Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, I would like to call to order the town of Sville Planning Commission meeting for uh Monday, April 6th, 2026. And um the first piece of business is to approve the minutes for March 2nd, 2026 meeting. Has everybody had a chance to review the minutes? Yeah. Okay, cool. Are there any questions or amendments? Cool. Then I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from March 2nd, 2026. Do I have a second? Cool. All in favor? I. Okay, cool. They're approved. Next order of business or um county updates. Are there any county updates to report?

Good evening. Yes, we have a few. Um, one of them is that we have a couple new planners in the county uh office and that allows us to do some some mixing around and trying to provide everybody a liaison. And so I'm Tiffany Faucet. I'm Sykesville's new liaison. And um I'll be here monthly, I suppose. Oh, and I just lost all my updates. Let me get open that back up. Okay. Um, so compiling the annual report, thank you for submitting that. We should have a a draft copy of that available to the town uh in May. We're currently working through our own county master plan right now. We're just going kind of plugging away at it. Um we're going through some recommendations out of the workg groupoups that we had last year. We um have a lot of plans being submitted right now. Like last month uh for technical review committee, there were eight of them. There's usually maybe one to three of them each month and five of those were solar projects. So those are really rolling in heavy right now. Um the deferrals are still in effect. That's for retirement villages, planning commercial center, planned commercial centers, and cluster subdivisions in the Freedom Growth area. We also have data center deferral on right now. And um the self- storage one is going to be extended as of this Thursday for public well, it's open for public hearing on this Thursday. So closer to here, I think everybody received a copy of some development activity in the area. Um not in Sexville, but around the growth area. So that's the Papsco Valley overlook, the Papsco Estates, and that's a um one lot subdivision, Papskco Estates section six, which is six residential subdivision lots. Um and the Freedom Park Pavilion, which is brand new, coming in, Freedom's Grant and Freedom's Grant Stockpile that is just to the south of that. Does anyone have any questions about any of the plans in the area? No. Okay. Um the priorities priority letter went to the state. Uh it was signed on the 19th and projects were um put in the letter in numerical order.

However, the county commissioners did include a summary of lists uh requests that were in order of priority by request type. And under construction was the Maryland 32nd Street to Main Street breakout project from the 2018 PEL study. That was for safety improvements, widening of roads from two to four lanes, including complete streets and multi multimodal access. Um, in the future, we just have uh we do have a consultant working where they're reviewing the master plan and the freedom plan for consistency with our zoning code and then making like recommendations if there's inconsistencies that they're finding there. Um, so we might be updating that in the future. We also have the state legislation that was passed last year for the ADU requirements and that is that we just allow an ADU at every single family dwelling. So, we're going to be working through that in the next few months because we have to get that into effect by October 1. And then something that we're just working together with BMC and the um the Department of Natural Resources and Howard County actually as well on the Henry Road spur of the Tapsco regional green um greenway just uh to connect Sykesville to Mckelden and on that portion and it will also connect um Carol County to Howard County as well. Does anyone have any questions about anything the updates?

No, thank you. All right. Well, thanks for allowing me to be here this evening. Yeah, thank you. On to the um first order of business. Um consider discuss PEC amendment process proposal. Does staff have some some comments?

Uh yes, I'll go through their staff report uh quickly as I can. Um so Thrive at Warfield with Senate Warfield companies uh submitted a letter to the town uh requesting that planning commission provide some feedback um on the proposed process to initiate site plan review for a partial B. So a little bit of background for that site. A conditional use request for an assisted living facility uh was reviewed and approved by the board of zoning appeals on April 29th, 2025. Following the DZA approval, um the applicants requested an overview of the required process to begin development of partial B, which was provided by the town zoning administrator in a letter dated August 28, 2025. Um in the letter, the zoning administrator explained that development of partial B would require an amended PEC plan and must follow the steps established in chapter 180-14 of the town code. Uh that same August 28th process letter was later appealed to the BCA in case number 2025-04. A verbal decision was rendered as being consistent with the town code requirements. Um and a formal break decision from that case is currently pending. The applicants have since submitted a letter to town staff which is dated March 10th, 2026. This letter was in response to a conversation with staff regarding potential contents for a new PEC plan amendment. Uh the letter request that staff and planning commission discuss process considerations on an amendment to the PEC concept and PEC preliminary plan which covers the entire Warfield property. Um the specific amendments that would only include changes related to the completed subdivision partial ENF uh the rehabilitation of partial D building F and then show drive proposed assisted living facility on partial B. So moving on some analysis. The applicant's March 10 letter proposes a simultaneous review of the concept and preliminary plan steps of the PEC plan

amendment process. A combined review is only permitted in certain circumstances as an exception to the standard amendment review process as determined by the zoning administrator. Uh, in this case, this matter has already been settled in BCA case number 2025-04, and staff has previously advised the applicant that the BEC plan amendment process would require a review of the concept and preliminary plan separately per chapter 180-14 of the town code. If the applicants were to move forward with an acceptable amendment to the overall PEC plan, uh staff has indicated that a site plan specific to partial B could be submitted for review in conjunction with the PEC amendment process. Um we are willing to accommodate this proposal to allow for a jump start on technical reviews at the county levels. These reviews can often take significant time to complete. Uh however, the the applicant must understand and be willing to accept certain risks associated with processing the applications together. Furthermore, the planning commission would not be required to consider a site plan submittal for parcel B until the amended PEC preliminary plan and associated pattern book received approvals. It uh it should also be noted that there's currently a pending case for the BZA involving an appeal of the planning commission's decision to deny amended PEC concept plan for the Warfield project. That was case number 202502. So any any new submitt by the applicant should only be considered after this case is is finalized or withdrawn to eliminate the potential for two competing submittals and consideration of any specific amendments to the approved plan that were mentioned in the March 10 letter uh should be limited until a formal submitt has been made to ensure the feedback is relevant to an actual proposal. So with all that being said, at this point, planning commission is simply being asked for feedback on the proposed process outlined in the applicant's March 10th letter. Considering that the process in question is the sole determination of the of the zoning administrator and has already been decided on, staff would recommend

the planning commission refer the applicant to the zoning administrator's letter dated August 28th, 2025. Uh furthermore, staff does not see it as beneficial at this point to discuss details of an amendment which has not been submitted, especially considering that there is still an outstanding amended PEC concept plan that is yet to be fully resolved. Um so that is all I have. Um and then yeah, are here if you guys have questions as well.

Yeah. Um the commission has received Mr. Bowers's March 10th letter and um before we hear from the applicants, um I just want to specify this is not a hearing. There's no application before us um to approve, deny, or condition. And under section 180-144, the zoning administrator has the authority to determine whether the concept and preliminary amendment steps may be combined. All other amendment decisions remain with the planning commission. That determination was made August 28th, 2025 and upheld by the BCA on February 24th, 2026. We are not being asked to revisit it tonight, and we should be careful not to do so inadvertently. So before the commission engages with the proposed process, there is a threshold question that I think needs to be addressed. Section 180-144 governs amendments to an approved plan. The commission should understand whether the existing preliminary plan and pattern book are in compliance before engaging with a process to modify them. Um could staff please um address this or or or schedule addressing this?

Yeah. Well, so I will say if this doesn't answer your question, let me know. uh the approved PEC uh preliminary plan which is approved in 2016 and the associated pattern book do comply with the general requirements okay of the town code and that's a plan that um if the applicants wanted to or the property owners wanted to start developing the site consistent with that plan they could do so at at any time okay and that process as I understand it assuming that the PEC plan the concept plan for the PEC is in place the process for individual applications for developments within that also have a three-step process. Concept, preliminary, and final. They're not only not necessarily. So,

unless so the if they're developing a parcel that's consistent with what's on the approved preliminary plan, then that would typically just be a site plan um review. So, from our our stage, it would just be one approval, one approval, a site plan approval. Um the county technical reviews could have additional steps. Um you know, storm water typically follows a three-step process, so there's some confusion there. But from a planning commission perspective, if we're developing one site that's consistent with the PEC preliminary plan, then it's usually just a site plan.

Okay. And then uh I just like to provide a little background context on why a comprehensive amendment process is important here. Um, section 180-134 sets the standard for every PEC in Sykesville. The code requires, and these are quotes from the code, comprehensively designed mixeduse centers that are designed to function as cohesive in integrated sites with harmonious and coordinated development and a synergy of uses. These are whole site standards. Any amendment to the PC will be evaluated comprehensively for synergy across the entire district. This is what the code requires and what this commission is obligated to apply. Then um as Kevin mentioned in depth, there are a couple pending matters. Um written decisions in cases 202503 and 202504 have not yet been issued. And under BCA rules of procedure section 10, a verbal announcement is not a final decision. Um, BZA case 202502, which is an appeal of the planning commission's decision to deny a previously submitted concept plan, has not been heard by the BZA, and no hearing date has been scheduled as of this time, but the application has been received. And finally, the commission refers to the applicant to the zoning administrator's letter of August 28th, 2025 as the governing process document. We recommend the applicant await written decisions in all pending PZA cases before returning with a formal submitt. When a formal submitt is made, the commission will evaluate it on the merits in accordance with section 180-14 and the standards of section 180-134. Um, I'd like to open it up to applicants if you have any comments or

Yeah.

Uh, for the record, uh, Steve McCleaf forfield companies, uh, property owner and, um, I will be also speaking on behalf of you in the room, uh, Rob Hopson with, uh, representing Thrive. Um the the main first off I think uh concerning uh pursuing a simultaneous process and assuming the risks I think we're we're both uh aware of the risks involved with uh you know a con a concept plan and a preliminary site plan for parcel B proceeding along with the PEC plan. If there's uh if there's any hangup with the PEC plan, we we understand that that uh that the applicant uh and and the owner will, you know, we'll be spending money at their own risk to further the specific site plan for uh for parcel B for the assisted living facility. Is that agreeable? Okay. Um the one thing, the main thing that I wanted to address tonight was um it is correct that um the uh the PEC concept plan appeal um has not yet been heard by the BCA and and that has been on hold and that is on hold awaiting decisions on the other cases to figure out if if we want to proceed with that with that concept plan uh appeal. Um it's important to note that really the um what what we would propose actually is um allowing allowing with respect to parcel B a PEC concept plan to proceed that only brings everything up to date which is parcels

ENF of Parkside at Warfield uh building F and parcel D and what the assisted living facility at uh on on um on parcel B. Um everything that and we would like to move that forward uh so so our our contract purchaser the applicant can actually uh advance their their contract and perform under their contract. The problem with um waiting for um waiting for the PEC concept plan that was submitted last uh last um spring to be resolved is that that that could we have first off we haven't decided what we're we're going to do there. But the main issue with that plan has to do with with housing and the the housing expansion and affordability act. Anything that would be decided in and and say we win an appro we win and uh and get a favorable ruling by the BCA would only be additive to what would be proposed on building uh on parcel B. In other words, you know, we wouldn't what we what what we are doing with the PEC concept plan that was submitted last year, you know, would take into account exactly what we're doing on parcel B. Anything that would come out of that process would be would be potentially additive or could be or could be delayed. Um, but what we don't what we're not prepared to do at the moment is to withdraw that that plan. We don't necessarily I guess what I'm saying is we don't necessarily see them being in conflict. We see them as being complimentary. Um because

essentially what we're proposing to do to move parcel B forward is to to just update what's already been done which we've been asked to do. Um and again that's park side that's that's uh building F parcel D. Um and then taking into account what they would be doing with their concept plan. So, we would ask for some consideration on that. Um, if by chance we advance to the BZA on that concept plan from last spring um and we were denied, then we would have to make another decision whether or not to head to uh circuit court and appeal there. And in that case, that could take a very very long time. And um I don't I don't think these folks are waiting around. The problem with dropping that right now is that we really have to I think we have to resolve this question of the HIA that doesn't have anything to do with uh Mr. Hopson and his partners. So we're trying to we're trying to strike a balance there. Again, we don't see the the two plans as necessarily conflicting. um uh whatever would happen with that PEC concept plan submitted last year would would be aligned with what what they're doing. Um the only difference is again the housing aspect of it, the density aspect of it.

So how could we know I'm sorry I didn't go ahead. Yeah. How could we know as a commission which concept plan we were actually voting on at that point? At which point? Well, at the point that we made a decision about moving forward with a combined plan.

Well, if you had voted on a plan, if you had voted on a plan that updated, let's say, let's trying to simplify. If we updated parcel D and F, they would be the same thing on both both plans. If we updated building, we update building uh F, parcel D, it's going to be the same thing on both of the plans. Whatever these guys do on parcel B is going to be the it's going to be the same as on the other plan where it's connectivity may be different. I mean

well what they do is connectivity between parcel B and the rest of the the uh the rest of the project. That's kind of the reason that we need a concurrent process with these votes. We would then be voting on a plan which connected to the public rights of way which the plan which is being appealed at the moment say is going to be reserved for retail and that sounds like an impossible thing for us to do. Well, that that that the plan that's you mean in process right now is reserved for retail.

Well, the one that you're appealing is the one that we we sent and said we don't recommend it and the one that the BCA has verbally turned down. That's the plan that you're appealing. that's the plan that you're going to be connecting to and I just don't see how we could rationally do that. Just to clarify, the plan that's under appeal right now remove the the retail.

That's that's that's my point. They're the same up until the point you get to the housing question. Let's call it the housing question or the HEA question. And that has nothing to do with them, but the two plans up through Okay. again and including Parkside building F parcel B and the Thrive project. It would be the same between the two. But the the key issue of the of what's being considered for or what's pending appeal really everything has revolves as you're familiar around the applicability of state law. And what we're trying to do is obviously thread a needle here that we're we're we're trying to separate that issue uh from what Mr. Hopson and his partners are doing to advance a use that I think the planning commission and and the BZA were both um seem very positive about as evidenced by the vote uh votes in both by both bodies. So again, I don't necessarily see a conflict and Kevin, I appreciate the the uh the clarification there.

Mr. Chairman, if I could uh so I think just a just to clarify, I think the the whole idea of having two plans out there. The plans would be very different though. So again, if you're talking about basically what exists today is more of an office complex plan, is that is that an accurate interpretation of basically what the plan looks like today? Like the approved plan today? I mean, it it has it has office and it Yeah, it has a hotel that we're removing, right? So, and then the the plan that's under appeal uh was additional residential based on the heel. That's that's correct.

That's correct. So again, so both plans are actually very different. One is office related and the other is more of a residential side. So again, to say that they there's no conflict there. How assisted living then works with within both of those plans is very different. How are you going to incorporate that into like a more of a residential feel or how are you going to incorporate that into a more of an office complex kind of feel? I think that's the issue that

planning commission. I think that the notion the the supposedly the beauty of a mixeduse plan and a plan unit development is allowing it to evolve over time and allowing flexibility and um to think that you can I mean I think we've demonstrated this in the history of this project as long as the towns own it as long as we've owned it is that people's concept of what need to hap what what happened there uh change the market changes sometimes Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes attitude towards certain things change. But at the end of the day, if he were to go down his path, okay, of of getting, let's say he advances, we advance a plan with him. I don't see I don't I don't see how that that uh basic plan that shows assisted living there and updates uh for for Parkside and updates for uh building F uh really has how that would any of that would change how anything he's doing would change based upon whether or not there was residential on the balance of the property. And I think when you have a mixeduse project that goes out over two decades or more, to think that you can anticipate everything that's going to be submitted and that you're uh you're going to be able to manage every little detail of it is is unrealistic. And I think it goes the against the idea in my experience of what a mixeduse zone does. I mean, you write the zoning ordinance and write these plans to guide the developer and give them some room to work. And really, I don't see how I'm hardressed to see how if everything's the same on E and F and everything's the same with what's already been done at par on parcel D,

including building F, and what Mr. Hobson and his team want to do on parcel B. I'm if it's going to be the same on both plans, I'm hardressed to see how residential affects anything that he's going to be doing on on his parcel. They've already they've already demonstrated that um that the impacts from what they are proposing across the board are are less than what's already shown on the PEC plan and the hotel. So, I'm we look Joe, you know, we could we could debate it all night. I'm asking for some flexibility on that. I think that um I think we first thing we want to do is we want to update we want to update this PEC concept and preliminary plan. We got derailed by COVID then we got derailed by the zoning text amendment and admittedly it it didn't happen. And so part of this is let's get it updated for what what it is. But as far I think the real issue is what happens on parcel B. And I'd like you to ask yourself is what Mr. Hopson and his team builds on parcel B given that it's less impactful across the board is it really going to be influenced by whether or not the rest of the project is um is residential or commercial? What it's more likely to be is res if it's not residential is vacant land for a very long time is we you know because we've talked for a very we've talked ad nauseium about how the fact that there's not a market there for 592,000 ft of office which is more impactful by the way than the residential. I mentioned the um the sort of like the motivation of the PEC process because I do think it is impactful because it stresses I think if what you're saying like in isolation of

the PEC process I um but the PEC process specifies synergy it it has this language so it's not like a a puzzle that you replace and a hotel has a different synergy with the rest of the property hotel has a high employment density assisted living has a low I forget the exact figures that you had mentioned, but um you know they they compare differently. Um a hotel the the motivation of a hotel it brings people into the PEC zone. Um you know with with assisted living it has a different sort of profile. Um so like the tra like these things are like different and that the synergy relationship is different for the rest of the properties and that's what I think that we have to evaluate what come come the site plan. Um

Mr. Chairman may Mr. Chairman, may I real quick? I think I think the issue though is that you have an ordinance that allows certain uses and yes, I know what the zone says, but that I think it's a slippery and I don't want to go down a slippery slope here, but I do think it's a slippery slope when we start talking about jurisdictions when things are allowed by right in the zoning either as a primary permitted use or as a conditional use that is approved by a BCA to start playing developer and saying, "Well, we're not going to allow something that's allowed by the zoning ordinance over here because subjectively we think that it's not synergistic." That's the reason for the PEC plan uh concept plan and preliminary plan. That's the reason for the zoning ordinance and those are those are those are guidelines. That's the reason for, you know, our pattern book. But, you know, again, um, you know, I don't I I think I think think we need to be careful about suggesting, and I don't know if this is what you're suggesting, that a planning commission can dictate whether or not an applicant can do can can pursue a use that is allowed by right in the zoning ordinance or otherwise by state law or whatever, but that's a separate issue. Again, speaking of slippery slopes, I don't want to go there. But so I I don't think what I'm suggesting is I don't know that I agree

that the planning commission necessarily has that has that authority. Um I think the planning commission does have the authority to to contract with third parties to per the experts to perform this s sort of like synergy. um like audits in the same way that they they perform the market analysis and um I

I do also think that you're if I may I do also think that you're bound to follow the zoning ordinance and if something's allowed as a primary per permitted use or in this case a conditional use where we have an approval for it. I I don't know. I'm I'm hardressed to think of an idea why you don't why you wouldn't find a way to let that move forward because it's not g ask yourself is it going to be any different if the rest of the project was 100% office? I can we can ask Mr. Hobson because he's the expert on it. Would that change the nature of what you're built and who you're serving?

No, we to the other. Yeah. So, you know, would and I I put it back to you all given that you have a conditional use approved already by it was referred by the planning commission, you know, uh approved by the BCA, would you really would it really change the nature of your analysis of a site plan on parcel B given that it's already been determined to be less impactful than the hotel use? And I believe we determined just on the employment issue that there was more employment with the We were about 70 full-time equipment. But

at any rate, I I I've said what I need to I've said what I need to say. I think is there any other questions? Um the regard to two plans. If you say you mentioned that they're the same plan at this point, if you were to update them, so why not pull the other one and just update one and move forward with one?

They would be the same plan with respect to park sign. It would be the same plan with respect to um to building F and actually the other three buildings up there that are occupied right now. And they would be the same with respect to uh to Mr. Hopson's project. The reason we don't want to pull it is because this issue of of um this issue of um the housing in HIA still needs to be resolved and that may or may not be the best vehicle to do that. I I honestly don't know um if it is. The crazy thing, I I really don't know if we're going to pursue it or or or pull it, but we certainly don't want to deny ourselves that process, but I don't think anybody does anybody really want to hold up um you know,

I don't think any one of us can speak for anybody else. We're not trying to hold I don't feel that anybody's trying to hold anything up here. It's just we don't want two I mean I personally don't want two plans sitting out there with the ability that let's say everything goes through with the plan sitting at the BCA then what happens if we go through and do a preliminary and conceptual approval of another plan which one do we take well I think we don't know which one to take

I think I think you have to look at the remedy with with the BZA which is look the things that are being resol the things that are being appealed with that plan revolve the things that are I guess controversial if you will um and where there's a difference of opinion or whatever you want to call it doesn't have anything to do with park side it doesn't okay correct I understand that it has nothing to do with the other pieces of it

but we still have two plans sitting out there with a difference there is a difference between the two plans and when they get if they were to both get approved we don't know which one to all. So, we put ourselves in a very strange situation where we have two of two plans of the same site that conflict each other

and I don't know I don't even know how that would be resolved to tell you the truth. So, that's my hold up. I I I understand your concern and what I've tried to do is parse, if you will, the the issues at um at hand with the PEC concept plan that was denied last spring and and the one that would come forth with this. What I would say is that and I don't know I I don't know how we would make you all comfortable with it except to say that what I can what I can say 100% is everything between those two plans would be the same on the you know what's already been built

and what's already been approved for F and what we would end up doing with these fellas and um understand your concern and I've said what I can say about it and and I and I don't and I and I don't you know I do have a question for Kevin since uh you mentioned that the plan had changed since we saw it and denied it. Why not bring that one back before we you said that the the the uh the retail had Yeah. So that plan got denied and then they brought back another plan. Um they updated basically the one the one with the retail and the right away. I think that's one. Actually, I don't think we formally denied that one. I think we requested an update.

That's I think you're right. There were three. I think there were there were three and the third one wasn't the one that was denied. Kevin, is that correct? Yeah. And then planning commission requested an update. Um so then they updated which removed the retail from the right ofway. Um but then there were concerns with the with the land use percentages and the application. I just wanted to get the full picture just so I had it and and that's and that's the part it's the land use percentages and the applica application of HIA and that's that's really at the crux of of the appeal

of staying in the BCA the appeal of that that denial that's that's and so obviously we're trying to balance let's find a way to resolve that question and keep that that in play for lack of a better way to put it, but how do we let these guys move forward with their contract? I honestly have never um this deal has been a deal of first. And I can't say enough great things about Rob uh Hobson. I can't, you know, and his team with Thrive and his financial partners, they've been uh abundantly patient with uh with with us and and have been wonderful to work with and I think they're going to do a a great project if we can get it done here. But I I hear I hear everybody's concerns. I've said what I I can say and I um any anything else? No, I I just think that I I from our point of view, I mean, this is the this is the PEC chapter 180 down through 144. What's in there and what it actually says is really what governs what we can do.

I'm not entirely sure. I mean, I don't want to deny what is a good project. I don't want to deny the process for a good project, but if that process doesn't conform with what we're required to follow in this document here, I don't know how we could move forward. Which part I'm sorry, which part of that document are

the approval process, the um the the purpose process at the beginning of it, but there's very specific language in there to me that that we have to get around. And I don't think we can get around that with two plans out there, both both of which may not have have the same elements in them. I just don't know how we could approve it. So the language of that is governance what we can do, what we can't do. So you may be asking us to do something we're not actually equipped to do. I think that plan has already moved on from you all and it's not under your consideration and it's with the BZA and name I'm I'm not a betting man but if I were a betting man I you know I'm don't like our chances.

Um but that's not to say it wouldn't go to circuit court at that point and that can take I'd love to say a year. I I've never gotten out of circuit court in here in Maryland

on anything. So, you know, that's you know what we're trying to resolve with that plan is completely different and we're what you would be considering a new with his plan. Okay. Because you guys have already you've already told us what you think the plan the other plan. It's why it's being appealed. You're looking at something new here. It's with and with a different body. I don't know that you're really um maybe I'm asking for a lot for you to put that out of your mind, but you've kind of put it you've kind of put it out of your mind. I say, well, consider consider this and understand what you what you approve to move parcel B forward is going to be incorporated into that plan event. That's where the reconciliation there would never be any different.

And I hear what you're saying with regards to what's existing.

Okay. What's existing not going to change it? It's built. It's there. Not going to change that. But if you look at at the article F under 18034, it's to encourage developments of excellent design and architecture with a mix of uses that will create a synergy of uses, efficiency of design, and contribute to a reduction. How we could make that judgment with two plans out there, which we don't know which one we're actually working from. I don't see how we could make that judgment and it requires a step. you know, maybe the solution, and I when I think out loud, I maybe put myself in peril, but is there is there a way to um wonder if there's a way to amend that um appeal and and narrow what it is we're appeal I'm not an attorney and

I'm clearly not Yeah. No, I'm clearly not um I'm without counsel tonight myself. So, I I do understand why you would want to get House Bill 3, whatever it is, and the elements of that, the legal ramifications of that sorted out because obviously it does have an impact and I don't think any of us quite know exactly what that is because it's not a very well written bill in my opinion. Doesn't doesn't give us very good guidance, I don't think. But that's got to be done. So, I understand why you're doing it, but I'm not sure how it helps us in this particular instance. Yeah. The only thing I would leave you with to sound like a not sound like a broken record is that that has moved on from you all

and is in a different body and we're asking you to consider what's going to let him move forward without changing any any any anything else uh beyond what's been built. Mhm. So, but I appreciate the time and the opportunity to uh to make the pitch. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. And um we definitely like to refer you to the the zoning administrator letter from August 28th.

Yeah, we and we and we're we're fine with what I I don't think I don't think there's really anything at being debated about that. It's more about okay, can can you can you consider a new PEC uh concept plan? We we've agreed to concurrency.

We've we've said okay. I mean, you know, we don't agree, but, you know, we think the three-step process applies to the PE, you know, to the PEC plan and not the individual site plan, but but it is what it is and and we're trying to find a way forward with it while still keeping that separate issue in play to hopefully resolve it. So, I would just say the way you resolve in your head your your head is that it's this isn't this is a new plan. what we're really talking about is that we don't think it's necessary to pull the other plan uh from the BCA consideration although we still may

okay I just but anyway one thing before you go I just in in terms of what what we look at and what we have to look at if you look at the element B of 144 talking about the amendment to the plan and the three-step process it's it's really the opinion of the zoning administrator which makes that decision not the planning commission we we don't make that decision We're not and we can't vote on that. We can't No, we're not we're not arguing we're not arguing the point. We're not arguing the point. Just saying that we just we disagreed with how it was applied, but that's but but that's that doesn't affect anything you're doing tonight. Well, thanks. Good to see you. I'm glad to see you were able to pass the pass. Yes. Thank you. Thanks.

Cool. Um moving on to the second um item for the evening. consider, discuss, and act on the planning commission resolution number 202601, water resource element. Um Kevin, do you have some of report?

Absolutely, Mr. Chair. So, uh following the state mandated 60-day review period. Uh the county has compiled a comment packet they call it with all the comments from state agencies along with Frederick County on the new draft water resource element document along with uh some corresponding staff recommendations. Uh most of these comments, recommendations were just simple revisions and clarifications um to the approved draft document and didn't create any substantive changes to to the overall plan. Um so at this point, the document can now be approved by the planning commission to incorporate all those recommended revisions. Um if there's no questions or concerns, um so just again some some quick overview and I know a lot of this is is review. Um but I think it's still helpful to get it out there. Uh so the water resource element, it's a state required element of our comprehensive plan. Uh the updated version being presented is a collaborative effort from the county and then all eight municipalities to develop one document that everyone could adopt together. Um and we'll replace the 2010 version of that plan element that's currently in our comprehensive plan. Uh the purpose is to evaluate the water supply, wastewater supply and public storm water systems to ensure that projected availability and capacity can meet the projected demand. The information is used then to inform uh future county and municipal comprehensive planning efforts. uh reflect the growth limits and opportunities impacted by local and regional water resources. Uh this document also helps the county and municipality establish goals and action items that we aim for in order to best address issues from um our specific water, wastewater and storm water systems. So again, at this time, all the municipal planning commissions are being asked to review the provided comments uh which I gave to you guys with the staff reports um and the summary of the water resource element. And if satisfied with those contents, the planning commission may vote to approve the plan as re as revised uh to reflect all the recommendations. Um I mentioned that there is a redline version of the pages subject to comments

available upon request as well as the full draft document which are both very large documents with a lot of technical information that isn't really relevant um to our discussion. Um but again it is available for upon request if you guys want to want to look at it. It's not that exciting. Uh but as as noted previously, most of the comments result in just simple clarifications with no um substantial changes to any of the sections concerning us in Sightville or the overall plan. Um so next steps if there's no concerns or questions about the comments and recommendations to the planning commission made vocal in the attached resolution to approve the plan and to recommend adoption into the town's comprehensive plan by the mayor and town council. Uh then after that I copy and pasted some information that was from the the July um staff report that just talked about some of the specific information regarding sites on the the we reviewed that in July. I'm happy to review it again but if if you guys feel comfortable we can skip the review of that info.

Yeah. Um so again commission asked to review review the comments and recommendations and uh vote on the resolution to approve the recommend adoption uh by the mayor and town council. I included a recommended motion if the planning commission agrees with that. Um but if there's questions or comments, we're we're happy to adjust those before you guys decide to approve anything. Yeah. Sorry, did you

I just have one comment. Um was a comment that I made before when this was introduced as anformational item. Um the one thing that really affects us in the freedom area is is the deficit of waste water day treatment. It's 87,601 gallons. And the um the strategy to address that apparently revolves around infill and infiltration, which is the water coming in and the water won't stop going out and what whatever it may be.

And it's right to me that that's very convenient, but it's it's somewhat fanciful solution to fix it because I don't think that will fix that particular problem. I think there'll need to be another strategy at some point to account for that 87,61 gallons. I'd just like to make that as a public comment because I don't see it appearing anywhere in the actual document itself. Yeah, I think the document does also recommend or make a recommendation of basically requesting additional capacity from the state. Um the the Freedom uh facility has capacity greater than what we specifically receive in the Freedom area and it's you know could we get a bigger slice of that pie is is another potential avenue. Um just that comment as well.

Yeah. And following up on that comment and yeah I think you discuss asked the same thing in July but um is there any practical like implication for that deficit like or like can we just draw on it until the state you know until we resolve it like until the county resolves it with the state?

Yeah. So so the numbers that they provided were based on basically a full residential buildout of the freedom area. So basically if every lot that that uh system serves is built would we have a deficit? Would we have a surplus etc. Um obviously you know based on the document for wastewater it would be a deficit. That's not to say necessarily at this moment we have a deficit, but that's again if if a full if the full bail out and freedom area was constructed that would lead to a deficit of what the percentage was in the in the document, but um so again at this point in time there's not an existing deficit. Okay, good.

Cool. And um uh yeah, uh I'll make a motion to um to approve um resolution 202601. Um, do I have a second? I have a second. Um, all in favor? Excellent. Okay. Um, the next order businesses, town updates. Um, and any updates this week, this month?

Uh, the only thing I have is, so I've been chatting with the engineers for the Enclave subdivision. That's the sort of extension of of the park side, the additional 45 townhouse units. um they are working on their final uh set of of revisions to their final storm water stuff. So, they're hoping to have a final plan for us for approval here pretty soon, which once we approve that, they can actually start breaking ground. Um so, all the, you know, any updates, they haven't really impacted anything that we've looked at since we approved the plenary plan. Um the only real change which we presented to you guys at one point is they kind of took out the the loop that was in the center of the the development there and made it one large green space. Um so that has changed since we approved the preliminary plan. But uh you know we got positive feedback from the planning commission and that's something we can discuss in additional detail once the final plan comes for approval if you guys have any additional concerns at that point. But um as of right now, I I'm hesitant to put a timeline on it, but I know they're they're getting close um in terms of getting all those final approvals and the storm water approval. So hopefully we'll have something to approve here sometime this year. Um other than that, I know a lot of other people in this boat. I'm also not going to be here for the

exist. Yes, very much so. Excellent. Does anyone have any anything else that they'd like to comment or or add before we adjourn? Cool. Then um I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? Okay. Good. Excellent. Thank you.