actually is. Since water appropriation permits are based on withdrawals at the source, using POE data is not an appropriated substitute. So they're saying that's an inappropriate method. So that takes your water capacity yield from 19,272. That takes it down to only 9,668. So the first thing I recommend is we need an amended resolution to take to the town council and get that established before you allocate any water. Okay. I'm running out of time, but I have some very salient comments here. Um my next issue is I I do I have them and I'd like them for the record. Let me make a final comment. I have many, but I'm recommended that you allocate no water during during this round. You only have a small amount of water to allocate. It represents 1% of our current water supply. And for many, many reasons, I recommend you allocate no water in 2026. I have detailed comments and some graphics. I have the record of MDE replies and I'd like that to be made part of the formal record. So I'll provide that to you.

If if you could provide them to John

I'm Dick Swanson. I'm the chair of the water and sewer commission and I just want to say that uh I concur with uh council member Demoter in his statement because MDE has come back in writing and told us that our current method overstates the amount of water that's available and so there should be a uh look into revising that. So instead of using point of entry, you would use the well production numbers. Thank you very much. Are there any further public comments with regard to the water category allocation? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing portion of this evening's agenda on the water allocation categories. And we're going to move right into the planning commission meeting. Uh I am now calling to order the monthly planning commission meeting of the town of Maneri on March 30th. We'll begin with the pledge of allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And as I always try to do, I want to thank the people who are here tonight who take time out of their um out of their evening to to join uh in this civic discussion of events within the town and also for those that are tuning in uh on the live stream. Our next order of business will be the approval of the minutes from February 23rd, our prior month's planning commission meeting. Each commissioner

has been provided a copy of those minutes. I'll pause for you to take a look at those and to refresh any notes you may have. And I'll take a motion whether to accept or uh not accept the minutes from February 23rd planning commission meeting. Commissioner B to accept. The motion's made to accept the minutes from February 23rd. Is there a second? I'll second.

A second is made. Is there any discussion, edits, or amendments to the minutes before you? Commissioner Beta. My last name is spelled B I E Da, not B E Da. That's it. here. What page is that on, Brian? Uh, that's page two. Two. Okay,

Deborah, have you got that? Yes, I see it. Right about right about in the middle. Right above Adamstown, right? Okay. Thank you. Any further discussion, edits or amendments on the Commissioner Buts? Would I ask that you amend your motion to accept the minutes with the change made by Commissioner Vita? Absolutely. The motion's been made to accept the minutes with the change on page two for the correct spelling of Brian Bea. Do I have a second on that revised motion?

I'll second. The motion's been seconded for the revision. And any further discussion hearing? None. All those in favor of the motion say I. I. I. Abstain. Those opposed. Those abstain. Yes. And correct me if I'm wrong, Commissioner Back, you were absent. That's why you're That's correct. Abstaining. Yes. Okay, Deborah. We're good.

Fantastic. Thank you. Our next order of business is citizen comments. As I mentioned me mentioned at the outset of tonight, um I'll again ask for a show of hands. The microphone is on your upper left as we did during the public hearing. Um I will ask again that you give us your name and whether you are or are not a citizen of the town. May I see a show of hands of those? I see one. Any others that wish to make citizen comments? Mayor, microphone's yours.

Good evening. Uh, Larry Husher, the mayor. So, um, what I wanted to talk about was ordinance 2026-2. Um, first of all, I want to say it's a very well-crafted uh, document, which is what I would expect on it. It's uh most of these uh documents are done very thoroughly. So I appreciate council member Demoter and the town attorney for working on it. Uh there's three governing documents in a town. You have the charter, you have the code, and then the one that nobody really knows about is a policy book. So this policy book has everything on things like annexations, property acquisition, things like that. So uh that's what's in there. As I was going through the uh ordinance, what I saw was uh the impacts to the PC to the planning commission and it really breaks down to uh E in the uh document that says the planning commission shall review the detailed staff report and then it goes on and explains a little bit more. The majority of this deals with the staff and the reporting. And to kind of give it a broad brush, it calls for better posting prior to any reasonzonings. It calls for better documentation, which is important in case we get PAS, that sort of thing. Uh calls for a better staff reports and better criteria, better recordkeeping. And then it also seems to have a focus on neighboring properties. Not that matter with any of that. That's that's all just fine. So last month it was brought up that this had come up to the executive branch and that we had talked about creating a policy. Well, the policy is created. We have created one. I'm not showing you this to say that you shouldn't approve

the ordinance as far as a recommendation goes. What I'm showing you is that if if everything goes south on the ordinance, we will have a policy that incorporates what is in the ordinance. Not saying it shouldn't be in the code. I'm just saying that the ideas in here are really good and I have them in a policy. So even if this goes in the code book, we're still going to have the policy reflecting most of it. So make your decisions based on your personal feelings. If you make a recommendation for it to be approved, that's great. If you don't, that's fine, too. And uh the council will vote on it. If it ends up in the code, then we'll already be one step ahead because we'll have a policy. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. U Mayor, is there a way to peruse the procedure manual? Yeah. Is it? If you want to come in and take a look at it, that's fine. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. And I'm going to bring up some similar questions when we get to that. Okay. That topic, but no, it's a very good question. It's um I didn't I didn't know that existed until just right now. Yeah. No, it's uh it's top of mind here also. So, we'll get to that. Um Okay.

I believe it's the last item on tonight's agenda if I'm not mistaken. So, um so, thank you. Any others wishing to make any citizen comment? Now's the time. Seeing no further interest, I'm going to close the citizen comments section of tonight's agenda and move to our uh Frederick and Carol County planners or liaison's reports to uh to this body. And as I mentioned before, um these volunteers up here depend a great deal of course on the town staff for counsel and advisement, the town attorney. In that same level of uh partnership, we have our liaison in the Carroll County and the Frederick County. And I'm very sincere about that partnership because they give us a lot of awareness of things happening around this multi-county town that we that we occupy and love. Um and so, uh tonight I have the great privilege of introducing our new Carol County liaison, Miss Tiffany Faucet. Tiffany, if you'll come forward and if uh you'll allow me. Um I'm going to extol your credentials a bit. Um Tiffany is She looked at me like careful. Um Tiffany is one of the uh several comprehensive planners that uh work for Carroll County. And Carol County's organization is um their equivalent of this planning commission at our municipal level. At the county level, it's uh the planning and land management. And then underneath that is the comprehensive planning division. And within that division, uh Tiffany uh is a comprehensive planner. Um she's got a lot of um focus on not only Mount Ary, but uh Freedom I believe, and also Finburg, Sykesville, I think. Also,

Sykesville a little bit. A little bit. Gonna be going to be getting some more insights on that one. Yeah. So, so she has a a real challenging uh portfolio of municipalities that uh she liazes with and helps from the county perspective. Um she was also um a key person in the uh pedestrian and biking um plan I believe study study

the study. Uh so she has that kind of recreational background also which of course if if you've been in this town we really really value our parks are recreational our our trails and those sorts of things. Um and so she's also uh got expertise in being a planner for uh housing and sustainable communities if if I if I look at your portfolio. So certainly that's enough for me, but welcome and joining us tonight. Um, anything that we should know about the high level activities at the county government?

Absolutely. Um, maybe more than I'll bring today, but I would be happy to bring you more information if you let me know what you're interested in in the future. I'd also like to bring you pretty much everywhere I go to just introduce me because that was

that was fabulous. Thank you so much, chairman, and good evening, everyone. Um at the county level, we do have a few things going on uh across the county. One is that we do have um some vacancies in the comp planning department that have now been filled a couple of them which is allowing me to now come here instead of John gratefully giving the reports every month for us. So I appreciate the opportunity to be here. Um, we're also compiling the annual report as you know and I want to say thank you for approving that information and signing off on the certification letter last month and getting that to us. We should have a draft of that report. So, it's the entire county including eight municipalities available for review in May. I I'll send it through the through the town to and um that can be shared with you. We are as you know also working through the master plan. We're reviewing workg groupoup recommendations. There were three workg groups that we went through last year. um met for several months to get recommendations and some of those recommendations are specific to some of the towns. So, we probably will be introducing some of that information before um before it well definitely before it gets approved, but before it might even um be seen on a broader on a broader scale just to get some insight on what you would like to see in that area. So, that should be coming soon. Um we've had a a real bump in the increase of the number of plans that have been submitted recently. We had eight coming through technical review last month. Sometimes we have one to three. So that's the scale of that. But five of those were solar plans as well coming across the county. Those are just um an influx now that it's a state regulation to allow them um anywhere. They we now have that available in a on a land and so they're just an influx of those. However, also at the c at the a little closer to home here, there is one development that did come through um technical review committee uh last month, last month, last week actually

for um a property off of of um it's Bratannia Estates. It's right off of Watersville Road between Shady Side and Hampton. It's a four lot subdivision just outside the town's growth area um to the uh northeast. And then um the priority letter was signed on the 19th by the commissioners and that did include it was a little different this month or this year. It was changed and broken down. Yes, it's in order of number like the road number. Um but there is also a list of priorities in um the front of the letter that are broken down by by um project type and those types were the um sorry about that. The types were construction, engineering, design, concept engineering, and planning studies. And the that did include the breakout project for the pedestrian tunnel underpass connecting Watkins Park to the east side of 27 under the it was number two under engineering design um water sewer. We um have not heard back from MDE about the fall amendments yet. Uh still waiting to hear the hear back on those. and we have received an extension. So, the trial update, if I don't know if you're aware yet, will not happen this year. We have an extension and that will not occur until next year. Hopefully, now that we have more planners, we'll be able to to meet that um expectation. And then um looking just looking ahead um planning and land management is working with a consultant to evaluate the um the how the amount the adopted plans and the our zoning code and site development regulations match up. And so we might have some zoning code uh recommend change recommendations coming in from those and making changes throughout the county based on those um recommendations in the future. There's some things coming up as well as we have

the ADU regulations. Um the legislation that was in effect last year allowing ADUs, accessory dwelling units on any uh piece of land that has a single family dwelling on it. And so we'll be looking at that uh those regulations over these next several months as well. And that's everything I have if you have any questions.

Fantastic. Any questions from the commissioners to Miss Faucet? Um just to touch again on the uh priority of transportation projects and so um the widening of 27 which was in the previous priority list is still going to be there. Um so I'm just asking for um have I got it right? So it's still going to be there but we're adding now a design element of the tunnel to that project. Is that is that accurate? Two separate from what I understand. Um, but I can look at the letter uh real quickly and if you want um Frederick to go ahead and go and I can give you the update right after if you would like. Um, or could what? Um, that's okay. I'll tell you what, we'll just focus on it next time. Okay.

We'll focus on it next time as to that element. Um, because that's I think everybody's kind of keen on that aspect of 27. So, it's a great thing that you mentioned. Um and uh yeah, just tell us if it's a separate project. The tunnel's separate from the road. Um it is separate. I do know that they are separate projects. This is a breakout project specifically for the tunnel. Gotcha. Yeah. And that was listed um as number two under the engineering concepts. Gotcha.

Okay. And my only other comment is I believe and John correct me if I'm wrong. Uh this commission and the town staff are kind of looking to what the county does with regard to the ADU legislation and the code modifications that you do at the county level to kind of inform then whether we want to take on any of our own code changes respective of a sexy dwelling units. And so uh we'll certainly be watching what you develop as far as code amendments for ADUs. Okay. it'll flow down to here. So, the only thing I would add is um there's also a moratorum on um data centers, right? Correct.

Is there any other moratoriums they're putting on like hold until there's they discuss the different in the freedom area? There's four. There's the um planned commercial centers uh the ones for the self storage. However, the ISL storage has expired and they're going to ex um try to extend that uh for another say nine months. Um but don't quote me on that one, but extend it for several months. And then the um retirement communities and the clustered subdivisions. Thank you. Gota Thank you very much, Tiffany. And again, welcome. Thank you so much. Our Frederick County uh planner and liaison is Miss Vanessa Moreno. Uh Vanessa, how are you tonight?

Good, thank you. Great. What's going on in Frederick County of interest to us?

Alrighty. It's nice to see you all tonight. Um, at last month's planning commission, I reported that Frederick County received um, multiple reasonzoning requests from PTOIC Edison for six um, existing substations as part of the county's IW2 process. And I did mention that two of the substations are located in the Mount Area New Market areas. For some background, many of the substations have been around for decades with the most recent one constructed in 2013, and these six properties are currently zoned agricultural and have been operating as non-conforming uses. So, the applicant is um seeking to reszone them from GI general industrial to or I'm sorry, seeking to reszone them from agricultural to general industrial. Um, and so Frederick County recently held a planning commission meeting on April, I'm sorry, March 18th, and PTOIC Edison and their legal legal representatives were in attendance. They stated that the main reason for pursuing these resonings is so that their electrical infrastructure can continue to get the improvements and upgrades it needs to continue to supply um electricity to all the new development we're seeing in the county. As well as um converting these parcels from non-conforming to conforming. They also stated that these resonings have nothing to do with the MPP transmission line project as well as as well as data centers, but they did say explicitly that they have plans to expand the do station, but there are currently no other plans for development, but um there is still some concern that there might be um additional parcels that may be expanded. So, at our last planning commission meeting, no what decision was made. It was more of a public hearing um on for the IW2 plan we have in progress, but we do expect the planning commission to make a recommendation to um our county council on April 15th.

And then aside from that, there were no major site plans submissions or major development projects in the mount area or new market areas for this month. Fantastic. And are there any questions to Miss Mareno from the commission? Uh, John, I'm going to tip to you with regard to the reszoning of those PTOIC Edison plats. Uh, I believe you can report that the town did provide input. Did provide a letter in opposition to that? And I'm not sure if it is that the Dobs property that you talked to talked about. Didn't you say DOS? I thought Yes, they explicitly did say that DOS is going to be expanded, which is the one we wrote a letter against. Correct. I believe so. Yes.

Yes. I wasn't sure exactly. Right. But yeah, the town did submit a letter to Frederick County in opposition. Gotcha. So, uh, April 15th, you're expecting a decision at that next meeting. Yes. Correct. Okay. And they'll have our input, of course, to consider. Yes, we did send um Mount Ary's public comment letter directly to the planning commission. So, they have it. It's in it's in the record. them and and because the town of New Market is in the county and is in that same general area, um I believe and correct me if I'm wrong that the town of New Market also registered a against the res.

Correct. They're also in their also in the process of updating their comprehensive plan. So I think that's something they want to address as a municipality, which is understandable. Okay. So, we're in alignment with New Market is is kind of the short and sweet of it, right? Against those reszonings. I I feel I do want to double check on the Dobs property just a little bit before I confirm and say yes. I mean, that's the one you Mount Ary wrote against for. So, I just want to double check that. Pretty sure that's the correct one. Okay. And that's right on our border, correct? That's right against uh Windy Ridge. Yep.

Yep. Yep. Okay. Any other questions? One more. Y just for clar clarification on April 15th is that the the council voting on it or is that a recommendation expected to the council? Right. So that will that that will be our planning commission meeting our second planning commission meeting for the month where they will be giving a recommendation to our county council. That's not the council vote. I just want to clarify that. Thank you. Sure. Great.

Thank you very much, Vanessa. We'll move on to the next agenda item which is the introduction and recommendation of the 2024 draft red line water resource element 2024. And to help us through tonight's discussion on this agenda item, we have Miss Brenda D. Denny

Denny, my apologies. And um this isn't uh Brenda's first time uh making us uh smart on this document. Um, I believe if I'm not mistaken, September 29th, uh, you came here last year and introduced the beginnings of what the would say overall with a specific focus on our municipality within the um, and uh, Barney, I believe also you were engaged in that because a lot of that of course water resource element deals deals with our water system. Um and lastly, the for those that are new to this particular topic, it's a part of the comprehensive master plan development.

That's correct. It's an element of the plan.

Correct. And so it's a very key part. Uh I don't need to overemphasize the importance of managing water within the county. Uh we we certainly know it's important to manage within our municipality. Um, so, uh, I'll tip to either, uh, you Brenda or to John, but my last comment is we're here to look at now what has been adjusted on the draft from the 60-day review. Uh, by law, the had to go through the municipalities to begin with, which I just described was toward the end of last year. uh we coordinated with not only the town engineer on the water elements within our town's section but we also uh coordinated with the water and sewer commission for their expertise because they're much more keen on all those topics than the planning commission. Uh the reason this is a planning commission agenda item is because we're also responsible for comprehensive planning and as I've already mentioned the is a part of a comprehensive plan at the county level. So tag you're it it comes to the planning commission but I say that only in that we definitely partner with all the people who are uh really smart on this topic and I hope we've done that thoroughly. Uh so the red lines have been made from the comments you got from the state and any county that wanted to weigh in and I understand from your report only Frederick County weighed in on comments or red lines. Is that accurate?

Yes. and I have it in my presentation and I'm gonna stop and let you go with the presentation presentation. Well, you go for it. Thank you, Brenda.

But I do want to reiterate what you were saying that this has been a cooperative effort all along. The state um law does require that every jurisdiction have a water resources element as one of the elements in your comprehensive plan. And so this coop this has been a cooperative collaborative effort for the entire time we've been working on it. and it's been a while um with the county and all municipalities. So this we have one document but this one document is everybody's documented. So you know so the exclusive of the other municipal systems this whole document is yours because it provides all the background that the state requires to be in the plan in addition to what you have in your section. So and with each municipality um we all worked very closely. We walked through the water resource coordination council as our sort of coordination um medium but then also very closely with all the municipal staff for each town in order to develop what's in here. So it didn't just come from me. Uh so I'll just recap where we where we've been in the process real quick. So, as uh Chairman Gent was saying, we sent the plan out for 60-day review uh from November 12th and which ended roughly around January 15th. And that 60-day review is a state required review period where the state agencies have 60 days to review and provide comment on the drafts. That also includes neighboring jurisdictions. So all the counties surrounding Carol County also got copies. Um so then at the same time we had a concurrent public review. So it was available for the public to also review and make comment. The uh record closed for public comments on February 23rd which was the very last public hearing

that was held. And then all the public all the planning commissions um all nine held public hearings between January 15th and February 23rd. And then so the public comment record closed for all public hearings on February 23rd as well. So then subsequently I took all the comments and we put together the comment packet which is what you've received. The comment packet includes the comments that we actually received from the state agencies as well as the only other comments we received which were from Frederick County. We received no public comments at all as a result of public hearings or as a result of the public open public comment period. So the packet also includes the staff recommendations and the redline pages of the plan that reflect what those recommendations from the staff would look like if they were made in the plan. So just there weren't really any substantive comments from the state agencies. Uh so most of it was clarifications or just additional supporting information. uh the bulk of it was to add um relevant information on the relevant planning principles. I don't know if you are familiar but um probably are the state the planning visions were changed to the planning principles and there are eight of them now and they're worded a little differently. So we just added a section that you know talks about the relevant planning principles and how it works with this plan. Um they asked us to add more information related to equity. That was one of the equity and climate change were the two things that the state guidance added from the 2010 um what was required to be included in that plan. So we just added some information about equity. Added a map that shows where um overburdened and underserved communities would be based

on the state's information on their online tool. There were some numbers that needed clarification. So, we did that. Uh, referenced uh the climate vulnerability tool again under the climate change stuff that they wanted us to add. That's a state tool that's available online. We just referenced it as something that was available. And then there were a few uh suggested action items that they want they would uh recommended be included in the countywide strategy section, which that section applies to all the all all nine jurisdictions. So none of them were anything that controversial or substantive. So we also recommended just going ahead and adding those. And so those are all reflected in the red line um pages that you see. The other comments received were from Frederick County. really the substantive comment, if you want to call it substantive, um was to remove um the option in the mount area section to connect to the Frederick County water system. Um so in coordinating with the town staff, um the recommendation then became to just retain that action item just to show MDE that it is an option as a future water source. any of the future water sources have a lot of things that would need to happen in order for them to move forward. And as with all the others like this one, of course, we couldn't move forward without Frederick County concurrence, but at least it shows that it could be an option if at some point in the future Frederick County was amenable to that or if they had the infrastructure in place. If they don't, it's not going to happen. So, I mean, nothing's in this plan is holding anybody speak to the fire that they have to do something. So um then ultimately there weren't any revisions. There's there shouldn't be any red line pages from the in the millinary section then.

So the request tonight then is if you are in agreement um and amenable to the staff recommendations. Then the request is for the planning commission to approve the plan element reflecting the staff recommendations. That would be approving the entire like I said the entire document excluding the other individual municipal system sections that are in the overview of municipal systems and um and then would be reflecting also the recommendations that were made. So then if you approved it or once you approve it then um chairman Gent would sign the planning commission approval resolution and um then the plan would be forwarded to the council with a recommendation for adoption. Council would also have to hold a public hearing, which is a change in state law from the last time that we did the 2010 plan. So, yes, the plan, the town council will be required to hold a public hearing before they can adopt or modify the plan.

Fantastic. So, this is basically um what I just said. and and then the um council after they hold the public hearing, if they adopt the plan, they would also sign a resolution that adopts the plan and and then it would be done. Now I'm done. Um before I turn to the commissioners for any questions, um Barney, anything you wish to add with regard to the red lines? Again, uh to reiterate, um Mr. said there was no specific red line other than that Frederick County thing uh which wasn't accepted about interconnectivity with their county water system and ours. So, we're going to leave it in there. Um

which means there aren't any red line in which means there is no change. Yes. Yes. Um and I would agree to that. You would agree? I would have agreed to leaving it in there saying with car with Frederick County concurrents got we should show it as an option for future things can change and might be a future option that we might want to pursue and Frederick County might allow and you know fair enough fair enough. Um any other items of note Barney? Okay. Uh commissioners any questions to to Brenda with regard to where we are in the red line document? Commissioner Walls, why are we leaving that in there if it's not a viable option?

We Well, it's not necessarily that it's not a viable option. It's just that Frederick County is doesn't really concur with it as an as a recommendation at this time. And I think the thought was to leave it in because it could be something that could be an option in the future if um you know something changes at Frederick County or if other things that are options become not options and it becomes more of a need. Um, so it's really we're just trying to show the state that there are options, but with all options, there are obstacles and things that would need to be done in order to make it actually happen. And that's that would be one of them is getting past concurrence from Bridge County.

Are those caveats in there that there are obstacles to implementing those options? I don't know if they're in your section, but I think it's discussed uh earlier in the like in in one of the general sections. I think for the sake of completeness, it would be good to have along with the options what the challenges are with implementing each one because it could give people the false sense of hope or, you know, security that those are real options when they, you know, if Frederick is outright not concurring with it, we should probably at least acknowledge that in the plan.

Any other comments or questions? Um I believe what we have on the wastewater side in the is a um is a capacity uh and this is according to a handout you provided earlier um 10,781 gallons per day into the wastewater treatment plant and um I believe in the previous information I'm just making a statement here not a question. In the previous information regarding that, that was calculated to roughly 43 dwelling units as far as the capacity of that 10,781 gallons. Um, and so I only mention that if that's still accurate, that it does kind of give you a perspective on how much growth we can sustain the current wastewater treatment plant and still maintain our 12% buffer. Correct. Gotcha. Okay. So, it's not a lot. I mean, it's it's it's not a big community when we're talking about those 43. Now, we already have accounted for that 10,000 Barney in our pipeline of projected and potential growth within the town. Correct.

Correct.

Right. So, so again, I'm just given a perspective here that um it it is at least for this commissioner, it's it's a it's kind of a wakeup point as to the capacity of our remaining sizing of effluent into our wastewater treatment plant. 43 dwelling units, you know, uh it's sobering. Um my only other comment uh Brenda would be if we could turn to page 110 in the red line where you've added a red line table under 19.2 2. It is the 2023 buildout demand for municipal systems by watershed and it shows in that watershed for the south branch of the Patapsco. And so we're talking effluent here. We're talking wastewater. Um and as folks in here know, we discharge our treated effluent into the south branch of the Papsco um kind of over behind the community of Nottingham and and so forth. Um, and so we're under that South Branch Papsco with Freedom. Um, and that's Carol County government portion of Freedom. And we have a number there 338215 or 3,388,215 gallons per day. And so, um, and again, I always try to avoid being portrayed as a gotcha guy. Um, but if we go two pages past that table into page 106, if we flip two pages over to a table that is not a red line, but it's future wastewater demand by land use and we look at I I hope I'm not going too fast here. Um, it's it's the table that is just above bold letters 19.0 know current capacity

if you're following along with me. And so if we look now at the Mount Airy total buildout demand, it's 1,119219 and then three above it is the freedom portion 2268966. And so we should add those two to get that number in that red line chart. We're slightly off is all I'm saying here. And so the summation of those two on that page should be 3388185. And the table shows 3388215. Isn't that small? I'm sorry to even mention it, but I know you want the numbers to be accurate and consistent.

Yes, I do. Okay. So, uh, if we have a motion tonight on accepting the red line, I would offer that we consider that very small change just to make sure the numbers jive from that page into the breakout on the um on the table showing future wastewater demand by land use if that's fair. Um, those are the only comments I have. I'll ask the commission or I'll ask the town staff beyond Barney. John, do you have any comments for Brenda?

Okay. Um, Council Member Kelly. No. Okay. Uh, so again, our effort tonight is to um rule on the red lines that have come back from Carol County after their 60-day review comments. Um, I have heard a comment with regard to adding some um some text with regard to the Frederick County connectivity. Can I make a suggestion on that?

Certainly, Brenda. That way you know exactly um for that specific option where it says interconnection with Frederick County water system and purchase agreement to supply approximately 085 MGD um if we add I know if Mount Ary concurs um something to that effect or that sorry that's what I meant.

Yes with with Frederick County concurrent. Okay. Okay. Um, hearing no further discussion, then I wish to make the following motion. I make the motion to accept, this is going to be rather long, so I'm going to do it slow. I make the motion to accept all redline changes in the draft 2024 with the exceptions of the other municipality sections because we're not here to rule on the other seven municipalities within the county. with the exception of one change to the table in section 19.2 to read 3,3885 gallons per day versus the current number of 3388215. That just slight math difference correction. So I'll say it again. I make the motion to accept all redline changes in the draft 2024 with the exception of the other municipality sections and with the exception of one change to the table in section 19.2 so on and so forth to read the corrected number. Any questions on that? Do I have a second?

I'll second. The motion has been seconded. Any further discussion on the motion? Commissioner, the part about Frederick County. Uh, I will adjust it. Thank you. Okay. Um, so it's been seconded. I'm going to adjust my motion. Correct.

Yeah. Yeah. Uh, I make the motion to accept all redline changes in the draft 2024 from Carol County with the exception of the other municipalities and with one change to the table in section 19.2 two, so on and so forth. And with the additional comments regarding the connectivity to the Frederick water system. Is that sufficient? Okay, I'll second.

It's been seconded. The revised motion has been seconded. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none. All those in favor of the motion say I. I. Any opposed? Any abstain? The motion's been passed. Thank you very much, Brenda. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time.

The next item on our agenda is the introduction and discussion for possible approval of the allocation of water categories. The designation of water and sewer allocation categories within the town of Mount Erie is governed by chapter 109 section 14.8. a titled the water and sewer allocations and this is the agenda topic following the public hearing on that water categories. Um I turn now to the town staff if you wish to add anything or explain anything. Barney perhaps you're first. Sure.

Okay. Um so uh based on Councilman Demoter's uh comments and Dick's um concurrence with those comments uh correction to well flows um what we b our basis uh for our um the flow that we're using uh that um we do our calculations based on is point of entry versus and I'm going to explain these what say suggests is that we use the uh flow meters of the 11 wells that draw water from the ground. Um and I'm what we've used in the past which was also MDE approved um is the point of entry where the water leaves the station actually entering the system the water and those use a different different meters or five meters one for each station. The difference is that uh there is one station that has a nitrate removal system. It goes into backwash occasionally and um that water is taken out of the well, goes through backwash and sent to the drain back to the sewer. So that water does not make it to the point of entry. So that's what makes up that difference of about 10,000 gallons or about 1% of our flow. Um so again we've got MDE saying you know we should use the well meters today. In the past when we were under consent agreement uh we were okay to use the point of entry flows and we've calculated for 20 years since then. Um it's about one again about 1% difference. It is a marginal amount but uh let me go through a few points. um the um covered one and two three I have

written documentation from MDE about um that results of well 9ine we are asking for an additional appropriation that's part of the available water it'se number three on on the 2026-4 ordinance uh or resolution um that uh states that we're anticipating 34,000 gallons a I have MDE um that has written documentation saying we have been recommended 34,000 gallons out of the 50,000 that we recommended. That's far above the 10,000 difference that we're talking about in this discrepancy. Um

and you get to the 29 because we have to allow for the 12% buffer. Correct. Correct. Still the 29,000 available would be far exceeding the 10,000. 888 times 34 gives us the 29 number. Yeah.

Okay. So the recommendation um whether we you know utilize a smaller number or um even the second recommendation was to actually close and uh the town's water and basically go into a moratorum because suggesting not to put any water in the categories. That would mean we don't have any water available for anything that changes. If a retail changes to a restaurant, they need more water. We have to calculate for that. If we don't have available water, we can't recommend approval for that. I don't know that the town wants to be in that position to um keep a business from expanding or growing uh or changing hands into a different use. Um that puts limitations on those owners. Um so I don't know that you want to do that. You can control what categories you want to put them in. Um and uh the next point is um uh I think that covers most of it. But when 34,000 gallons approved, we did put in the recommendation that that would be put to reserves. Um it easily would make up for the 10,000 difference. Um not saying that our calculation is incorrect, but uh in the meantime, we would be able to uh determine whether we should change our our basis to the uh the well meters versus the point of entry meters. Uh but in the meantime, not putting the town in a position where we're getting very close to being in a moratorum, which causes other problems. and we were in that problem back when we entered a consent agreement with MDE and we might have to do the same if if uh if we get to that point. So the recommendation is that that you would recommend the numbers based on the way

we've already um uh put into this division of categories. The available water was already approved by council and um this is not a discussion of the availability. It's a discussion of the division of the category. So, uh, my recommendation is that you would continue with what you would recommend to the town council. Um, and and I promise the commissioners, I'll I'll turn to you, but on this stream right now, uh, so we have 19,272 as the available water capacity yield for the next two years based on the calculations that you had used for point of entry, right? Correct. Yes.

Okay. And the council approved that number at their last council meeting. Correct. Correct. And now we are in the recommendation stage back to the council as to where their approved number should be allocated across 13 categories.

Yes. Yes. And if we don't decide that tonight because we question the 19,272 I'm I'm kind of asking a legal question here, Tom, and you know, I'm building this story up here. Um, the council's approved this number based on the calculations as as we've just discussed, correct? If this and we're to provide a recommendation on not on that number, we're to provide a recommendation on how that number gets allocated. Correct.

But we got public hearing comment as to specifically questioning the number with a recommendation that it be revisited by the council a second time, but they've already decided. Um, and so my question for council here on behalf of all the commissioners is we've been given a number approved by council. Correct. And we are and our job per code is now to divide it up in concert with the town engineers recommendations across 13 categories.

To be more specific, recommend to the town council what that allocation should be. Gotcha. So, I'm inclined to stay the course with uh 19,272 because number one, it's council approved. And if our recommendation based on that number across these 30 categories is then questioned at the next council meeting, we then defer to the council as to whether they want to change it. And if they wanted to change that 19,272 because of a different calculation algorithm, then it would come back to us again with that new number. Am I am I tracking?

Um, that could happen. Yes. I I'd have to look the exact language of the ordinance, but I believe it proposes in the council the right to either approve your recommendation or change it. I'm sorry. Okay. Um, so in theory, I guess the council could uh receive your recommendations and then alter its own fundamental decision about what is available and at the same time in accordance with that alter the calculation. Yeah. The division.

The division. Okay. Calculation of the division. Again, I'd have to look at the ordinance real quick. Sure. But my memory is is that when it comes back to council, the ordinance says that the council at its uh April meeting can accept the recommendations or modify them. And and that's another uh point I wanted to bring out and that is um the code is specific about when all of this must be done by. That's correct. It it sets forth the meetings at which these are to occur. Now in fairness here of course one of those meetings I think was February or January January

and it got snowed out. So you are in a sense sort of a month behind. But but you are correct that the ordinance specifically lays out the month's meetings at which various things are to occur not only at this body but at the town council. Now, if they don't occur, you know, all I can say is is it's not it's not where the code says. I I'm I'm tracking with you. Um while I'm m over another couple of points, I turned to the commissioners. Any questions about where we are? Uh Barney, you had another ad.

Yeah, just just reading um I'm not opening the code, just the notes that Tom had sent us back in January, which I think is from the code. It does say the town council elects may elect to approve, disapprove or modify. So they could modify it. It does say if the town council elects to disapprove the planning commission without modifying, the town council may provide uh to the planning commission a written statement of reasons for disapproval and request that the planning commission reconsider its allocation requirements. So it could do either.

I got you. I got you. Um, so Council Member Kelly, um, I think that this discussion is kind of mailed to carry into that next discussion. Um, and I I like the words modify because that could very well occur with regard to the calculations as to point of entry or outflow. Um, and as I understand it from the town engineer, that that delta is only on one well, on only one pumping station, one station which has two wells. Yeah.

I gotcha. Gotcha. Um, so again, I'm kind of circling through the public comments and the um the information that was provided by public comment. the reality that the council has already approved an available water capacity yield number of 19,272 and that because we are timelmited to have all this done at the council by April, the council is really looking for us to give them a recommendation on how to divide that 19,272 across 13 categories tonight. and and any delay is now going to push us outside of the code requirement for April having all this done. Um so I'm just stating reality.

Yeah. I I and I was actually just looking for the to see if the official notes were published from the council meeting because my notes are a little bit um disconnected from that discussion of the resolution. But I see I don't know if you're looking for my two cents. I see both sides. The number could always be changed, right? I guess I would question if the number changes drastically that could affect the percentage is you you know you might have if it's if it's a small amount you might have right a large majority going to priority one you know whatever the priority one is right and so um

I got you you know I yeah so so no I appreciate that and I wasn't trying to put you on the spot I was trying to say you So this conversation may get played back again

at at the April town council meeting as to whether we continue with the 1922 272 or whether there's because of different measurements at different points and maybe different algorithms there's a different number that has to occur. Um I'm not advocating that. I'm just saying if that occurs, I believe what I heard from the town attorney was that if you adjust the 19272 because of that discussion in April, we would not necessarily see that number to reallocate the new number into the 13 categories. Am I correct?

That's correct. and that the council if they did change the 19272 based on a different algorithm to another number, April would also then agree to that number and then allocate it amongst themselves. Correct. It could do that, right?

That's that's that's how I was getting to the 13 categories being split out. Uh because they got to have it all done in April per the code. So it would be change the number possibly and the new number now get amongst the council members sliced and diced across the 13. Fair enough. Right. And so we may not see it again. I I I I wouldn't anticipate seeing again because now we're going to bust the code requirement of April. Excuse me. So anyway, um could I ask one more question of Tom here? Absolutely. On the flip side, if this body doesn't approve these allocations,

would it still be on the council to do the allocations in April?

The code says yes. I mean I but it would come without any recommendation for the planning commission which the code also contemplates. Uh the only addition do remember though that the code does anticipate that at an an April meeting, one thing the town council could do is reject the allocation and send reasons back to this body as to why it is uh rejected those recommendations which itself contemplates a circumstance under which the ultimate decision by the town council as to what there is to divide and how it's divided could in theory occur after April.

Okay. To ask a different way. So if if if this body approves it based on this number tonight and then come a week from now, the council gets a different number just in all poss if if number changes right council could reallocate or send back to the commission during April. Correct. That's correct. Could say uh we've changed the number the total amount of yield. We are rejecting the recommendations because we have determined that there's less available to allocate

circumstances. Hence town uh planning commission should work with a new number on recommendation of the town engineer of course um and to divide what's what what's the new number and and if that path were if I can just jump in if that path were followed then it would be at the end of April that we would then look at that new number for another exercise of category allocation which would then take then that recommendation into the May town council meeting and we've busted the code.

Well, with the one exception that I mentioned before, remember the code does contemplate a circumstance where the town council at its April meeting says we don't agree with the recommendations made by the planning commission. We're sending reasons back to the planning commission. Here's why we've rejected it. So, that removes the time constraint of April. Well, it yeah, I I don't see how you can

I I agree right now. So there there are circumstances that the code contemplates that you go beyond you the town council goes beyond April to approve something fully and finally. Um it's not probably the preferred method uh as set forth in the code but but there you have some language that suggests you you know got the sky is not going to fall if if I understand by April it's not. So

so what I'm proposing to the rest of my commissioners here is that we stay with the 1927 uh 19,272 calculated by the town engineer and approved by the town council at the last council meeting. Um, we can't adjust that number. It's given to us by the council and it is a number that was discussed at the council decision with the town engineer. So, I believe it's fair that our job right now is to use that number and look to the recommendations from the town engineer on how to divide it across the 13 categories. Is there is there any differing view on that where we are? Okay. So, with that, and thank you, Tom, and and and thank you, Council Member Kelly, on this. Um um we have the recommendation in the staff report. Uh the page is page number three. Uh we have the 13 categories. Um I'm not going to read them off, but if you total the number of the gallons per day, they will total 19272. Um you will see as a footnote the category 11 entitled reserve is zero gallons per day but the town engineer has indicated that the possible MDE additional appropriation for well number nine will be 34K and that available use has to take into account our buffer. So we take 088 of that 34 and that gives us 29 920. Am I doing the math in my head right? Okay. Um and then if that does occur from MDE for an additional appropriation for well number nine, the

recommendation tonight for us to agree to is that it would go into reserve. Okay. Um, so now any questions on where we are by any commissioner before we entertain a motion to accept these allocations or not? Any discussions? I have one last question. Bear with me. We don't have a similar allocation of sewer capacity. Sewer capacity is allocated to one category which is known as new demand. Is that fair, Barney? So, um, right after the recommendations, the first paragraph, town engineer also recommends that the available sewer capacity yield be distributed equally for the first 19,272 gallons a day. So, you would have the exact numbers for sewer and that the remainder be reserved until additional water capacity is determined. So, the remainder would go under reserves for sewer

for sewer. Okay. because that has a lot more available capacity, right? Okay. Um, hearing no further discussion or questions to the town engineer, is there a motion for the recommended allocation of water and sewer capacity yield for 2026 to 2027, the next two years? Did you have a comment? I'll wait for a discussion. Okay.

Um I'll make a motion to accept the numbers um for the draft resolution. Um I think is that enough or um the draft resolution is 2026-4. Correct. 2026-4. Thank you for draft resolution 2026-4. These allocations recommended by you are in that resolution. That's correct. Yeah. That's that resolution, right? But you're recommending for the division of allocation categories based on that, right? 2026- you want to rephrase or

Okay, I'll rephrase it then.

Um, I would move that we um approve or recommend a recommendation for the water and sewer allocations for the draft resolution 2026 24 as written and accepted by the town council or 20 sorry 2026-4. Um, I'll second that. Um, so we're open for discussion. Although I seconded it, I'm going to ask the motioner if they would consider a slight suffix to that to the motion already made. Add on the words and for any new water appropriation during 2026 to 2027 be allocated to category 11 reserves.

I'll accept. Okay. So, a new motion has been made with those added words with regard to any new water appropriation going into category 11 under reserve. Is there a second to that motion? Commissioner Butsens that motion. Is there any discussion? Commissioner Wallace? Um, yeah, a couple things. So, one is that I'm just curious why we are allocating any water to development um in any area when we know that we have a PAP issue. Why are we not waiting until that's remediated before we allocate water? Um and so in light of that and in light of the fact that you have to select an area, my recommendation would be to put it all in reserve.

You want to address that?

Yeah. Um so the PAS remediation is not required to be completed today. Um it it's something that we are working towards. Uh we have two of the designs complete. The other two designs on the way. Um we have a permit pending for the first two stations. Uh we're getting ready to bid that out in the very near future. Um the town does have uh developments, redevelopments, new um uh use uh requests. For instance, there's a restaurant wanting to come in near the Walmart. Um that's changing from a retail to a restaurant which requires an additional water appropriation, water allocation. Um if we zeroed everything out then we wouldn't have that available water. Um just that's the reason for trying to continue not not put everything into moratorum.

So I'm assuming that legally the town is not opening itself up to liability by giving people peepaz water. I'm not going to comment on what it opens itself up to or what its liabilities might be. I would say on the issue of moratorum, however, the law is very clear that first of all, that's got to be declared uh probably through an legislative enactment number one and the case law does uh specifically require certain findings uh to be specifically made. I'm not commenting on whether those conditions do or do not exist, but uh it it's not just a matter of sort of declaring a moratorum and saying no more water or uh or uh we're going you know we're not going to allocate water as the case may be there. Um you know there's certain requirements that you'd want to make sure adhere to uh before that's done and it's got to be done by the right body. Any other questions? Um, I have a question. Um, and Tom, in close inspection of 2026-4, I don't see the 13 categories delineated specifically with the gallons per day allocation to each one. So, should we have a motion revision that says approve recommend approval of 2026-4 and the allocation per the staff report?

Well, the resolution contemplates that the recommendations of town staff will be appended to it as exhibit one. Okay. And hence, so I don't need to add that detail. I don't think so. Okay. Good. Good. And as far as the added detail with regard to any possible new water appropriation, um, is that an unnecessary new detail? I'm sorry, I asked that one again. So, I also suffixed on the motion that we would have any new appropriation of water if we got more water appropriated that it would go into the reserve category. That's fine.

That's fine. Okay. So, the motion is good as it stands and seconded. Okay. Any other discussion? I'm just making sure that we give the right recommendation to the council. Okay. So, I'll recap. All those in favor of the motion to recommend approval of draft resolution 2026-4 and for any new water appropriation during 2026 to 2027 be allocated to category 11 reserve. All those in favor say I. I. Any. Any opposed?

Nay. One nay. Any abstensions? The motion passes with one nay. Thank you very much, Barney. And again, Tom. Thank you. The next agenda item is the introduction and discussion of the possible approval of the Mount Area Wellness Center sign application. Uh this is a proposed sign for the business known as the Mount Airy Wellness Center located at 423 East Ridgeville Boulevard in Mount Ary. Um before I turn to John for the staff report on this, do we have a representative of that business or the sign company? Sir, please come on up. And while you're getting settled here, uh John, if I can turn to you for a quick staff report on this.

Sure. Thank you, Ralph. Um I do apologize. Guys, I have nothing to put up on the monitor tonight, but there are packets out in the uh foyer if anybody wants one. Again, this is a new business. Uh it's a Mount Wellness Center um located at 423 East Ridgeville Boulevard. Uh sort of right beside where the um Atlantic Bank is. Uh it's down a long corridor, that portion of the building. Uh the um the suite frontage is 12 foot three 12 foot 6 in wide uh which will give them the 12 1/2 square ft total uh frontage or total square footage of sign allowance. uh the the applicant did come in with a a much larger sign and we negotiated down to uh the side that they're presenting today uh for approval uh to be in compliance with the code. Uh, one of the other items that were changed with the U adjusted u revised sign is the um pushth through letters that'll be illuminated underneath the wellness center which is also calculated in the total square footage and again u staff is recommending approval of this sign.

Fantastic. Thanks John. And sir, if you could just give us your name and or and whether you're with the wellness center, the business itself or with the sign company. Uh my name is Will. It's from Sunny Signs. Oh, from the sign company? Yes. Gotcha. Uh do we have a representative of the business here by chance? Uh no. No. Okay. And again, let me make sure I understand. Uh your name, sir, is Will. Will. Gotcha. Thank you very much. Will, do you wish to add anything to the staff report regarding your application for these signs?

No. because because like uh before I came we already I think my office and John already like uh have several emails and trying to meet your standards in the requirements. So I think this is in the final versions. Yes sir. Yes sir. Uh I turn to the commissioners now. Do you have any questions regarding the sign application? You've got the data in front of you. You've got the depiction of the letters that are going to be going on the facade of that building uh or in front of your entrance, I should say. Uh are there any questions to will on uh the application? Um go ahead, Will. Are you putting in the vinyl graphic window treatments as well?

Yes, it's per their like a business owners requirement. They want to advertising theirs like uh businesses. Okay. So, they're advertising on a on the windows on a on the sign on a big sign that's going to be on the on the top of the building and then they're having two see-through window graphics on there. Now, yes. What exactly is their business besides sure it's not just stones and they doing massages? Just massage. Yes.

Okay. And and those signage I will say because again as as I said in the staff report they're down a long covered corridor from where the actual business sign is. So it's really hard to see exactly the entrance to the building. So it's almost like a wayfinding uh sign for the front of the store. And is it okay to have that in the window that graphic? Yes. And again a lot of places do that. Dunkin Donuts did it without approval. Right. Without approval to cover up all the windows and they put a white finish on it that Okay. You can't see through. No questions.

No further questions. It it's a great question because I want to clarify here and I lean on you John for not only the history of such sign applications but and correct me if I'm wrong for such window treatments in the window and above the transom that we have here and any lettering on the entrance door to a business hours of operation um business logo graphics that sort of thing. We do not, and this is the question, we do not include any of those into the calculation of the square footage relative to the frontage of the business.

Typically, no. Again, um you know, in certain sit situations, we might calculate it depending if it had additional uh verbiage that was related to that because this is no verbiage and just more of a picture. It's not calculated into that. And so with that exception of those other items, the calculations of the facade lettering up above, and I'm going to use the word portico. I don't know what else to call that, but the awning is um 12.4 square ft and the frontage is 12 1/2 ft. So we're we're inside the code requirement. Yes, sir.

Gotcha. Okay. Any other questions for Will or uh the town staff on this sign application? I I do. Sure. I'm just trying to I'm looking at the graphics and it is it four different ones cuz it looks like maybe there's two large ones on the doors and then one on the transom and then it says the business hours. Where does that go?

So I will say it's a little deceiving. So what you're seeing here is you're seeing the portico as it would be. So, this main sign here is actually in front of the building and then the glass front is the one that has the three uh pictures and then the store footage on their door which is behind the post that's out by the parking lot. So, it's a little deceiving, right? So, it looks like it's another old sign. It's just one sign that's out on the face of the building. Um, so what's on the actual door?

It looks like on the door itself is just the Mount Air Wellness and a very small uh text with their business hours. And then above the transom would be um the picture which is behind the column as if you were in the parking lot. You wouldn't barely you wouldn't see the lettering on the door. You wouldn't see the transom picture. You would just see the two pictures that are uh down at hip height. And are those on windows or? Yeah, they're mounted. And you can kind of look at the uh see-through window graphics that they have to the right. No, I was just wondering where they're at. their own windows next to it or they're mounted on the windows at the face of the store which is okay 24 feet back from the edge of the face of the building

down that long but not on the doors. That's just what I want to clarify. They're not on the front doors. No, just what's on the front door is just the store hours and name. Gotcha. This this is a very narrow uh piece of real estate between Sandy Spring Bank and Cbury if I'm not mistaken. Yes, I think so. Is that correct? It's not saying the spring anymore. And it is Atlantic. Atlantic Bank. I'm sorry. Atlantic Bank. Yes. Wrong bank. Uh, Commissioner Walls, you had a question. Just one question. Um, the on these two pictures on the wind on the windows, um, is the rest of the window clear? Yes. Okay. It's only partial of the window has crossed. So, it's just a band essentially that's on the windows with the graphics.

Yes. Okay. Any other questions for uh town staff or to the applicant's representative? Hearing none, is there a motion with regard to the sign application for the Mount Area Wellness Center, please? I motion to uh approve the uh let's see here the wellness center um signage. Um do I need to state anything else on this? That should be good. Okay.

Yeah. The motions have been made to approve the sign application for the Mount Airy Wellness Center located at 423 East Ridgeville Boulevard, Mount Area. Is there a second? I'll second. It's been seconded by Commissioner Hatley. Any further discussion? No further discussion. All those in favor of the motion to approve the sign say I. I. I. Any opposed? Any abstensions? Unanimous approval will. Good luck to you. Thanks so much and thank you, John. Um, one more question. When can I rece? Uh, that will be between you and John. Yeah, we should get it out to you this week. Okay. because I still need to go back to county because I need to apply the electrical permit for this. We'll try to get that out tomorrow.

Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

The next item on our agenda is introduction and discussion for the possible approval of another sign located at Century Pre-Owned Super Center. Uh this uh business location is 402 Century Drive, Mount Ary. Um and before I turn again to the staff report on this, is there a representative of There's a familiar face. While you gentlemen get settled in, I'll have John then give us uh the uh the facts on this sign application.

Yeah. Thank you, Ralph. Again, this is the Sentry Ford location of Mount Airy located at 402 Center Century Drive. Uh we do have the applicant in front of us. Again, they have taken and u gotten rid of the Jeep and the Chrysler dealership and they're looking to expand their used um super center for their used cars through the Ford dealership. Uh the um the application is to replace an existing uh monument style sign uh where the old Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram uh sign was existing as you can see in your portfolio will be illuminated and double-sided. Um there's also another channel letter U pre-owned super center sign that will be on the I guess the south facing elevation that'll be towards Twin Arch Road. Again, these are are channel letters that are back lit with LEDs, which is very common for what we have in town. Uh, and then the last sign would be a non-illuminated sign, and this would be on the side of the building that faces the um Ford dealership. So, if you were in the sales floor of this Ford dealership, they could easily direct you to the building and say it's in that building that says Prian Superstore. Again, non- illuminated. This is more almost a directional um signage orformational sign. So, um there's sort of almost two different animals because again this is not visible by the road. Um it's more of a directional sign and and the staff is recommending approval of all signs.

Okay. Thank you very much. Um your name, gentlemen. Uh Joe de Georgie, managing partner of Sentry of Mount Air and this is Jimmy O' Conor who is my general sales manager. Gotcha. And um uh if we ask technical questions about the signs, you're prepared. I'll do my best

to go after it. That sounds fair. Sounds fair. Um so I'll just recap what's before us again. Um the code section that we'll uh make our decision on is 112-11 within the town code as always. And I believe if I'm not mistaken, we are really talking about three signs. We're talking about a monument sign that's illuminated. We're talking about a building sign that is not illuminated. And we're talking about a second building sign that is illuminated. That's correct. So, we're talking about all three. Is that correct?

That's correct. And and just so everybody everyone knows, so this building was our Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep uh Ram building, which we terminated our franchise agreement the 1st of January. So the monument sign that that is pictured here is the existing sign that was there. It's just it's just reskinned. So Chrysler came in and took all of the brand signs down. uh took the the skins off of the bindument sign, the bulbs. So the the sign is the exact same dimensions as what was there. It's just reskinned and re-illuminated. Fantastic. Any questions to the applicants?

Commissioner Bick. Yeah. So I did notice that all the signs came down. Will will you guys be cleaning the building because you can see the outline of all the signs? It's already done. Okay, perfect. It's already done yet. I haven't. Yeah, we we had it repainted and Yeah, that that was done about two weeks ago. Okay, thank you. Yeah, was a temperature. We couldn't do it in the beginning because it was too cold for the exterior. It's been cold. Yes. Any other questions? I've got one. Commissioner Buts,

I'm curious what's the motivation for for this change? Well, our our Ford business is booming and the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep U franchise was not. So, it was um this more of a redirection and just expanding our Ford business and focus. Yeah, focus right there.

Any other questions? I have a question. Um Joe, uh it just seems between the monument sign and the signs that are proposed for the buildings, there's different color schemes. There's one with a black background, the monument sign, and then the building signs have a blue background. Is that of any significance? I mean, is there a color theme that Well, the the blue the blue building letters that are going to be onto the Chrysler dealership tie in with the Ford the Ford blue Ford. Yeah. and the and the monument sign. um the old monument sign which is in the pictures there that was I mean that was red green

all sorts of colors and the u the the black background with the white letters in my opinion why I chose it is because I think it's pretty pretty elegant looking so and I think it'll I think it'll look nice sitting out there and and and don't take me wrong my question isn't because we have some subjectivity here as to what colors we like I understand we um it was just curious uh for for me to ask. It kind of ties the I mean before they were they were two separate I mean there's two separate dealerships so the blue lettering kind of ties the two buildings together. Makes sense because it's now one. Makes sense. Um anything further commissioners?

Um if there's no further discussion I'm looking for a motion on the sign application for the monument sign and two building signs. I'll make the motion, Commissioner Bick to approve the proposed ASIS for the um pre-owned Super Center uh Century of Mount Airy. A second. Seconded by Commissioner Hatley. Again, any discussion on the motion and second hearing? None. All those in favor of the motion to approve the sign application for pre-owned Century Ford of Mount Airy say I. I. I. Any opposed? Any abstensions? Unanimous approval. Joe, thank you all. Thank you for coming tonight.

Okay. Thanks. Thank you, Joe and Jimmy. Thank you. They're installing these tomorrow, so I need my Should I give him my email? He he set in by the weekend. He He took that tip from Will. Joe does have Joe does have a story for us.

I was going to bring up a u u something important that I think you all should know about. So this morning I got an email from the town of Mount Ary and I'm and I'm reading the body of it and it says, you know, here's here's your bill for your sign permit that you um you know, you need to pay for. And I said, well, I figured it's going to have a bill associated with it. So I opened up the invoice and it was $4,999. And I started looking at the email closer. And so I think somebody is taking your meeting docket and trying to scam people into paying. Uh but the $4,000 they waved the fee for public hearings and meetings and software and technology was waved. But so

so so this was malicious email you got. Yeah. Yeah. And it was, you know, and I I we train all of our employees on that. So I looked at return address and it was it said town of Mount Ary at US was it us.com? And so I I mean I knew it I knew it wasn't legit and I called John up and I said, "Hey, I know you're helping me out here, but this is a little absorbent. You don't don't search down that address." Yeah. Trying to make a deal. It's under $5,000, man. come back. That's right. Thank you, guys. Thank you, Joe. Congratulations.

Uh, our next item of discussion is, uh, draft ordinance 2026-2, which is entitled the process and standards for reclassification of property within the town. Um, this is also known as um, uh, reszoning standards, factors, elements, criteria. Uh this is the second uh planning commission meeting to discuss this draft ordinance. It first appeared at our February 23rd uh planning commission. Um and as I mentioned at February 23rd last month that uh per the code, we have 90 days to provide a recommendation to the town council with regarding this uh draft ordinance or or any draft amendment to the code. Uh and so this is our second time. Um I'll recap very quickly, John, if you don't mind. Um we had a really good discussion with Oh, let me ask the sponsor to come forward if uh council member Demoter would please uh you. And so in that first uh discussion on February 23rd um we talked about different aspects uh the sponsor gave us the rationale behind the need for this draft. He provided us a memo. Uh I hope each of us have had the time since then to to go over the memo which provides a rationale or the background as to the need for this um draft ordinance. Um I believe there have been comments from the commissioners forwarded through John to reach the sponsor uh comments from myself which included some um town council um comments. Um, and

I think I sent a second trunch of comments on March 14th that were more not changes but comments as to why are we asking for this and that? Um, did I miss any commissioner input? Is there any other commissioners that provided input to the sponsor on this draft amendment? Okay. Um, so I'll stop there and ask John, is there any further update as to where we are since our first meeting?

Well, no. Again, uh, in your packet we're attached also, council member demoter submitted some additional suggestions. Um, and I also attached the current application that we use typically outside the master plan process for a map amendment. um just as an example of what we currently utilize at staff level that wasn't utilized during the master plan. Okay. And so that's the worksheet. Yep. That would be the application, right? Okay. And I and I appreciate that because I wasn't quite sure if that was an additional worksheet proposed by the sponsor. No, that was something that we currently have in place. That's the asis right now. Yep.

On what we have. If someone comes in and says, "I want to go from residential to neighborhood professional normally outside the master plan." Outside the M. Okay. All right. Good. Um and now I turn to the sponsor to say um in all I'm doing right now is kind of bringing everybody up to where we are now in this second discussion. Anything you wish to add because I believe you'll tell us you did a revision. Is that correct? We did. Yes. Okay. Please. So, real quick side question to the town planner. When exactly did you put did you create that form that you just waved in your hand? Did you just do that this past month or a year ago? That was before I started here.

Okay. But to case in point, it really wasn't applied anywhere in the process. I mean, as I said, this is meant for outside the master plan. I understand. But when I did a PIA, I got no records. Okay. Thank you. That wasn't part of the part of that. So, so yes, um, you gave us some comments and I appreciate the comments. Um, we worked very hard on this ordinance. We worked over the weekends. Um, just a point of fact, you guys made a commitment. I've done everything you've asked of me. You made a commitment at the last meeting that you would get me comments by like March 2nd. Mhm.

Um and then John would roll them up shortly after. So I figured I'd have a good amount of time to get you a revised version back. You said you needed it by the 19th or the 20th. I didn't get any comments until March 14th. And that's only I think Ralph because I saw you at another event and reminded you and you provided me comments on like March 14th at five o'clock. So in spite of not getting what I was told I would get on the time I would get, we still scured to in earnest put together an updated version working on the weekend with the town attorney to get this into your packet when you wanted it in your packet. So I want to make note of that. Um I do want to make a I think this is the crux of maybe a comment. Um, it is imperative that this ordinance gets codified and put into the code. This isn't just a recordkeeping process. This is setting the requirements set for what the town staff does on a resoning request, their analysis process with the criteria, then what the planning commission does, then what the town council does, and again setting the series of criteria, ensuring public input, ensuring the public comments are actually addressed. Um, this is not something that should be in a town policy. What is the most significant thing that impacts our citizens? The most important thing we do as a government, zoning and reszoning of properties, that is the most critical thing that impacts people's quality of life and their property and their value and shifts what

a town looks like over time. That does not belong in an internal town policy. that belongs codified so that everybody knows what the requirements are from property owners to citizens to the developers. It's all out there for them to see and it gives the public recourse because of their requirements and they don't see that the process was followed then they have recourse to challenge that the mayor and I will say I feel it was it was very disingenuous because we've been asking for a policy and a process I've been asking for nine months through a PIA we didn't get anything I prepared prepared an ordinance that lays all this out. Suddenly, what what shows up in the mail from the Harry Potter owl at midnight? Oh, look, we developed a policy, so you don't really need your ordinance. And I think the comments that the mayor said tell the whole story. He said, "Nobody knows about these policies, but if you want to come in and look at them, here they are in a binder." Um, policies can be internally changed at any time. They're not approved by the council. There's no opportunity for public comment or input. There's no legality that that policy is going to be um implemented completely in consistency each time. So, this notion of an internal town policy, it it's just a non-starter. So, so I hope the citizens that are watching this, if you want the power in your hands, this needs to be codified so that you have rights and you can see the process. If you want the

power in the hands of your town hall staff in the basement of town hall with a town policy that's helping to decide what happens with your property, then go ahead and support a policy. But I hope out there the citizens support this as an ordinance and come and and make make their voice heard. I have specific um points. I wanted to be able to um help you because cuz you gave me a lot of comments and uh the town attorneying and I went through all the comments. We accepted the ones that we thought were sensible and and good improvements. Um, case in point, you you had some issues with like the wording of standards and factors and criteria. So, we we we did, you know, select one term criteria and we we made that change. Um, I think you had some issues with adequacy of public facilities and using that kind of a term because you thought that would invoke the APFO process. So we, you know, we we took heart to that and I just think we changed it to like uh public infrastructure and things like that. We stayed away from using certain hot button words. You we're still basically doing the same thing, but it's not an APO APFO process. I think you you had some heartburning with the words environmental assessment because you were concerned that that invoked you know removal of contaminants and assessment of hazards and that kind of thing in terms of contaminated property. So we changed that to say um you know environmental quality and then we we define the elements of that. So those are just some examples. Um, I can give you other comments, other you know, I'm happy to answer any questions you have. And, and lastly, I want to remind you, I think I think some

of the comments you offered last time were, well, this is an overreach. This is an overreach. And, and I'm I'm struggling to understand how it's an overreach because, again, you guys you guys just went through the Warfield property annexation process. You created a document with a series of criteria that you heavily applied and made judgments on. You didn't get outside expertise. you made your own qualitative judgments on um in terms of um you know because I think part of what we're saying is you need to keep a good record of all the public comments and how you adjudicated them and and someone said well you know we have we have the uh we have the planning commission videos and somebody can just go through and look through those 30 videos which which to me is is ridiculous. You didn't do that in your annexation document. You provided a rollup of every single public comment and describe them and then assess them. So, so this must be an overreach also because you didn't just say in here to look at the record of public comments, go see the last planning commission meetings from these five dates. So, I really don't see how what I'm asking for is any really more burden than what's already happening. It's it's codifying the process, the the criteria. It's making sure that the citizens voices are heard and there's a record of how those comments are adjudicated. And it puts everything on a level playing field. Everybody understands what the requirement set is. Um, last point and I appreciate you giving me the time, but for for for every one of you sitting up there and even for me as a council member, okay, zoning and reszoning, it it's kind of a complicated process. I mean,

when you entered this and maybe even now some of you, do you really understand step by step what the process is and who does what? We we have done that in like two and a half pages of text changes. You've got the whole process laid out. So anybody a common citizen can go to the code, look at that and say, "Okay, I see what's going to happen with my requests for zoning. I see exactly who's going to do what with it, how it's going to be evaluated, what my opportunities to comment are. It's all right there. Lastly, lastly, comment. Had we had this ordinance in place several years ago, I do not believe we would have reszoned the Beck property. My first year on the council, it might have been like my my third month, we had to make a decision about reszoning Beck. It was all done legislatively at the council table. There was no discussion about criteria or hazards or public input. We we there was no analysis done. We didn't have a staff report. We had nothing. We we took this little line in the old master plan that said the Beck property has the potential for mixeduse zoning. Somebody grabbed that. They use that as the justification and then we got an ordinance at the table to reszone the property. If this ordinance was in place, you would not have had that and some other issues in this town. So, I I beg you guys, I implore you, look at what this is and please give a favorable recommendation to put it in the code. Um, I promise this is my last comment. So, I was looking at our master plan, our brand new master plan we all work so

hard on. I'm proud of it. I know you guys are. And one of the objectives, one of the objectives is pursue recommended reasonzoning of selected town properties. The implementation step. You want to hear this? Proceed per the code. Proceed per the code to initiate the resoning process of council approved properties. It doesn't say proceed per the internal town policy. It says proceed for the code. And I remember Ralph, you have that big blue binder sitting in front of you. And at one of the meetings, you held up that book and you said, "We're the planning commission and we we are charged with following the code, nothing else. This is what we follow." So, putting some of this in a in a town policy, I'm sorry. It's it's just not acceptable. I mean, if if you guys are okay with that, that's that's fool's folly to me. So, you know, obviously I'm I'm passionate about this. I've worked hard on it. Um I I think it's poppycock that suddenly out of the sky, uh the executive branch says, "Look, I got a policy now. Look, you don't you don't need that. I got a policy here." I'm sorry. That's poppycock. And I hope the citizens see that. I hope you see that. Um, so thank you very much. I'm happy to answer specific questions because I think I can answer them. Um, but thank you for giving me the time.

Okay. Thank you. Let me let me address a few points here before I turn to the commissioners because I usually like to go last, but at your outset, you mentioned the March 2nd um date. Um, if I recall, and I regret if you misunderstood, I believe I asked these volunteers to try and get their feedback on the initial draft to John by March 2nd. I regret that you regarded that as a very hard date. You did get feedback on March 14th, which was 2 weeks prior to tonight. That is I believe from your comments insufficient time for you to look through those comments thoroughly because you made a point of it. Second point, you mentioned that the criteria that this body labored through five months on the Warfield Commission was criteria not called out in the code. That is correct because this body through legal counsel established its own criteria in order to evaluate an annexation and you know that

you know that we did not need to follow something in the code. We didn't have to look at the code. We under legal counsel established our own criteria for the assessment and we did that over five months. So let me reply to that point. Okay. Lastly, I would really, really like the civil discourse on your draft amendment to be absent words such as poppycock from the mayor and those sorts of descriptors of him trying to provide in his own words a solution to what you foresee as a problem requiring a code amendment. Now, if I can't make you be civil, council member demoter, but I would encourage you to have the better argument if you were. Okay? So, I'm I'm imploring you, leave the descriptors out as to how people are trying to address this problem that you've put before us. I would no more call your draft ordinance poppycock than than any such horrible objective, and I'm sincere about that. These seven volunteers take time out of their day every month to go through what comes before this body. You're bringing a draft ordinance before this body. Please don't waste our time with trying to adopt adjectives like it's poppyccock. And I'll end on that please because I'm violating my own rule to not get upset. So let me come back to some questions I have by first turning to the commissioners. Commissioners, do you have any question on the revised 2026-2?

Yes. I Okay. Yeah. Okay, go. We'll go to um actually I just wanted to ask um Tom about this. So I want to make sure I'm understanding policies ordinances trump policy. Correct. Correct. Okay, that's all I have to say. Thank you, Commissioner Ba. I didn't know there was a policy manual for this town. There you go.

Until tonight. Uh, I'm in agreement that if this is something that you want to inject into the town code, um, I understand that that mission you're on to do so. Um, I feel that we handle the Warfield annexation in in a very good way, in a very detailed way. Um, I don't like making decisions about the town's future without the input of its citizens as we are also citizens of it. So having the citizens be well informed about the things that we do here in this room is probably one of the most important things to me and the way that we tell citizens what's going on in this room is via the website the social media pages the uh newspaper if there's still a newspaper that circulates around that people read

so letters to the adjacent owners of those properties they get all that information too. So my question for Mr. Breeding is that the 14-day stipulation in letting people know about these public meetings or about these things that are happening that's happening as part of the procedure the town follows in the big blue binder. Yeah. I mean that's that's a given like you're saying. So, for example, the public hearing, you know, we advertise uh in the both papers, the Frederick newspapers. I get the text messages from the town all the time about what's happening. Anything related to that, a public notice. Okay.

Uh we would send that on Facebook, etc. Or if anybody who's registered to receive anything related to planning would also get notifications. Okay. Thank you. And this application for zoning amendment changes. This is available through PIAA if possible. So public information act if somebody were to say I want to see the zoning amendment application for this particular time frame or anything that person can get this document. Is that true or false? Yes. Okay. So was it requested by you this particular document for a particular time period that we're talking about the PIA request I made and and It's probably not going to be constructive to go down that path anymore.

Okay. I I do commission chair let me know if I have a chance to to respond to questions if you want me to do it per member or Well, he's addressing you. You can I'm I'm addressing you. So, one thing I don't dislike this. Okay, that's just one thing. Yeah, I'm just I'm trying to get up to speed with how the town does its business versus a bluebinder policy manual that I have no idea existed until today and this ordinance. So, and like Miss Miss Bak said, does this trump the policy manual? And you, Mr. McCarron says yes. Okay, great. I'm good.

So, may I respond to a couple things? So, first for everybody, um, and especially the chairman, I I'm not criticizing what what you guys did on on the annexation. I think it was great that you you pulled together a set of criteria and you went through very thoughtfully through a process and did this. My only point was, look, you did this for the annexation. You you you created criteria. You went through a process. You documented the process and all the comments. And what I'm saying is I'm trying to I'm trying to almost kind of model I mean you did that here. I applaud that. I'm trying to put that in the code for reasonzonings. That was my point. Uh Commissioner Bea, I had the same issue about the policies because I I guess when I first became a council member, there were some HR issues and I looked at the policy binder and it's like 90%. It's all internal HR policy. I don't recall anything about annexation in that binder. But to your point, I mean, it's this is a town of 10,000 people, and we shouldn't be making decisions on reszoning by an internal town policy that's sitting in a three- ring binder on a shelf that nobody knows about, sees, vetted, wasn't reviewed legislatively. that that I'm sorry that's just that's nuts to me. And and then the la the last point about the you're saying well you know we already we already asked for public comment if you look at our two things under under uh under procedures the the core requirement I think in the land use article is you you have to you have to put notice in a newspaper and it has to be published 14 days in advance. So that's that's the rockolid requirement,

right?

The town on its own has decided, well, we do some extra things. We use we use Facebook, we use social media, we we do all these other things. And if you look at the language, the way we wrote this, we said we wanted to actually get it in the code to show that we do these things, it says other forms of notice to the public, though not required, are encouraged, such as posting property, posting notices on the town's website. So that that was that was the point of doing that to kind of take credit that we're already doing that. But we didn't want to say it's also required because we're trying to balance what's in the established land use article and the way the state of Maryland does things without you know overly coloring something in that matter. And the last comment um this is the importance part of this ordinance regarding public comment

is that uh letter C under the procedures. It's uh if you go under go under letter C under the procedures was good. Yeah. Well go okay now. Yeah. Now go under letter D. Okay. There's D go to D six.

Okay. And that's where we say consideration and record of public comment. Consideration and detailed documentation of public comment provided including from neighboring property owners. Why do we do that? Because that's been one of the one of the faults we've learned is we have people come in and say, "I didn't ask for my property re to be reszoned and my neighbors didn't either." But this is the important part, the last language, including the manner in which the public comment was considered. So we're we're putting in a requirement in that says you're going to get all these comments. You you have to show everybody in the process how you adjudicated those comments so people can see that they were heard. And that's an important part of item number six.

I I'll stop there. Yeah, thank you. I have I have I have a a followup for that. So when we're consideration of record of public comment and then let's say you're having a public meeting, there's lots of comments at that meeting and then the next meeting comes and a property owner didn't come to the first meeting and all of a sudden they're showing up and being like, "Hey, my neighbor told me this was this and they came last week to talk to you and they wanted the they wanted the resoning and I don't." Mhm. So what's the hierarchy of comments that influences the decision that this body makes? It's it's all in relation to that you you you as a B well first of all

do well what I'm saying is do we do we do we vote from majority does majority rule in that or is it that the comments of three people over overcast the comments of 30 you know when when we're making these these decisions because I think they're important notes for all of us to take in

and and and to your point and that's that's what I struggle with as a council member when I when people come in you you're five people. You don't know if that's the full community, but the answer back would be you need to consider every comment that you've heard for or against. And you need to layer that into your decision process along with all of the criteria you're going to apply and and and the whole the whole picture of the analysis. and and and part of this ordinance sets the requirement that yes, town staff, town planning staff, they have to go through this process first. It's their job. They're getting paid like $92,000 for the supervisory um town planner to look at all the comments, make judgments, apply the criteria, provide a recommendation, and then that gets handed to you as the planning commission. That's your fundamental starting point because you're volunteers. You're not an expert town planner. And then you consider all that information plus all the comments. That's part of it. And then you do your action. And then what you're done, you make a recommendation. You document your recommendation. Then that comes to the town council and we do the same thing. And that process, I think, is clearly laid out. I could walk you through the ordinance, but but that's what this does.

That that's what I I see from it lays a process out and it could be part of the code as well. So therefore, our other blue book would have some injection into it that well could be a plus for the town in its future. So that's that's why it should that's why it should be in the code. I mean it it really needs to be in the code. Any other comments or discussions? I do. I have. Commissioner Hadley.

Um we has anybody seen this policy? I know you said ordinances trump policy. I'm a little concerned that we may be, you know, we want all of this to flow together and can we attach this to this? So, moving forward, anytime anybody makes a zoning request, whether it's inside the master plan or outside the master plan, can we use this or is this good enough? Um, I could give a comment when you're ready for a comment.

I'm not done yet. Um, so I'm I'm a little concerned about stepping on staff's toes because they work very hard. Um, and citizens I remember citizens coming in and speaking and then you made the comment about, oh, somebody can just look through 30 videos. That's that's misinformation. Again, there is a responsibility and due diligence for every homeowner when they are buying a property that they have to call either the county or the town to find out what is going on with their property. And for the citizens who bought after decisions about zoning had already been made, I'm very shocked that they wouldn't have. Um I would hope that they would have because I know town staff would have given him the correct information and a lot of panic came because they were like, "We didn't know this was happening." But if you bought your home after the initial decisions were made, as far as I understand it, the onus was on the citizens to call, at least make the phone call to the town just to say, "Hey, what's going on? Have you heard anything?" Um, this would have been helpful during the master plan, I think. Um, I know it says it's outside of the master plan, but um, do we need to review that policy just to make sure that everything flows together,

policy, ordinances, everything matches up together in Yeah. So that we're not doing anything that throws more chaos into the grinder of this what has seemed to have been a lot of chaos. So policy is just a guide on how to conduct business. What does it say though? Like because the mayor thought it

matter because ordinances um trump guides or Trump policy. So why do we care about a policy book when it really doesn't hold up in in any court of law or anything? It's a guide to run your business. The ordinance runs your business. Yeah, I just want to make sure that everything is flowing together. If there is something that would conflict, I I just don't want to revisit this if it's going to cause conflict.

So, I have a I have a a response and so I Martina, Commissioner, I appreciate your comment. Let me let me give my view of okay you have a set of requirements and again this to me should all be codified in the code. The requirements say what to do. It doesn't always tell you how to do it. You figure out how to do it internally. Requirements say here's what you have to do. And and in terms of that little that little template there, that worksheet, let me use the example when I um when we all work collaboratively on the uh I I came with an ordinance on setting guidelines for applying for an open space waiver. Okay. We worked together and we set the the criteria. I called them guidelines because I didn't want to get in the middle of, you know, some reasoning stuff going on. But they were essentially criteria. They were the guidelines. We set the guidelines. Now, Ralph, for the planning commission, you developed a worksheet,

right?

You developed a scoring sheet for how you apply those requirements and come to your as an aid to help you decide how you got to where you got to. That kind of thing to me, those tools and aids to support how you implement the requirements, that can be in a policy, that can be a series of templates or forms that are filled out to help you implement the requirements. Maybe you want to make a a a template with all of the evaluation criteria in my in my ordinance here and then how you score them or whether you it was pro or against. If you want to develop those tools internally, that's that that makes sense to me. That's the way I've done policy and guidance in in my government career. But this sets the requirements set. Um, so th

can we those are my comments like this you would agree to have something like this attached to this as like an exhibit or this this goes in the code something like that is an internal tool to help you again that sounds like a policy no it's not a policy procedure it's a procedure internally all the words we're throwing around I think they all mean the same again you have you have you have you have requirements and then you have things below that to help you meet the requirements. The requirement set gets codified. The requirement set gets codified. It doesn't say anything in here about a worksheet, right? We didn't have anything.

That's you don't we're not getting down to that level of the weeds. We set the criteria and the process and the documentation required. That's what this does. Because to your point, if it's not in the code, it won't

I think we maybe were talking past each other. I I I again say this is the requirement set. This is the legal basis. For example, why why do we want it in the code? Codified public processes allow the community members to understand the criteria and challenge proposals based on whether they comply with the approved criteria. Public accountability. When criteria in the town code, residents and developers know the rules of the game in advance. Internal procedures can change arbitrarily, limiting public oversight. Formal codified requirements protect against unethical practices whereas internal uncodified processes may hide ownership interest or encourage favoritism. I don't know whether your internal policy is going to be equally applied or you're going to favor certain parts over another. When the requirements are in the code, it says this is what has to be done and everybody can see it and have recourse if it's not done. That's why requirements in a code are important.

I No, I get Oh, sorry. I'm just saying I I would like a line saying, you know, all everybody's flowing along the same thing and they're using the correct documentation for it because this is outside of town. And then it seems like it could be used for or outside of master plan. Seems like it could be used for a master plan. I just kind of feel like if we're dotting the eyes and crossing the tees, we need to have some line in there saying please see blah blah blah for that. If I may inject. So on this discussion of the form, I think the closest that your current draft comes to addressing that form is in paragraph D delta on page two of five. Comprehensive staff reports one. You have a comment. The official date the application was submitted. So

it also captures two D2 D3 and uh the review and analysis starting at four is data with the the town planner, right?

And then five is the town planner and then there's records of public comment. The thing that gets me though is is number eight group reclassification analysis. If analysis reveals that neighboring or adjacent properties would benefit from reclassification as a group, the report shall include an evaluation of such. The rationale shall address the benefits of to overall land use compatibility, infrastructure efficiency, coordinated development, and community objectives. That that's very speak to that which was the the tip of Main Street, the group reclassification. It could apply. It was in the master plan. It could apply anywhere, but pre-classification.

Let me give you my

This is what I I've seen over the last five years being on the council. The previous planning commission, which I think everybody tries to do their best, but the previous planning commission, here's what I saw happen. So we seem very fixated on these um compatibility of property borders where okay if this is community commercial then you better have something next to it that's a buffer maybe that should be limited commercial and then maybe have neighborhood professional or whatever. What I saw the last planning commission do, they sat there and like one or two people said, "I want community commercial." And then the planning commission didn't just evaluate the merits of turning that property to commercial. They sat there and they said, "Well, you know, using our our graded structure here, I think we should change these guys to community commercial and then, you know, we're going to have to make the neighbors limited commercial. that we're going to have to make the next neighborhood professional. Before you know it, the whole street got reszoned. It's in my view partially what happened in the early stages of South Main Street. So, what this is saying is this is important and this is something new kind of that's in this ordinance. that says, you know, whether it be the property owners who maybe come in and say, I want my four properties side by side to be reszoned, whatever, or if the planning commission or even the council says, you know, maybe we ought to change these other properties too in a graded way. This says time out, guys. You can't just evaluate each property individually. You need to look at the impacts of that that four or five set of properties that you're reszoning. What are the impacts to the community on that? What are the impacts to the other neighbors by changing half of the street and

reszoning all those properties? And you would apply these same criteria, the same process. But item eight says if you're gonna if you're going to reszone multiple properties, whoever proposes it, you've got to show me that you've you've analyzed holistically what that's going to do to that street, that neighborhood, that community. And I don't think that was really done very well in the past. That's what that's Can I Yeah. Go ahead. Commissioner Ali, can I just say I would challenge um your theory right there and the statement you made. Um that's not what happened with that. And I would say holistically the planning commission did take a look at that. Mhm.

When a majority at the time came forward and won it at commercial, we looked at the whole area. Okay. And we looked at the borders. We looked at it. We tend to look at what's next to it. Yeah. what the road is, what the future holds, whatever crystal ball we can come up with when we're up here. And that's when you make those decisions. You have to be objective in those. And I would challenge you is that's not what happened. And we actually did sit down holistically, look at the borders, what made sense, and what people were requesting at the time. So and and and that and that's fair, but I will I will just say this. I And I'm not done yet.

Okay. And I I would say that I have no problem coming up with an ordinance that addresses a lot of this stuff. I mean, I think that's fair. That's great. But I think you need to engage your stakeholders better. And I think you're coming about this wrong and that's why you're getting so much push back and there's words being said that shouldn't be said and a lot of stuff. If you really want to get a good document and ordinance together to address these items, work with the planning commission, work with the director of planning. What do you want? And then we can work it together

and then we'll clean it up and then we'll make as perfect a document as we can get for you to present to the council instead of just saying this is what I'm mad about even though this didn't actually happen. I want you guys to approve this and I want and you have two days to give us a feedback. So, if I may real. Yeah, just just a moment. Um, no, I if just right quick I think that's very well said because um we did and specific to the topic of group resoning. Mhm.

I'll add to Commissioner Ali's uh recap of the effort within the master plan because the group resoning was driven by the council's acceptance of the five goals under the vision for the next 10 years for this town. That goal being the economic development of the town. the council, the elected members agreed we needed to have an economic growth element within the vision that we offered to the council which you adopted. And so the group resoning effort specific to South Mainstream emanated from now this body trying to achieve the goal that was given to us by the council. There was there was and and I went through that in the joint working group with you to show what available properties were there for either infill or redevelopment if you recall and it came to there was no property greater than about 1.93 acres I think was the top offering to do any economic development and that's the rationale I gave at the joint working group as to why we were focused on that side of town and in that area adjacent to current robust commercial activity, Chick-fil-A, Richside, etc., etc. Okay.

Shiny Shell and all that. So the and and so I'm trying to make sure that the history is is depicted accurately here, okay? because we were trying to do what the council approved when we set about at the very outset with here's a vision. Do you guys want it? Yes. Go with that. Here are the goals that underpin the vision. Do you want these? Yes. Go with that. And so the remaining portion of the comprehensive master plan was all driven by that go forth and make the town look like this in the next 10 years. So I You know, I I don't want the discussion here to focus on revisionist history. I don't want it to look in the rearview mirror, but I do want to set the record straight that

you made it an important point just a moment ago about this group resoning. And that's that's how the 20 properties on South Main Street came into the master plan as the best way that this body can think of developing an economic goal for this town's growth. um and not only that, it was the farmer that had his the multigenerational family farm that he can't do anything with anymore and he wanted it zoned as commercial so maybe someday, you know, he could offload the property that the state has stolen from him from road construction.

And I also want to interject about the family that's next to a traffic circle now. So when you talk about us not looking at things, they wanted adamant about community commercial because I said, "What about neighborhood professional community commercial? What about limited commercial?" We tried to give options and they were adamant about that because think about that. They're next to a traffic circle. How would you sell that as a residential neighbor? They're essentially landrapped and they came in during the process and they

they were very much in for and and we did ask for lesser zones from them community commercial and you yourself has asked encouraged us several times quite loudly to listen to the citizens. Please listen to the citizens. Well, we did and then we had public meetings and there were more public meetings and then the properties changed hands and for some reason somebody came in and said, you know, I hate to say this again, revision is history, but oh, Commissioner Hatley wants to steal our homes for for a medical center, which was absolutely not true. And one call to the town would have rectified that. You literally sign a document, your real estate documents saying zones and something else. I can't remember the exact title where you have to call. And I learned this lesson at as a 22-year-old when my boss made me go down to town to find out whether his McMansion would be next to a McDonald's someday.

And these citizens did advocate for that and we tried to find a balance. This was not an easy decision for anybody. It was a very difficult thing to balance. Let me um let me May I respond to let me Well, let me let me offer this council member Deoner. Let me let me see if I can bring the temperature down by some specific things to consider in possibly continuing to revise this. Is may I may I please respond to the to the comment?

Let me get my points and if we have time uh I'll I'll open it to you. So let me let me get in with asking if we could turn to page two of five again referencing uh paragraph D delta and we talk about this is the work that's to be done by the town staff. Okay. So this is the staff report. It's entitled the comprehensive staff report. And so we talk about the staff report incorporating at minimum the following elements. And so then you go on into the next page to describe eight elements. And I'm going to say it up front, maybe it's a taxonomy thing that I'm focused on here. I'll accept that. But the taxonomy of now saying the staff report required by the town in this in this uh proposed amendment is going to look at eight elements. And then within element bolegs five we now introduce the term criteria. So now we've have a second term called criteria. And if we turn the page and we look at paragraph B, Bravo under 11269, it says they shall be evaluated according to the criteria below which now is underneath that 10 criteria. So, all I'm suggesting here, and I think you addressed it in your opening in working through this revision about bringing the taxonomy down to kind of a Joe Tempeg, keep it simple. Uh,

allow Ralph to understand it. Okay, I'll even self-deprecate to say that. But my point is in this process and in this flow you talk about a staff report that focuses on elements. Within the elements itself you ask under number five for there to be consideration of criteria and the criteria are 10 more things. Can we can we kind of make it simple? Because if I were on the staff and I said okay I got to write a report that considers five elements. One of them has 10 extra things. I'm just saying can we can we kind of make it easy for staff planning commission to go through your process?

Yeah, I mean yes.

So under under D the one through eight those are elements. I mean we can call them action steps. I'm I'm just I'm I'm I'm I'm describing what this is. The these are the steps of considering a reasonzoning application, analyzing it, making a recommendation, and documenting the recommendation. Okay, we talk about criteria. I I think it's pretty clear. Go to item number four. This is the first place we say criteria. Item four says, "Review and analysis results. Detailed findings based on consideration of the required evaluation criteria listed in section 11269." So that means you've got to review and analyze this and give me results and you're going to apply the criteria under 112-69. That's where the criteria are. That tells you what you have to consider. Those are the criteria. And then number five says when you're considering those criteria, you got to say how you how you address them. Maybe you might want to weight them, maybe you might not. And then the rest of these are the steps after you've considered those criteria and analyzed against those criteria. You're going to make a recommendation. And then you're going to put that in the staff report. And that staff report then gets handed to the planning commission. Now, if you look at E, planning commission review, this is a this is a change we made in in the updated ordinance. Now, it says under E. Okay, it says E, you need to look at my updated revision.

E says planning commission review. Now, the planning commission has to review. See, it says, "Shall review the detailed staff report, conduct a public meeting, document its deliberations and recommendations, and then it says considering elements D1 and 8 above because that's what you guys do." John gives you a staff report or a recommendation. I'm not going to comment about the quality of that, but he does that. He gives it to you. Just did comment on it, by the way. Okay. He gives it to you. I I I get it. I apologize. I apologize. He gives it to you and then and then you go through these same steps. That's the point I'm making.

You iterate on this. You you don't just sit there and take the staff report. You actually consider these things yourself. You you toss around criteria. You toss around, you know, changes and then you arrive at your recommendation. So I I think that that process is here. I thought it was pretty clear that the criteria are in section 11269 and that's what you go to for your criteria. So let me just let me just clarify. So element four and element five which mention criterias each of those two elements which are expected to be in the staff report. Mhm.

Each of four and five have to now be sliced across the 10 criteria. You need to you need to consider those criteria in 11269. You may you may consider some of them more so than others. You may say this doesn't apply and here's why. But yeah, you got to go look at those criteria and show you've con considered them. So of the eight elements, four and five now break out into these 10 criteria under 11269. Well, they don't break out. They say go to that section and apply those criteria. Well, what if we don't do that and we just do the one through eight?

I mean, it's already adding like another three days to John's staff report to even do that because as volunteers, you I think you guys are all outstanding. One day you're all not going to be here. Ralph may not be. He might get he may not be here in a year. So, we're going to have new people here. So, next month. So, so your tongue it's the it's it's the town staff that has the planning expertise. And and again, I don't I don't want to get too hung up on the taxonomy elements that now are hierarchy with criteria. I'm just trying to keep it simple. Keep it simple and understandable. I thought it was, but

as to what all you believe needs to be considered in a resoning request, um that and perhaps that's just me as a single commissioner here, but I I had to kind of flip pages to understand where parts fit in um between elements, criteria, findings. You got rid of factors, I believe. Um, and I believe you also streamlined the word standards out. Um, so there was a winnowing down of the taxonomy, but we have these elements that have a hierarchy over criteria.

And again, perhaps it's just me. I the kiss principle, you know, just keep it simple is all I'm asking. If rather than have to go between four and five bow legs D to 11269 to pull in 10 criteria, I'm just saying maybe there's a better way. So what is your what is your recommendation to list the criteria here under four? No, my my actually if if I were to say it, I would I would say the findings of reclassification would end at B1 consistency with the comprehensive plan because that's the book that we wrote.

Yeah. that about comprehensive planning and a master plan. If we were looking at the master plan that we all took part in, everyone at this table, and if we're having the town staff do an a detailed analysis of that property and what its proposed use is, and if it fits within uh the lighting, the sounds, the odor, the water, the the uh environmental conditions, the making sure that we're not we're uh we're uh based on race or ethnicity. And then we're looking at uh public comments and group reclassification and then we're having a planning commission review after John gets that all together for us.

And you know John can complete his report 1 to8 and then he could look at section 11269 and say okay does these findings match what our master plan says? Is it in our master plan for this to align with the town's vision of whatever that might be? I'm thinking nothing. We don't want anything to happen. That's kind of the why I'm saying, you know, that's what this looks like is a, you know, a future of nothing for the town. Um, but uh but yeah, suitability for subject property, sustainable parcel, proposed uses versus its current classification. Sure, there's plenty of those.

So, a comment on that again. This this this ordinance applies to properties being considered for resoning during the master plan process and also properties outside the master plan process.

Um the term f I mean I get what you're saying Ralph. I I can and I'm going to I'll turn to Tom on this, but there's a reason why the word findings is used because under section 112-69, that's language that was already in the code and that's kind of land use planning kind of language and you know, we we didn't want to mess with changing that word for different reasons. So, I think it's about as clean as it can be um the way it is. I I'll just turn to Tom to talk about why we why, you know, I I think we went it windowed it down to criteria. Okay. We have findings. Can I just offer

Yeah. Can we consider maybe just adding a flowchart into the back of the document and that might help clarify the process just like we do for site plan uh development or concept plans. And may I continue? Sure. Thank you.

Okay. So the first thing is uh and I don't need an answer to this but I mean how many resoning requests do we get per year because there's a lot of concern with the amount of burden on the town staff. So I would just think it would be good to put it into perspective for how many requests we actually get versus the amount of work that's required for each. Um the other comment I had is that I think that this ordinance is good governance and it's and it promotes transparency in town government and I think we should all be for that. Um, we have had multiple uh multiple and I'm not going to name them, but multiple resonings in this town um that have be that have basically been a surprise to to much of the members of the town um and you know like decisions made in backdoor you know meeting or back room meetings um about those resoning. So there was no transparency. And on the topic of overreach, um you know, when we were looking at the South Main properties, to be fair, I don't think that the people um who live in those homes were notified while we were having all of the comprehensive master plan discussions. I think they were notified like once the plan was going to be finalized. And I think that um you know, having all those discussions about reszoning someone else's property without them being aware, you know, that could be considered overreach. Um the other thing is that uh for the annexation process um you know we went through a very thorough process. We did that because it's this body but another group of people might not choose to do something that thorough whether it's for annexations or for resonings. Um the other thing is about policy. So you know policies come and go. New leadership can change policies. I I work in the government right so I see that. Um, and then as far as the citizens calling the town to find out about their properties or what's going on, again, if it's in the middle of discussion and

it's not on the record yet, they probably won't know about it. And um, you know, I think the council member did submit a PIA. And so if these forms, if this was the policy to use this form, then why weren't they returned in the PIA? Um, so it just goes to show that I think having something codified in in the uh in an ordinance, that's the way that you ensure consistency and transparency and good governance in the town.

Any other commissioner questions on this? Um, I have more questions, but for the sake of time and for the reality that we have 90 days from February 23rd, let me let me not let my comments or continued questions on this stop any commissioner at this point from offering a motion with regard to accepting or not accepting or recommending approval, I should say, or disapp approval of the draft ordinance 2026-2. So in other words, what I am saying is we still have time to go through another round of this kind of discussion in the April meeting, which I believe would be April 27th, or is there sufficient resolution of two occurrences of discussing this draft ordinance that there is a commissioner ready to make a motion? I'm being fair here for all those

all those ends of the discussion tonight or I'm not in favor of making a motion tonight. Okay. I I would again my preference is to work as more of a group to work and resolve this because the back and forth is not working.

Okay. Any other comment with regard to I'm opening the door. I'm not dictating we will not decide tonight. I am stating we have more time to discuss and reach a resolution. I'm sorry, a recommendation. So, I don't hear a motion for tonight's uh recommendation. So, we'll move this discussion uh of 2026-2 into the April 27th meeting, John, if we can include it on that agenda. Um

I I do have some more questions. Um, I am offering that we send those back through you, John, if we do on this revision and then you get them to council member de motor. Okay, I will do that.

All right. So, um, so, so based upon this latest, we're going to be working with this latest, um, redlinined version for any comments from any commissioner and you send those to John. Um, touching again on your opening that you you were pushed for time given April 27th and us having to have the read ahead and the public announcement on April 20th, 7 days in advance, which would include, of course, any revision to this version, April 20th. Give us a rough ballpark in respect to your schedule as to when you would need to see any further edits from this body. What what is the date you need a revised version?

Um, generally speaking, April 20th would be 7 days prior to our commission meeting is when we post it and provide the read aheads to the commissioner. So, April 20th would have to be, and I think the latest, John, I don't want to put words in you or Deborah's mouth, but you could take it the morning of the 20th for printing and duplication, but the preference would be the 17th would be the 17th, the Friday before. Really, the 16th because then it gives me a day to get ready for whatever has to be done on the 20th for delivery. Understood. So, April 17th and I'm just trying to work backwards. Council member Deoter. Yeah. Um,

morning of the 17th. Apparently, two weeks is not enough. Well, I was going to say, you know, so backing up two weeks, what would that be? The What would the date be? April 3rd, I believe. It's 14 from 17. I'm not sure. Okay. four days. I was going to say that's that's this Friday, right? I I'm I don't have a calendar in front of me. That's Friday. I I'm I'm trying to work it. I I understand. I'm I'm trying to work it. And so working that date

as I did in February, if you have comments on this version, commissioners, try to get them to John by April 3. Well, we might as well make it the second because April 3rd is Good Friday. So, okay. Okay. April 2nd, which is right around the corner, which is Thursday, three days away. Yeah. Okay. So, all right. Um and and if not, then I would I would ask that this discussion inform any possible revisions. Yes.

Absent some input through John, that this discussion could possibly generate some some further changes. Um, and um, can I make a a closing comment? Oh, sure. Sure. And then we're going to move on to business.

Steve, I appreciate I appreciate everybody's comments, and these are these are sensitive comments. I I know you did a thorough job on South Main Street, but that's that's where a lot of issues came out of this. You you say you did a group analysis and and and I I'll give you that, but something I'm just saying stepping back from it, something's not right because we think we're doing a good job or a lot of people think you've done a good job, but yet we had a a lot of people that were unhappy. So So why were people unhappy? And I know I know to your point, Ralph, you did come up with a vision for South Main Street and whatever the council guidance gave you, they gave you. But in the end, the council twice voted against reszoning all those properties on South Main Street. So some something was a skew there. And and I think I you know, I don't want this to be totally centered on South Main Street. And and that's that's my fault. It it's it's much broader than that. And let's not forget, just to add on, February 3rd, 2025, unanimous approval of that master plan and all those reszonings from the council.

I know, but remember, Ralph, remember what happened which caused this sticky wicket. The council never got to adjudicate and discuss the reasonzonings until after the plan was signed. And that's that's part of what happened there. But I don't want to go there. But let me let me just close by saying I hear you Steve. Let's I'd like to work together on this. But I the last meeting I I made this comment. I said you know when you guys give comments and this is what I'm asking now. If you want to just say fix this, fix that. This is bad. That's bad. Question question. If you that's what you want to give me. Okay. But it's more helpful if you say change the wording in line three to say this instead of that or move section one here instead of here. That's the kind of constructive comment that then we can work with. And that's kind of working together, not just throwing comments over the transom and saying I don't like this. So, with that spirit and and based on what I heard tonight, I'm going to go back. I'll work with the town attorney. If somebody wants to float me in a a trial balloon, we'll put together a flowchart. And I want to I'm going to try not to make it too engineeringish. I mean, there's a way you can make a flowchart that's simplistic but still shows the steps. So, that'll be one of my actions. So, I'm I'm going to develop a flowchart and bring that back um as part of the re revised ordinance, but I appreciate the feedback. Um some of you may not think this belongs in the code, and if that's what you think now, then just take your vote and and give an answer. If you're open to putting all this in the code, then let's keep working on it. So, thank you.

Okay. Um we'll pick this up on the agenda for April 27th. John and Deborah, please. Um, and just as a quick aside, I believe we'll also have a second draft amendment, um, draft ordinance. Um, we'll pick up 2026-1. Correct. So, for the commissioners, we'll continue with this one and we'll also pick up the mobile food unit in um in the April 27th meeting. So, uh, John Martina, we'll need to work and take a close look at what that agenda is going to be because I that that's going to be our last bite at the apple, I believe, on both of them. Is that is that accurate? That's correct.

So, um, the more time that we can allocate to it, um, I don't want to drive the town business and applications for important work, but you you can understand what I'm saying, John. We only have so many days between now and then. You only have so many days, right? Okay. Um, let's move on to reports and other business. And there is an item here on new commission uh business that I'll u that I'll address. Uh but uh comm council member Kelly uh a quick council report, please. Sure.

Uh so the council met on uh March 2nd. Uh Councilman Mund reported that an $850,000 federal grant has been secured for renovation of the Flat Iron Building. uh purchase and sale agreement was uh approved for a small section of land on the Mount Area Apartments property. Uh this was necessary in order to add a POS remediation facility at water pumping station 2. Uh there was a uh public hearing for the Warfield annexation um I'm sorry, the Warfield annexation public hearing was scheduled uh for Wednesday, June 10th uh 700 p.m. here at town hall. Uh lastly, uh ordinance, uh so this is regarding the water and sewer rates. Uh ordinance 2026-3 was passed adjusting water and sewer rates with scheduled increases uh of 19% this year, then 13, five, and 3% beginning fiscal year 2031 and each year thereafter. Uh after this uh so with this schedule uh we're forecasted to begin building um our reserves back up beginning fiscal year 2029 achieving 60% of the forecasted annual expenses at that point. Uh the goal is to have no less than a half year's uh expenses in reserve with a target of a full year in reserve. So um that ordinance was passed after much uh uh analysis and debate and forecasting. Um, town staff did a lot of work over um, several months and I think we got uh, something well this is my personal opinion. Well, we got something that uh, that will be effective in addressing um, what needs to be done with water and sewer. So, um, the next council meeting will be this coming Monday uh, April 6th. Any questions, comments?

Thank you very much. um zoning administrator report. Um you've provided that to each of us. Uh any highlights, John, or just take questions? Nothing new. No. Okay. Unless anybody has any questions about it.

Are there any questions on the zoning admin report from Okay. Um before I get into new business, I'm going to go to the very bottom line uh bullet there, and that is u before I forget, uh due to Memorial Day falling on the uh date that we would normally have our um commission meeting in May, uh that that date is now going to be May 18th. Uh so we're going to move it up a week, which is typically what we do uh every year. Uh we advance it. So, for the month of May, just please make a note. It is May 18th versus uh the 25th, which is Memorial Day. Is that going to be at 7:30?

Um we're we're about to go into talking about that. Okay. All right. So, um so under new business, um um three quick things that I wanted to put before the commissioners. Uh the first thing is I want to make sure that everybody has got a hard copy of the uh planning commission rules and procedures. Um that's that's a document that I believe John has provided at least once if not twice I believe and three times or twice.

Twice. Okay. Um and and so I I encourage um when you've got nothing to do to go through uh the rules and procedures um and uh take a look at certain sections in there uh everything from voting if there's a tie to um a very sensitive topic uh exparte communications and what happens if you find yourself in an exparte communication um the actions that you are required to make a self-announcement and self-recusal from any topics associated with that communications. And so these are all important things that when we signed up and were appointed and confirmed by the council that we agreed to. So again, I just simply want to make sure everybody's aware of the rules and procedures of this. Secondly, um I sent out some information regarding the use of phones during the commission meetings and I cited some um uh historical events that have occurred uh namely in the town of Sykesville with regard to um the use of phones during an active uh commission meeting. And so, um, I'm encouraging everybody, do not provide an optic that you're using your phone in any in any communication. If, if that communication is occurring with another elected official or another commissioner, then you have to understand you're violating the Open Meetings Act, which is all communications have to be made public on the topic at hand. So, um, this is not Ralph Gent's rule. This is simply trying to make sure that we don't create the optic where somebody could suddenly walk in the next day after a commission meeting and thrust a PIA in front of you to divulge everything that you were

doing on your phone during the commission discussion of ABC. Okay? And and they would be well within their rights to do that because of what they observed. So whether it's a benign use of your phone or whatever, I just encourage you, please don't use your phones and create that optic that then would just bring a PIA um on you, possibly bring a PIA on you. Um and and lastly, I've gotten feedback from two commissioners that as much as we try to do the town's business one day a month within three hours, um that taking our meetings to 10:30 is really much too late for volunteers who have home homework, home life balance issues. And so this very last topic under new business is to um uh make a motion. I'll look for a second and then we'll have a discussion about it. And that motion is that we change the start time of our commission meetings to 7:00. I'm not going to change the 3 hours required for us to do the town's business because frankly in the years that I've been on this commission, three years I mean I'm sorry, three hours is is even pushing it sometimes for us to get everything done. um sign applications, ordinance amendments, uh water allocation. You all understand. Um I suppose we could have a discussion about abbreviating that period to something less like two and a half hours or two hours, but I'm not so sure we can conduct the town's business that we're asked to do in in in a shorter time than three hours. Now, it's fair to say sometimes we get out of here early um and and sometimes we're pushing it. Our current agenda is 7:30 to 10:30 with a caveat on the agenda published to the

public that all matters that go beyond 10:30 we push to the next agenda. I have in the past when we get around 10:30 which we got four minutes away I have asked does anybody want to continue or do we go ahead and push it and I got to kind of get everybody's sentiment so I'm kind of you know democratic here on whether everybody wants to stay. So, with all that said, and in consideration of the 10:30 ending, that is uncomfortable uh for a couple of folks, um I am making the motion to change the commission start time to 700 p.m. and we set our agenda end at 10 p.m. and any matters not completely addressed or voted upon by 10 p.m. will be carried over to the next meeting. Is there a second? I'll second.

Commissioner Buts seconds that now we're in discussion. Is there any discussion about changing it to 7 p.m. instead of 7:30? Anybody with it if it's you guys okay with that? Three thumbs up. No discussion. No discussion. Okay. Do they do they need do they have you guys have any discussion for seven? No. Okay. Okay. Not hearing any discussion. Uh, all those in favor of the motion to start at 7 and extend our period to 1000 p.m. beginning in April on April 27th. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed? Nay.

Those abstaining. Okay. So, the motion passes that will begin in April 27th and thereon. um a start time for the commission at 7 p.m. Chairman Gant, before we uh conclude this, I would like to read something out loud.

Um so I would like to first thank uh Mayor Husher for your confidence in appointing me to serve the planning commission over the past several years. It has been a privilege to serve the town of Mount Ary and contribute to a broader vision of our community. With that said, please accept this letter as a formal resignation of the planning commission effective immediately. This will be my final meeting as a voting commissioner. Unfortunately, I feel the current um environment within the planning commission has become increasingly difficult and is no longer aligning with my personal values and ethical standards. Over the past several months, there have been multiple situations that I believe are in conflict with the principles we committed to uphold as members of this body. With that said, I wish everybody a um I wish the commission and the town leadership the best moving forward and hope my concerns that are outlined in here, which I'm not going to address with anybody. Um I have letters that I will give to certain members, um be taken into consideration.

Thank you. It is 10:29. This meeting is adjourned. The next meeting will be 700 p.m. on April 27th. Thank you.