Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning. I'd like to call the meeting of  the December 16th Planning and Zening Commission   meeting to order. Can we establish a quorum,  please? Yes. Good morning, everyone. Morning.   Morning. Miss Kirkner here. Mr. Kane here. Mr.  Huff here. Mr. Robertson here. Mr. Swissen here.   Mr. Lester here. Mr. Smith here. Mr. Gordon here.  Secretary Dailyaly here. Madam Chair, please let   the record reflect that eight members are present.  And we do have a quarum. Thank you. Please stand. 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. Has everybody had a chance to review the  agenda? I'll make a motion that we uh   approve uh the agenda for their December 16th,  2025 meeting. Second. All in favor? I I Okay,   they stand approved. Um, moving on  to commission member reports. Um,   I just signed a plan um which is  Kate Wagner Road. Um, that was the   two lot subdivision. Um, Commissioner  Gordon, I have nothing, but thank you. Any other? Yeah, I I just want to just real quick  make a comment. We had site visits this uh past  

Friday um to the uh Copper Ridge and Griffith  West uh sites. That's that's some of us were   interested and it was uh they're very beneficial.  I thought it was well uh worth the time and just   to visualize what we're seeing. You know, one's  talking about solar, one's a subdivision and when   you're there at the site physically looking at how  this is going to lay out and you can, you know,   project what this is going to look like, it's  really helpful. So, thank you to the staff for   putting that together. Any other? No. Okay.  Administrative reports. Secretary Dailyaly.   Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Morning. Um, I  just have a couple of notes for you. First of all,   I think at the last business meeting I mentioned  that um the Bradock Road solar project um had been   rejected by the PSC and um we expected that to be  appealed and they have indeed appealed that. So   um the the uh process continues and we'll  keep you updated as that um moves through the   appeals process. Um, I also wanted to bring your  attention to two upcoming events tonight at the   um, South Carol Senior Center is the public  hearing on the proposed deferrals for four   different types of projects in the Freedom Area.  Um, that begins at 6 PM and of course it's a it's   a public hearing. people are welcome to come  and share their um comments. They're limited   to three minutes per speaker. Um and then the  board of county commissioners will deliberate on  

that matter. Um I believe on Thursday we'll open  that discussion. Um the other thing I wanted to   mention to you is we have a work session. Our  normally scheduled work session in January is   um January would be on January 7th. Um I would  like to propose that we um use that time for some   um some training. I know a number of questions  have come up in terms of um procedural kinds of   things as well as what the planning commission's  role in certain types of reviews may be. Um,   and uh, I think at the beginning of the new  year would be a good time to do a little bit of   a refresher. As you all know, you're required to  do um, some training on um, just sort of the role   of the planning commission as well as um, ethics  training that when you first come on the board,   but um, that's kind of a oneandone type  of thing. So, uh, we thought it might be   helpful to do just a little bit of a refresher  and, um, and prepare, um, information that will   be helpful to you as you continue to go through  your carrying out your um, responsibilities. So,   that would be on December 7th in lie of our  regularly scheduled work session. January. Oh,   I'm sorry. My notes say December, but I clearly  was thinking January. Um, we would technically   then cancel the January 7th work session, but  we would ask you all to um to be present for   sort of an in-house training kind of thing. Um,  any questions or comments on that suggestion?

I think it's great because we can all use  the prompts and trying to remember. So,   good. And I'll just point out um I have  shared with you in the past various   um training that's offered through  the Maryland Planning Commissioners   Association. Usually that requires you  to travel to an all day kind of thing.   I have all of the materials from the most recent  training session that was offered in Cecil County   and that's sort of what we'll be using to build  this. So this isn't just sort of a an idea out   of thin air. That was a training session that  was offered and I know it's a difficult thing   for folks to take that much time to be away. So we  wanted to offer essentially the same experience or   some of the same material to you all inhouse. So  that's um we'll be working building off of that and that's it for administrative matters from me extensions. Good morning. Good morning.  Matias with development review. We have   one extension since our meeting  last month. This is for S2100027. The project title is 1332 London  Town. Um, so you all might recall   this because it's pretty recent. This is  the second extension for this project. Um,   it is showing additional parking on this site  as well as classifying the entirety of the site   as an industrial park and it is in commissioner  district five. That's it. Thank you. Thank you.

Um, BCE A nothing. There are no BCA cases.  Any other comments? Okay. Number eight,   review of administrative rules  of procedures in operation. Okay. So, we have um a number of things that we  need to take care of um administratively. We do it   usually um at the end of every year, typically in  November, but we um bumped this one a little bit   because we're in the process of um revising all  of the bylaws for the boards and commissions in   the county. Um, I shared with you all a draft of  the planning commission bylaws that were meant to   fit sort of a template that's been developed for  all of the different boards and commissions. So,   there are a few sections that we need to um fill  in and discuss. Um, we also and so we'll need to   go through those. And then we also have some other  administrative kinds of things like approving the   calendar for 2026. And I'd like to start off  with the um election of the secretary, the   um chair and the vice chair and um and the  appointment of the clerk. Um and then we'll   roll into the the um calendar and approval of  the by review and approval of the bylaws. Does   that sound like a good order? Um as you know  our the administrative rules and procedures   allows for the um president I mean the chair and  the vice chair to hold a term of one year. So,  

um, Miss Kirkner was elected chair, um, last year.  This is her second term as Oh, no, you're actually   Yeah. One and a half, right? Like one and a half.  Yes. All right. Um, but I'm happy to pass the   torch. Okay. And Mr. Kaine was elected last year.  And you can also um they can serve the the chair   and the vice chair can serve for two two terms. Um  okay. So let's start off with uh the election of   the secretary. So the way that would move through  the process is um anybody who wants to make a   motion to nominate somebody as the secretary. I'm  currently serving in that role. um would make a   motion as typically you do and then it be seconded  and and voted on. Okay. I would move Daphne daily   be uh approved as secretary. A second. All  in favor? I I Okay. Right. Thank you. Um Okay. So then um in my role as a secretary, I'm opening  up the uh nominations for the role of   chair of the planning commission and  I nominate I nominate Michael Kaine. And is there a second? I'm sorry. Who? A second. Thank you.  So, we have a motion and a second to nom  

uh nominate Michael Kaine for the  office of chair. Any other nominations? Okay, we'll close the nominations  and um take a vote. All in favor?   I opposed. Okay. Congratulations. Thank  you. Um now in your first role as chair,   um you can open the nominations for vice chair. Um so we now accept nominations for  office of vice chair. I'll make the   motion of Ralph Robertson. Second. Are there any  nominations? Any other nominations for vice chair? Okay, I'd like to close the  nomination for vice chair and elect   uh Ralph Robertson for the office of vice  chair. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Congratulations, Ralph. All right. And um final procedural thing  here. Um as the secretary, I would like to   um nominate Gail to serve continue serving as  clerk. Um and I don't think we need to vote on   that. That's just an appointment that's  made by the director or the secretary. Alrighty, we have our officers  in place. Thank you all. So,  

we'll start with the review  of the um dates for 2026. Um, usually we take a look at those to see  if there's anything that um, looks like it   could be um, a conflict with say a holiday or  something like that. Um, have you all had a   chance to look at those meeting dates and is there  any that anyone wants to shift by a week or so? I looked I looked through them and and you  know typical Fourth of July, Labor Day,   there's no issue it appears in 2026.  So I thought it was pretty clean. Yeah. Okay. So with no revisions to that, uh  would you like a motion? Please. I move   that we accept the calendar as submitted. Second. All in favor? I have to do that now. Yeah, I  guess you could switch seats if you want to.   Pass the gel. I have to get new name plates for  everybody. There you go. Do Do you need a roll   call vote? Not for now. All right, moving on. Um,  thank you all for that. Now, let's dig into our   um bylaws. And as I noted, we have um been given  a template that we're trying to conform all of the  

boards and commissions to in general. Um I shared  a copy of um of this draft with you all and noted   that any of the text that is highlighted is  text that's um is text that's new. So, um, actually, it's just occurring to me  that what we have up here right now is   um is not the revised version that I sent out  to you, but that was only changed in one place,   and that's the um number two, authority for  board. So, the reference to section 10-324   um would go away. Um, okay. So, the highlighted  text is text that's new. Everything else, um,   is essentially this the same text that was in the  existing, um, rules, um, of procedure, just maybe   rearranged in terms of the sections that they were  put in. Um, so if it's not highlighted, it's text   that was already in your rules and procedures. Um,  so let's just go through these and make sure that   there's nothing that um you all have questions  on or want to revise. So under number two,   authority for the board, I mentioned we're going  to strike this the section 10324 because that   um doesn't apply to Carol County. Um our authority  comes from division one of the land use article   of the annotated code of Maryland. Um and  those references were linked up for you all  

in terms of their specific sections. Um and  the um additional text for three includes a   statement of purpose also derived from division  one of the land use article and then a note on   orientation for new members which as I mentioned  earlier is also um required under section 1-206   of the land use article. So, any um comments or  questions on the new text under two and three? I would just ask a a clarified question. Um  is it um does it make sense? I this is not   any dis disparagement on you or Chris, but  shouldn't we just put the title in there and   not the names because if if something happens  and there's a there Sure. y'all y'all change   uh positions? It would we would hate to have  to redo this. Yes. And and I don't see a ton   of turnover, but it just I think it  would make sense to just leave that   um as a reference to the title. Does that make  sense? Um, honestly, we could probably strike that   entire reference. I don't know that it's relevant  to the purpose of the board and we do talk about   the role of the secretary later in the Right.  Yeah. So, I'm fine if we just want to strike   the whole thing. Sound good? Yep. Makes sense.  Yep. All right. Please stay. Don't go anywhere. I don't have plans to but

okay let's talk about membership. Um this  one has a few less um highlighted areas in   this section. We essentially just clarified  that members are citizens of Carol County and   um we made reference to the the um length of  each term which is five-year term. Currently,   there is no limit to the number of terms for which  member is eligible to be reappointed. The only   limits are for officers and those are described  later in the text. Didn't we used to have it a   two-term limit? Yeah. Yeah, I think we did. Um I  don't know when that changed. And I believe that   um some of the challenge with that is that it's  um sometimes difficult to find people who are   um available to serve in this capacity. I know  it's a it's a big lift for for you all. So um that   may have been part of the impetus behind that.  Okay. If you would like to suggest a term limit,   a number of term, a limit for the number of terms,  you're certainly I think it's always good to have   term limits, you know, I mean, the same people  would be doing this could be forever as the way   it reads now. Yep. I will note with the way it  reads right now, you still have a five-year term   and then you have to go through the reappointment  process through the commission and reapply and   all of that kind of stuff. Yeah. So, when they  reappoint you, I think you are all first of all,   they have the option whether they want to offer  that reappoint or not. You also always have the  

option to decline that. Correct. So um so it is uh  sort of periodically reviewed in that in that way. I don't know. I see that. So if five new  people came up and the commissioners felt   that they were worthy or I don't want  to say better because when when you   advert you if there's an opening you  advertise that then don't you or Yeah. So there's the way it reads now, you'd never  advertise it because it's just automatically   reappointed unless that person decides  not to accept. So I believe it's every   five years that a whole new application  opens up. You have the option of reapplying   and the commissioners have the option of  just reappointing you, but it has to go   through the full process every five years when a  commission member comes up on their term limit. My understanding as well is that the um the  boards and commissions are always open for   people to apply to whether there's an opening or  not. So, somebody who's interested in serving on   the planning commission can make their application  and then those applications um are reviewed when   there is an opening to be filled. So, there may  never be an opening. Well, if everybody Well,   no, I think every five years and for could we  I haven't seen a a calendar or a the expiration   dates for any of the members in a while. So,  we can provide that. That would be helpful to  

see. But, so say um I don't know Matt his fifth  year expir expiring is um you know this March.   Uh Matt can opt out of the commission,  right? Uh or he could continue on. Now,   how would he express his um interest to  continue into another five-year term? He   would have to reapply just like any person who  wanted on for the initial time, too. He has to   go through the same process they do. And he would  reapply and then would he the process includes   u uh you know meeting with the commissioners,  right? and interviewing with the commissioners,   correct? As a uh to become uh one of the you know  candidates for the board. Correct. So everybody   who applies, should they meet the requirements  of citizenship or other things like that, they   all get their time in front of the commissioners  to equally make their case. Right. So there's   the um that's how things could change there. Or  Matt could opt out and and uh create an opening. Stop shaking your head. Otherwise, otherwise we're  here to forever. No, I'm kidding. And we do have   um staggered terms. So obviously the idea is not  to have everybody rotate off at the same time. So   there's kind of it's not like it's only once every  five years that this opportunity is available   because there are staggered terms. It's it's  kind of consistently um an option. Well, look,   just I'll say it out loud. My term was up like in  the next either this month or next month. Just as  

a point of reference, I didn't reapply. I just got  a notice that I was reappointed, which I accepted.   So, I mean, it was kind of a funny thing because I  whatever. It was um Yeah, I did I didn't reapply.   Yeah, I don't know if they have to reapply.  Right. So, if there's no other application   sitting in the pool, then your name automatically  is kind of the one who's submitted if you accept   it. If there are other people who have applied,  then you have to go through the full process. So   if you just got reappointed in theory there should  have been nobody else who applied. Yeah. Okay. And   again you're always offered the opportunity to  Yeah. decline that invitation. Okay. Thank you. It's a great group of people, but I don't know  anybody would be over here over over two terms   anyway. Yeah. 10 years a while, right? It's a  lot of work, but it's appreciated. So, Richard,   just just you think there should be term limits.  I always think it's good to have new people. I   agree. I agree. That's the only reason I  brought that up. But if there's a problem   finding new people, then this is a way to solve  that problem. Mhm. So, is there is there a way   to put forward that there would be a that there I  don't know how to do that. I don't know how to do   that. I was trying to come up with something um  some kind of hybrid where mean like if there's   somebody that applied sent in their their  interest and somebody automatically their ter   their term is up then you're automatically you're  automatically something like that. Keep in mind  

the commissioners are not automatically they don't  have to select that person who applied either.   That person may not meet the requirements or may  not be the right fit. Yeah. Yeah, I hear you. Um   I don't know, Richard. I I because I I happen  to agree with you on term limits. Um I think,   you know, giving other people the opportunity  to have a voice is a good thing and uh giving   them an opportunity to lead is a good thing. I  also understand there's a learning curve. We're   still figuring it out up here. Um, so you know,  uh, I I would lean your direction too if that   was something if that was something a direction  we wanted to go. But I also know that we were   there was a period of time here where we had  three vacant chairs. Yeah. We had no alternate.   We had and we had two vacant chairs. So we were  real close to being uh not not being functional.   No quorum. I mean, if you want to do that with if  there is an issue muddy in the water, you could do   um max of two fiveyear terms and then if there's  nobody then if you're a after your two fiveyear   terms and it could be like on a yearly basis basis  like a yearly basis if somebody applies while   recruiting is taking place. Yeah. So, I mean, I  don't know if that complicates things too much,   but that kind of sort of gives term limits to a  degree, but it also keeps the seat full in the   hopes that somebody else would, you know, so it's  not like, oh, somebody applied and then, you know,   you're only a month. It would just be renew on a  yearly basis and that would still give some level   of term limits, but it would also hopefully  encourage other people that maybe want to get   involved. Well, I look at it this way. Have we  had a problem up to now for people being on here   perpetually? If we haven't, I don't see the need  to change anything. If we have had a problem of  

consecutive terms, 10, 20, 30 years, then then  we have a problem. But I don't see it. I don't   think we have. So, and and we have a uh it's a  check and balance here because the commissioners   uh it's at the discretion of the commissioners.  So, I think we have a a five member check and   balance on this whole thing too. So  I'd kind of I tend to say leave it just one I would suggest make one suggestion  that you know on the county website where we're   listed. I think it would make sense to put there,  post there um how many terms we've served and   um and when our term expires so  people can kind of say, "Okay,   I might apply for that." I seem to Peter, I I  seem to recall that used to be out there. It   used to be out there, but it's not now.  So, I'm looking at it as we speak. So,   I I thought that was a good thing to  have up there. Okay. And thank you, Okay. So, we're leaving the text as it is. I see  everyone's head now. I think so. Okay. Okay. Um,   moving on. And you're certainly  welcome to suggest changes to any   of the language that's not highlighted um  as we would do if we were just reviewing the   um procedures in our annual way that we do.  Um I'm going to focus on the highlighted text,   but please let me know if there's anything  in between that um you wanted to revisit.   Uh so under the role of the secretary, we did  clarify that in addition to the things that are  

spelled out um that were spelled out already,  we did clarify that the secretary serves as the   primary staff support for the commission and that  unless otherwise determined by the commission,   the secretary position is held by the director or  deputy director of the department of planning and   land management. So, this gets at um reinforcing  that language that we removed in number two. Any um questions or comments on that language? Okay. Um we also did not have previously  any uh language that described the role of   the exeicio member. We had language on how the  exeicio can vote and those sorts of things, but   um I just added in um some basic language about  the role of the e exeicio member. In this case,   um that the county commissioners may appoint  one of its members to serve in this capacity and   uh their term shall coincide with the  member's tenure as a county commissioner.   This is this is verbatim the language that's  in the county code related to the role of the   exeicio. So if you want to change any of this, we  probably need to look at changing the county code. Just when I read that um that word may Yes. Um,  so that kind of implies that the board of county   commissioners may not Yes. appoint a member to sit  on this this commission. Is that That's correct.   That's in both the land use article and the the  county has adopted that in its own code. Okay. So,  

we could have an an a case where Commissioner  Gordon says, "I've had enough of this. I'm out   of here." And the board of county commissioners  doesn't appoint anybody. We have we don't have   an exeicio. That's possible. Yeah. So we we  prefer the word may to shall. Shall means   they have to. And the land use article land use  article says may unless the county decides they   want to they want to encumber themselves with  that responsibility. But I think it's a good   thing that from a communication standpoint  and just because it says May in the state,   we don't want to codify things that we don't  agree with or if we want to do it differently. Um Tom, I'm looking at you. I I actually I I you  know I was rereading the 155 and 158 and the   word may is in there a bunch and I was actually  I mean you know and and as we think you know how   can we tighten things up. I actually think  I mean I'm so glad you brought up the word   may because again I was on that like a tick  yesterday. Um, I actually word searched it   and counted it and it's in there a lot and these  are regulations and it says May. Um, so anyway,   um, Peter, I agree with you. I now that we have  five commissioners, I think it's incumbent that   one commissioner be on this board as exeicio.  I it it helps interpret what we do here,   right? when they have their meetings, questions  come up, we have that voice. And so I I would I   would be wholeheartedly in favor of changing  that word to shall that's possible. Daphne,  

um what I'd like to suggest because our I don't  want the um planning commission's bylaws to   conflict with the county code, which is where  you all get your authority from. So, I'd like   to suggest that we bring this um this question  to the board for their considerationally. Then,   if they if they are um uh in agreement to change  that word in the county code to shall that then   we can go in and amend the planning commission  bylaws accordingly. Love that. Okay, perfect. Okay, moving on. Um, we did just add a  clarification under 4.2 tenure that the   secretary is elected annually and the clerk is  appointed by the secretary annually. Um, we did   not have that in there, although procedurally  that's what we that's what we've done. Um the language on 4 4.3 under vacancies is  new. Again um just putting in writing what   we procedurally um have done in the past. So if  a member must vacate their seat, uh the board of   county commissioners shall appoint a replacement  to fill the remainder of that member's term after   which they are eligible to be reappointed.  Any questions or comments on that language? All right. Uh then we're going to skip over  um a large part of the meetings language. This   is existing text that really just describes  the kinds of meetings that you all may have  

um and what to do when they are called. Um, under  5.5 public, we have a section that describes   um the public comment period and what uh the  public is um encouraged to comment on. We added   language about um how written comments can be  provided as well because the bulk of the text   talks about people who might come to a meeting  and provide um verbal text uh verbal comments. So,   this just uh clarifies that the public may  provide written comment to the planning and zoning   commission via the commission's email address or  by mail address to the commission and care of the   planning and land management department. And we  um reiterated that all written comments are shared   with commission members and carry the same weight  as verbal comments provided in person. That that's   happened, right? You know, we receive emails  about projects all the time. So, yep. Anything   that comes into that um that email address is  shared with you all unless it's something that's   just completely, you know, somebody sent the wrong  email to to or sent an email to the wrong address. Um changes or comments to that language? Okay. Um, the attendance and inclement weather  policy. Actually, I think the inclement weather   policy maybe was already in your text. Um, it just  wasn't in the draft that I was provided initially.  

So, I think that's um I think that's carryover  text. Attendance and compensation. Um, we did   put in, oh, you can ignore on the screen the first  part that's in parentheses. Um, the copy that you   all received has that deleted and it just makes  reference to the fact that, um, commission members   receive a $125 per DM reimbursement in FY26 for  each meeting attendant. And of course, if that   changes at any point in the future, we'll update  that number and the reference for the fiscal year. So I I see the the expectation to attend X number  of meetings. So I was curious about that and I I   did some research about um you know some other u  entities or and if you're if a member would miss   the it's not here I don't think but in other um  government jurisdictions and things like that if   a if a committee member misses more than 50%  of the meetings they cons that's considered a   resignation. I don't know if we want to do that,  but just saying X, if we want to define something.   Yeah. um you certainly could if that's your um  inclination. The the one difficulty with defining   a number is that because you well we certainly I  would suggest that you not set a number because   the number of meetings while we while we have two  meetings per month scheduled regularly. There are  

also um times when you have may have more than  that. There are times when you may have less than   that. Um, so it's a little diff difficult to set  a number. Um, if you did a percentage, you could   do that. Um, we'd have to calculate that like back  calculate that based on the prior year. Um, and we   can and we can certainly do that at the end of the  year. go back and see if anybody has missed more   than 50% of the meetings at which time we would  figure out how to address that situation. Um I   can't recall a time when we had commission members  who were consistently absent, right? that it was   a like an egregious type of um absence. We we did  have a situation, Janice, about six, seven years   ago where we had an alternate who literally right.  Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, we did have an, you know,   Daffany that was, you know, BD before De and um  uh I mean we literally couldn't find him. I mean,   email went blank. um nice person, but I I think  he just was at a transition point in his life. And   um uh so we did we did have to kind of vote  him out out and replace him. Okay. With good   people. Um so uh I don't know what how did we do  that. Um, I don't recall how we did that, but um,   we did because I don't know, either Richard or  Ralph. It was one of those seats right there,   right? Yeah. Yeah. Well, I think it was either  Steve, it doesn't matter who. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.  

Cuz he and I I think it was I'm thinking of he and  I were appointed at the same time. I was appointed   here and he was appointed the alternate. I think  so. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And it was like came to   three meetings maybe and then just I think it was  more it wasn't what he was expecting. Um he was   young and yeah. So, um, but I think I think the  commissioners probably put it out because I don't   know that we would have had the authority to take  a vote and say, well, why don't I um why don't   I do this? Let me do a little bit of research in  terms of okay our internal procedures and find out   if there's something that's already in place to  handle those situations and then I can come back   to you with some suggested language to address  attendance um expectations. That'd be great. One last clarification. I see see in there that  we're talking about virtual meetings. Is it the   case that we are going to going that we have  the potential if we wanted to to allow someone   to join virtually a meeting that everyone else is  appearing at in person or is that just we have the   option you know weather's going to be inclement  you know there's a there's a new pandemic we we   have the option to go virtual I was unclear as to  whether or not we were saying that we could join   a meeting virtually as as an option. Is that  I I'm unclear as to what we're saying there. Deafany, it's it's a new world, right? I mean,   the technology has gotten better. I'm fine with  it. I just want to make sure we understand as  

a commission if if you can't make it, can  you join virtually? Right. I think that um I actually don't know how we're set up to  do basically hybrid meetings. So, right,   this I think would be a fully virtual meeting. If  we're doing a f fully virtual meeting, then to be   considered present at the virtual meeting, you  have to have your camera turned on and reply and   establish quorum. Um, I don't know that we're set  up to do hybrid meetings and I don't believe that   this is what the text is referring to. So, it's  either or. Got it. Yeah. Okay. So, if there was   a need to call a virtual meeting, these are the  allows for that. That's fine. That's great. I had   asked um early on when I couldn't be for a meeting  if we could do that and our guys said nope, we   don't have that. Yeah. Capability. But certainly  if we needed for any reason to meet virtually   um and everybody was on um virtually then that  would be what you we'd have to have um in order   for you to be considered present. Yeah. I I would  say a lot of businesses are going to a hybrid. Um,   I know when it was COVID and of course everybody  had to be on, we had a lot of community response   then. Um, especially when we were going through  making the changes with zoning. There was way  

more people I think that were actually  engaged than when we're here in person. Maybe it's something to consider  in the future. That could be. Okay. Change agenda, deadline, and staff report. We added  a paragraph here um in 6B to um specify the   reasonable notice that's required under Maryland's  open meetings act. Um this is simply that um you   have to provide notice in advance of the meeting  as soon as possible after scheduling it. uh and it   needs to include the time, date and place of the  meeting and whether any portions of the meeting   will be closed to the public. We try to do that um  10 day 10 days in advance. Um your bylaws say no   less than seven days. Um and state law says at  least 24 hours prior. Um, so these are kind of   like the minimums, but we generally our goal is  to get everything posted 10 days prior. Um, and   if there's any revisions or anything like that,  we try to um, notify people about that as well. Um, okay. So the remainder of what you have  in front of you is carryover text regarding  

um your uh kind of governing rules on how  to review the projects, who needs to be in   attendance, how you make your motions, um how  voting occurs, and here's the language on the   exeicio and how the exeicio may vote. Um and  what happens if an application is denied? Um   under duties and responsibilities, we have uh  language around um communications and how you   can communicate with each other. um particularly  when not to discuss certain things and how many   members can be um together uh at any time. Um  this is also where we have text on ethics and   the county's ethics ordinance that you're bound  to. We also have text on the committees which   um we just utilized as part of the the work  groups. Um we talk about amending the bylaws   um through annual review. Um and then delegation  of authority for minor adjustments or corrections   to record plat um which can be delegated to  the commission chair or the secretary. Um and the final section um is new  text but again reflects generally  

um what we do procedurally to review the  um the bylaws. Uh we typically do this in   November. Um and then just a clarification  that a copy of the reviewed amended bylaws   um are sent to the or signed and then  sent to the board of county commissioners. So that is the um expanded and slightly  um reorganized set of u regulations for   governing your your work. I can provide a  revised copy of this based on the couple of   changes that we have talked about here. And  um with the proposed language addressing the   um what was I going to propose language for?  Addressing the attendance and we'll send that   out and then um look to take action on  this in January. Does that make sense?   I'd like to ask a question just for some general  reference. Um, what would constitute a closed   session? And would you give me some background,  Liz, please? This would be the one. Yes. What   would close session? U please. Is usually going  to be things um like legal matters. Um that's   specifically the most heavily used use of a um  closed session because the things that we would   discuss between you and I and the commission  would be considered work product or attorney   client privileged items. So we still make  note of what is discussed loosely. However,   the contents of that meeting are things that we  protect by law. Um so that could be things that   we're protecting for other reasons by law.  That could be things that include um matters  

of if someone has a personal matter and you are  voting someone off for a very personal matter and   they don't want to share because it's medical  related. So that could go end up in a closed   session for example. It's usually items you're  protecting. So you still tell the public what   you're discussing but you have to protect someone  or something for a reason. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um before we move on, yeah, um this uh  application denied section um it has to come back.   We have to wait a year for the um proposal or the  application to come back around for another vote.   We've had this come up a couple times and we've,  you know, in the in the um spirit of efficiency   and moving things quicker. Um should can we  revisit that if there's a application that's   denied and it's uh the the um developer can go  back and readjust the plan um and and they're   they're ready to come back to us in four months.  And we now we say no, you can't. you got to wait   another eight months for the year to to expire.  Can Can we Is there something we could do? You   know, Michael, that I think the way to do that is  to say we're not going to deny your application,   but we'd like to see revisions to it. Yeah. And  so, because I I will say we did deny one a while   back and we shouldn't have. We didn't know as a  group. There was a group think up here that we   didn't like what was being proposed. We denied it.  They took it straight to the BZA and they passed   it and they won. Yeah. Yeah. And so the way for  us to to avoid that, I think, is to say, "Listen,   we strongly want to see this in the plan, so we're  not going to approve it." Yeah. But we're going to   give you a chance to to come around. Does that  make sense? Yeah, it does. And so at that time,  

we wouldn't even vote, right? Or we would or we  would vote to to to see it again. Yeah. Does that   make sense? Speaking of BZA though, because this  is something that we brought up numerous times,   especially like uh when you know Mr. Walthers was  was here. Will there be a way to change it that   anything presented to the BZA wasn't done? What's  it denovo? I I I believe it was Denovo is right.   Because we've kind of talked about that before,  you know, that we feel that it will be beneficial   to the BCA for them to at least wrap their heads  around what our reasoning for it was. You know,   because I think we had discussed too, you  know, anybody that had something deny by us,   they can essentially tailor their verbiage in a  way that by right it has to be a denovo. It does   because it has so at the BZA you are creating  they're specifically swearing witnesses in you   are creating a record at that meeting. We're not  creating you're creating a loose record here,   but you're not creating a legally sufficient  record. The board of zoning appeals has to hear   from scratch because you're swearing uh evidence  and potentially witnesses in and anything that   you do there that record that's created has to  be sent to court if they appeal the board of   zoning appeals decision. Okay, that makes sense.  Yeah, it it it's weird, but it's right. It's their   right. Yeah. However, memorandum and things can be  submitted including the minutes from your meeting.   Um it could be every department submits notes or  memorandum to the board of zoning appeals um to   be considered on top of everything because they  don't necessarily testify at those hearings as   well. But those things do get forwarded to them.  Okay. at least if there's something I guess. Y so we can on the on the question of the  application denial that can be something   that we cover in our um in our training about  you know how to that'd be good how to review  

the plans to what extent you can ask for  continued revisions and and at what time   does something become a okay this is our final  thing either we approve it or we disapprove it   and the grounds for approval and disapproval  I remember David did that when I first joined   the board. Um it was very helpful to me. You  know, this is what the board can do at site,   you know, development, whatever concept and  all those steps and here's where you can um   add your two cents. Here's where you can't  and those kinds of things. So, that would be   helpful during the training. Yeah, we'll we'll  go back over that as a refresher. Yeah. And um   you can ask any questions procedurally. What do  we do here and there? Right. Um clarification. All right. So we'll uh revise  this and bring it back to you   for approval in January. Okay.  Very good. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Should we uh move on to item number   nine? A final site plan.  Copper Ridge Solar S-24-23. Kirsten is going to lead this. Thank you. Good morning. Morning. All  right, let's get this set up.

Whoops. Okay. All right. My name is Kirsten with  the department division of development review.   Still getting used to that. Um, if I could, if  you two could introduce yourselves while I get   situated. Um, I'm Jeff Ziggler with CLSI Civil  Engineering. I'm Sean Brody with HGSP Solar.   Excellent. Thank you very much. All right. We are  before the planning commission today with this   project for the second time. Uh, this project  was pre previously presented to you in June,   which feels like yesterday, but apparently it  was a whole half a year ago. But it might look a   little bit familiar, especially for those who went  on the site visit recently. This is the Copper   Ridge solar site. Um, or I should specify this  is the Copper Ridge assisted living site, which   is proposing accessory use of solar panels on the  roof as well as groundmounted. The ground mounted   addition is what put us into the site plan review  process as it changes the physical site plan. Um,   some grading needs to happen and so on. So, we're  before you today again for the second time with   this project. This is for final approval of the  final site plan. Following this, they've proceeded   to the permits process. Um, well, the legal  documents process and then the permits process.   So, this is down in the Eldersburg Sykesville  area. In fact, the area we see on the screen   here that is not colorful is the incorporated  town of Sykesville. The colored areas are in the   county's jurisdiction. And as you can see our  property here highlighted in teal is the site.   Uh the orange area is residential 10,000 zoning.  Yellow is residential 7500 I believe and the green   is conservation. You can see this area is pretty  heavily developed. We've got the site itself which   again is an existing assisted living facility.  You have the Fair Haven uh mixed facility age  

restricted community there. a large subdivision  area south of that within the town. And to the   north is the conservation area which includes a uh  private park, private public park, not too sure,   fair haven park. Our site here, you can see in  greater detail. It's encompassed by an existing uh   sprawling building for the age restricted assisted  living or assisted living facility with a split   entrance again down here to the south leading  to parking lots on the east wrapping around to   a parking lot on the west northwest. This project  is proposing the addition of and we've shifted our   view a little bit. Um here's the building. Here's  the entrance. Here's that parking lot on the east.   Here's the parking lot on the northn northwest.  So, this project proposes the addition of solar   panels next to both of those parking lots as well  as a single row of solar panels along the roadway   that leads to the northnorthwestern parking lot.  These are accessory uses. These solar panels are   designed to supplement the existing building on  site. This is not the same situation as these   standalone primary principal use solar panels  we've been seeing a lot of lately. This is a   typical accessory use just like if you wanted  to go put a panel or two in your backyard. Um   so that goes through the zoning code still but  it's a different subsection of the zoning code and I have two drawings here. This one shows  landscaping. So this site as we mentioned is   exhig assisting. It's gone through a couple of  site plans over the past. They have landscaping   kind of surrounding the entire site especially  along the front front of the building and near  

this parking lot here. Um that is for the  most part remaining. There are some trees   and landscaping plantings particularly in  this area and right around here that will   be removed. And you can see the dark colored  landscaping that you see here. Those are all   proposed new plantings. It's it's hard  to see the existing in this image, but   um there would be quite a few new plantings,  including rows between the lost my mouse.   rows between the new solar panels and the parking  lots and then throughout the parking lots as well. the stormwater plan, which  I will try to go back to. I'm not too sure how to go backwards. There we go.  Okay. The storm water plan here shows the use of,   and it's kind of hard to see with all the grading.  Um, the use of level spreaders to help manage the   storm water that's on site, but otherwise, the  storm water is treated just like the rest of   the storm water on the site. Most of the site's  already developed. that already goes to the north   of the property to an existing shared facility.  This is a storm water management facility right   here um that most of these this area I believe  drains into. There are more specific questions   about that. I'm sure Jeff could walk you through  that. But essentially, this site already has an   existing management facility which these solar  panels will also tie into or flow into, I should   say. These are some photos of the site just for  reference. This is the um side entrance. This is   of my back to the side parking lot which is here.  I'm sorry it's all snowy. You can't really quite   see it, but it's a grassy field. And that's where  the panels are proposed to go. This is the same  

image from a lower perspective back behind this  van here. And so that's the one you would see   on your right as you're coming in. This is the  parking lot around the northn northwest side.   There's a little bit of a hill here. That's where  the solar panels are proposed to be added along   that hillside. This is the same. I'm pretty much  standing right here in both of these pictures. So   this is the dra driveway that accesses that rear  parking lot. There'll be a strip of panels right   around here in this area. just one row. So, this  is a pretty similar plan to what we saw in June   for the concept review. In the concept plan, there  were, I think, four more rows of solar panels on   the eastern side. Those have been removed at  this point. And there was a slightly longer   row of panels here. I don't know how many  feet were cut off, but it really wasn't much.   I was only able to see it by switching back and  forth between the the plans on the computer. So,   um, really it's the same plan we saw in June. All  review agencies at this point have approved it is   really the the biggest difference here. And it  is ready for final review and a consideration   of final approval. And if anybody had any  questions, I'm sure we can help answer them.   I would say uh we did get a email what yesterday  or the day before from a local amateur radio   person was wanting to just make sure that you had  all your bases covered so you didn't lose signal   on grounding and yes question I'm sorry I forgot  about that I have that right here so it was about   um amateur ham radio operating could potentially  be interfered with by possible radio frequency  

interference RFI I intentional or unintentional.  It's prohibited by regulations in the US Code   of Federal Regulations, Title 47. Um I'm  not personally familiar with it. Um so,   but it could result in issues for people  who are into that hobby. And I know it's   maybe not as popular as it was before, but I  do know Carol County has a club or two for ham   radio. Um I've attended a meeting or two myself  actually, and I think it's a pretty cool thing.   Now, I don't know that the county and our office  would be involved with regulating that. I feel   like that's his comment states that it's generally  an installation issue. So, I feel like that's more   with the electrical inspectors when you go to pull  your permits and work through that process. Um,   so I'm sure they'll be checking to make  sure things are installed correctly.   Um, I wish there was some information about  who somebody would contact to report an issue   if there is a ham radio operator in the area who  starts encountering issues. Um, because I'm not   too sure exactly that our office would have the  authority to enforce this federal regulations, but   I appreciate the information and the consideration  that the installer will take and the operator will   take during the lifetime of the panels. Yeah.  So, he Yeah. He specifically was talking about   inverters and optimizers and things like that  which I know nothing about. Sean, any Have you   run across this in any of your other installations  or any I never have. I mean the solar system is   essentially a self-contained machine. It's just  big. um it doesn't I mean there is a wireless   internet connection where where the data is you  know uh shipped out to to us so we can monitor it   but I've never I mean in 15 years I've never heard  heard of this and again I'm sure it is monitored   by the electrical department and you know and  we would of course comply with all requirements.

you know, most of the comments we get from from  other people in the area is about visual screening   and uh I just I guess my one comment is there  there's an area there that fronts Oreck Road   and it seems like there's a like almost a putting  green in front of it. Um right exactly where your   where your cursor was a moment ago. Um that area  right there along the road. Is there any increased   landscaping that you're going to do along that  drive that connects the the two facilities? Um   and yeah, that green line kind of cuts across that  green um I guess it denotes the parcel property   line. Yeah, property line. Um that I think that's  kind of where that solar field's going going to   go on the right side of the property. Is there any  any plan to increase the amount of of landscaping   along that driveway even closer to Oreck so that  it screens this from the existing residents? So the landscaping plan currently shows plantings  between the parking lots and the solar facility,   the building and the solar facility essentially.  It also shows that there's existing and you can   see in the aerials that there's existing plantings  in this area as well. Um so I checked in with   our especially with all this solar panel the  standalone solar panel discussion going on which   um much to their joy and uh glee our landscape  reviewer has a lot of responsibility in. There's   a lot of landscape requirements for  these standalone solar facilities.   So we talked about this for this type of project  which again this is an accessory use. This is not   a standalone solar panel facility. This doesn't  apply to the same code. So this existing facility  

essentially with these parking lots here, this  parking lot essentially is looked at the same   way that solar panels would the way that his code  reads for an accessory use like this right now. So   the parking lots have sufficient screening. and  the landscaping is going right next to it. Um   perhaps not in this area. There's a little gap  right here. But they reviewed the regulations   that are applicable for accessory uses like  this to what's proposed here and found that   to be sufficient for this project. Now, if there  was no landscaping at all, that'd be a different   story. But there is landscaping present on the  property. It's gone through a couple site plan   revisions. So, right now, what's shown on the  plans is sufficient per county regulations.   Uhhuh. Um, you know, we're at final plan review  right now. We reviewed this at concept plan.   Would have been a good opportunity to investigate  this particular question a little bit further. Um,   the plans show what's proposed right now  and those are the plans that are before the   commission for review. At this point, I'm  not sure if the developer could entertain   um a request to add landscaping beyond the  requirements. not necessarily another, you know,   not not to come back to the commission for review  and approval, but to add them if they, you know,   felt inclined. Could be a discussion to be had,  but we're here for final for final review at this   point with plans that match the requirements  of the code applicable to this particular use. I would I would say I mean you know we we didn't  we weren't at the site until the other day and we   all kind of noticed the same thing. The only area  that others are going to see the panels are coming   down the road pretty much overre. Yep. Uh the rest  of it's pretty well sheltered by the topography of   the land and the buildings. Yep. But we do know  that at this point we can't do anything. But  

I think for your neighbors, they would enjoy if  you planted a little bit there right along that   driveway going down or even along Oreck either  just a little bit of something. Yep. Is you know,   we understand that now we saw that's the only  thing I mean the rest of it. The only other   question that I I had on it was you need all the  panels on the roof and the ground mounted panels   to uh for all your power use that you're going to  is that just 100% offset. I know you can go over   100% offset of your electricity or we're at about  60% offset with all those panels. Really? That's   it? Wow. Wow. It's also worth noting this is it's  a very complex roof. That's a very complex roof.   There's a lot of area on that roof that they are  not able to put panels on. Um the way the code's   written essentially, I believe it says 100% of the  roof and if you can't fit 100% of it on the roof,   then you can have that extra space on the ground  instead. That was my question. Um the roof area   is 90,000 square feet and they were only able to  get 33,000 square feet on the roof. That's only   a third of what they could have done if if they  had a you know less exciting design of a building. There isn't any battery storage  with this type system, right? No. Any other questions? Nope. Any uh public comment? Seeing none, we can entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion that we approve um the  final site plan, Copper Ridge Solar S240023. Second. Second. Okay. Roll call. Yes. Roll call  vote. Mr. Huff. Yes. Mr. Kane. Yes. No. Nope. Oh,   no. No. Not. You cannot vote anymore. Bad  habit. I know, right? I changed my seat.   Mr. Lester? Yes. Mr. Robertson? Yes.  Mr. Smith? Yes. Mr. Swissson? Yes. Um,   Miss Carpenter? Yes. And Commissioner Gordon? Mr. Chairman, let the record reflect.  We have six shs and zero nays. Okay.   Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.  Good luck. Thank you. Thank you so much. button to go back and Ariel. I'm good. How are you? Good. All right. Yeah. Uh item number 10,   concept subdivision plan for Griffith  Griffith West section 4 P-22-68.

And Amy will turn it over to you.  Good morning. Amy Barcraftoft with   the Development Review Division. Could  you introduce yourselves that you're up   here with me? Oh yeah, CLSI. Yeah, let's  try this again. Lind Alexander from CLSI.   Richard Demet from Highland Development, owner of  the property. So, good morning. We are here with a   uh subdivision that is coming before you as  a concept plan review as well as asking for a   determination regarding a cluster plan. So, there  is an action required with this concept review.   So, if you picture Carol County, we are located  down in the southeast corner of the county. Um,   we are Yep. that lower corner. The subject  property is 28.52 acres and split by Griffith   Road. We have uh frontage at Old Frederick  Road, Maryland Route 144 and Griffith Road.   So giving consideration to that  road that intersects the property,   there are approximately 27.28 acres available  for development. The property is undeveloped   and zone conservation. The land at the site  is mostly an open field unencumbered by any   streams or flood planes. The property slopes  upward from Griffith Road on either side. Uh in this slide we can see that adjacent  properties are zoned conservation and developed   with single family homes. This property  is outside of any priority funding area,  

designated growth area and outside of public water  sewer service area. So we are on well and septic. The developer proposes to create eight lots in  total on the property. Seven new subdivision   lots and the resulting lands is called  lot 8. The proposal is a cluster plans   of subdivision and clustering is permitted in  the conservation zone district according with   the requirements of chapter 155.0. 036  which I have listed in the staff report. Um this project was first presented in  January 2024 as a concept conventional   plan of subdivision. Um it was submitted to the  development review division and distributed to   technical agencies and during the concept review  phase the engineer and developer decided to modify   the plan to p pursue a cluster plan. The cluster  plan was submitted to our office on August 1st   2025. It proposes the same number of lots as  the conventional plan in regard to clustering   and the conditions uh listed in the uh code. The  total number of lots and dwelling units shall not   exceed the number that would be permitted for  the zoning district based on the gross area of   the track being divided. That requirement is  being met here with a gross acreage of 28.51   acres. In conservation, the bulk lot requirements  um determine the lot size is three acres. So the   maximum number of lots would be nine. However,  we are on well and septic here. So the septic   minor requirements cap the new lots at seven. The  code also states that all individual lots shall  

be designated and located to minimize potential  environmental degradation of natural resources.   This site is an open field with no  streams, flood planes, or forest. So,   there are minimal environmental um  resources. With the subdivision plan,   the developer proposes to create those eight lots  and uh does meet the requirements of the cluster   setbacks. We have 40 feet in the front, 20 feet  on the side, and 50 on the rear. So those setbacks   do comply with the code as well as the width  requirements for for each lot. Additionally,   the code states that individual lots can be  a minimum of 1 acre in size. All the lots   proposed do meet this requirement and  range in size from 2.49 acres to 4.72   acres. So three lots are smaller than otherwise  required in the conservation zoning district. With the land that is derived from the reduction  of those lot sizes, the code requires that it is   provided and maintained as an open space  recreation or recreational area. So the   reduction of those three lots um that are sized  below the three acre bulk lot size requirement   is totaling a little less than one acre. So  that is required to be open space and shown   on the plan as N6 acres. As you recall, open  space is provided to the county. Um we have   the first right of refusal. If the county rejects  the offer for that open space easement, it may be   owned in common by the residents, conveyed to the  Carol County Land Trust, or recombined with one   buildable lot and owned privately. So that last  option is what is being proposed in this plan.  

that the open space is on that resulting  lands and will be owned privately. All lots shown on the plans will utilize well  and septic systems and access is proposed as   private driveways from Griffith Road. This  proposed subdivision plan was subject to   citizen involvement at a technical review  committee meeting in February. While no   citizens attended or commented at that time,  recently we have received a few emails either   asking for an update of the plan or giving  comments asking for the plan to be reviewed   for aspects such as storm water management and  other considerations which um is done as part of   the typical review process. Engineering um has  reviewed and issued a letter regarding three   of the proposed lots. they have a failure to meet  the site distance requirements and this will need   to be addressed in the preliminary plan phase.  The health department also has a few comments   which will be addressed in the preliminary  plan phase. Otherwise, storm water management   has issued concept approval for the plan. Grass  swailes and submerged gravel wetland will meet   storm water requirements. There is a storm water  management parcel that will be deed to the county.   Forest Conservation has approved uh the  plan and uh it will be met with off-site   banking. Landscaping is not required for this  subdivision as currently uh designed. Grading,   flood plane, water resource management have  provided approval and fire protection and   zoning have no comments. This site is outside  the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Utilities.   The project will be reviewed um for the  provisions of concurrency management and  

will be tested prior to presenting this  uh plan to you as a preliminary plan. Here are some photos of the site. On the  upper left we have a photo standing at the   intersection of Griffith Road and Maryland  144. And the other two photos, the top right   and the bottom center are photos showing  Griffith Road with the site on either side. Again, the planning commission may at  your discretion approve a residential   cluster subdivision and a determination  from the commission as to the developer's   proposal of the plan um is requested today.  Please let me know if you have any questions. any more input from yes you guys. So I  figured um this is a little bit unique   um reasoning for a cluster. Um I just wanted to  give some history on the property that you guys   probably are not completely aware of. Um this  project was started in 2005 2004 2005 the first   series of perk tests were performed on this. that  was during the time um where maybe not everybody's   aware that the county shut down for a year in  that deferral and this per this u Mr. Demit has   owned the property the whole time so it's not  changed hands or anything like that um first   series of perk tests were done back in 2005 2004  2005 2006 they were not great okay so there was   another series of perks that that Mr. legitimate  did himself right to save himself money and over   the years by the time he was getting ready to gear  up again 2010 happens everything comes to a halt   again anyway so it's been an ongoing process we  did not get involved in this until um about a year  

and a half ago it was done by another engineer  it was designed under old criteria like the far   the layout so the stormwater management um was  not necessarily looked at in detail in in 2001   or from in 2021 and 2022 came back and did some  additional perks on the I'm going to say southside   Oak Griffith Road or the lower side and you can  see all those failures okay on that side. So,   initially when we laid this this out for  storm water, we were conventional. Okay. As   we met with the county and started looking at the  requirements, um we have one stormwater facility   on the south or on the I'm going to say the south  side of that project. Um that's a larger submerged   gravel wetlands. um through negot I wouldn't say  negotiation but through the review process with   the county we um that facility is a quantity  management facility because it's basically the   only suitable outfall on the property short of  ripping out I mean right now there's a lot of   there's a significant amount of water that comes  down to a cvert that literally directed right at   that one existing house that sits extremely close  if you've seen the site you've seen that house   that sits extremely close there's a pipe right  there okay you could you point that at where   uh I can't I don't have the pointer. Right where  the existing house is on the south side of that   road. Right down below the stormwater facility.  I can't see that closely. Sorry. Okay. Oh, let me   do it. Sorry. It's right here. Right there is the  house. Yep. There is a culp and you can see this   big swale that comes down through here. There's  a pipe right there that comes right past that   house. Okay. There is also some drainage questions  that when we were at the TRC meeting, there were   folks down in this area that are getting a lot  of drainage coming off of this field comes across   Griffith and heads towards their fields. It's a  pretty good slope that goes down. So through our  

the last year and a half of getting to this point,  we have diverted by storm water. We are there,   which you can't see on here. Your plans would show  it. There's a swale that comes here that divert   that diverts all this drainage coming across this  these folks here. There is a culvert system that's   going to be put in place here with another swale  that comes down that natural one that's going   to divert the water. Oh, I lost my mouse. It's  going to divert the water back this way. We're   going to put a culvert, a new culvert where we can  control it underneath this road. Oh, lost my mouse   again. into this facility. There we go. into this  facility. Okay. Um all that water that's coming   through those different areas that are coming  across those people's property are going to get   diverted into this storm water facility that's  going to be a quantity management facility as   well as some water quality going on because  putting any type of I'm sure you're familiar   with dry wells or anything on this property is  very questionable because of the perks. There   was a lot of even though you don't see testing  over here. Richard did about another 50 tests   over here to see if we could get anything on this  north side of this road. So in all that analysis,   this facility got larger. The minute that that  facility got larger, getting those lots or getting   three acre lots on the bottom of this road is what  prompted it to go to a cluster pretty much. Um   when we did that as part of what you um above and  beyond what we normally would do at the concept   stage for storm water, you cannot see it on here.  You may have seen it in the field. There is a dam   built down here protecting a a property owner down  at the very bottom. There's a dam that was built   that protects his uh parking area and some barns  he has down there. We were required by stormwater  

management to make sure that if that facility ever  would happen to fail for any reason, we were not   flooding anybody downstream. That process normally  that we would do that analysis does not happen at   the concept stage. That happens at the preliminary  and final. We have already done that okay at this   stage. Unfortunately, we've done we had to do all  that work to even prove that we could put that   facility in that location and that the facility  didn't have to get even larger than what we're   showing. Okay. Now, in doing that, the facility  did get a little bit smaller, but unfortunately,   it didn't get small enough to go the whole way  back to con or conventional type of layout.   Okay. So, then it was, okay, if we're going to do  this cluster situation, where can we put the open   space that number one's not in somebody's front  yard? Number two may actually be usable because   I'll be honest with you, this this ordinance  about putting this open space on these cluster   conservation clusters, it seems like we always  end up with this open space over and has other   easements on top of it or they can only walk to it  or whatever. This particular open space, while it   may only show about an acre, is up in this corner  already flat, no trees, completely usable. I mean,   you could put I mean, not that you would stripe  ball fields up there, but if you wanted to go play   soccer up there, you got enough to put two soccer  fields up there, you know? I mean, like, if kids   wanted to go play soccer, you know, whatever they  wanted to do up in that location, um, there's room   to actually play there. I mean, I can tell you  there's a couple conservation clusters I've done,   um, even as much as 10 years ago that the open  space easement is over top of environmental   features and they can all they can do is walk.  this we do at least have an area that that is   a usable actual usable open space easement. Now,  it doesn't matter to us. I know the county doesn't   want the parcels. They stopped taking them a long  time ago. Um they don't necessarily always want  

the easements, okay? But with these folks having  these larger lots, these larger lots are very   conducive to this area. You go into Howard County,  you see those same type of lots down there.   Um the other situation that your guys are may  not completely aware of is this area does have   tendency to have well issues. So we wanted to  keep these lots as large as possible so that if   for some reason you do go in to drill these wells,  you got enough area to do that. So that's kind of   the history of how we got to where we are. Um  did we want to cluster? Not necessarily. Did   we need to do that to be able to handle the storm  water which is an environmental feature? You know,   that thing is a submerged gravel wetlands. It is  going to provide quantity as well as quality. It's   not providing all the quality for the lots, but it  is providing a substantial amount. It does provide   more than it needs to substantially. So, for  instance, whatever house we're showing on here,   people come in and they put a, you know, 100  foot by 60 ft house, which is a couple of the   ones I've been putting in over off of Cherry Tree  right now, this this will handle it. You know,   this any increase in the impervious down the  road, this facility will handle all that, too,   as far as, you know, quantity as well as quality.  So, that's kind of how we got where we are. Um,   just wanted to give a whole history as  opposed to we just kind of showed up. So,   did you have anything to add, Richard? No, thank  you. So, be good. Sorry. And thank you. Thank you. And we're here to answer any other questions. So, so a lot of these will be sand mounds. No,  they are actually all tile. They are all trench   systems. Okay. They're just not deep trench in all  cases. there, you know, your tile field situation,   but if you think about it, tile field only goes  to 7 ft. I'm not putting dry wells out here at  

that at that depth. So, okay, there are no sand  mounts. I just wanted to add uh one comment about   the open space. Um I have been reading examples  of that easement on other um similar cluster   conservation projects. Um the purpose is to ensure  that it will be retained forever in its natural,   scenic, agricultural and open conditions. Um  there are prohibited uses of that open space   um such as any kind of structures,  buildings, alteration of the surface   of the land, the use of any activity that  is likely to cause soil degradation. So,   this easement doesn't allow for much use of  that land as far as activity. Um, and and   the county would take that easement over top of  any proposed open space in a conservation area. They could or they would or they will. The  county will take an easement over it. It's   proposed to be combined with one of the lots, but  the county will take an easement preserving those   um requirements as it's required to be  accessed easily by the county to inspect it, which in this case would not be an issue  because it's right along the road. Correct. So, you mentioned all the entities that you  ask about an easement and you mentioned the   Carol County Land Trust. Um, so do you go  to the land trust and ask them if they're   interested or you just stop at whoever the  first one says yes? How does that work? Well,   the code requires that again the first offer is  to the county. Um, it also reads that it may be  

owned in common by the residents, conveyed  to the land trust, similar organization,   or recombined with one buildable lot in the  subdivision and owned privately. So, I'm not sure   um how that's offered to land trust or other other  entities as the code reads. Currently the proposal   is that it is to be owned privately because it's  combined with a buildable lot in this plan. In the   past when we've shown it we've shown it like this  and then through the process you know once it gets   the clusters approved then through the preliminary  and even into the final then it's determined does   somebody want it or is it just going to sit there  as an easement and the county takes the easement.   So at this point owned privately by the the land  the purchaser of that lot. The purchaser of the   lot. Okay. That's what I was that's what's being  proposed. But the county will take an easement   over top of that land. So that owner would be  responsible for whatever happens on that lot   and keeping it clean or mowing it. Not letting  the Johnson grass get out of hand. Okay. Again, we we several of us visited that site last  Friday and and the topography does does kind of   uh you know, it it's it's pretty amazing how  how you know it it it flows all to that one   point on the bottom corner next to the road. And  so if I was that adjacent property owner, again,   I I you know, I'm already getting hit with  water. um that you if you don't do anything,   there's water coming off that property. So,  anything you do, I think would be a probably an   improvement. Um and I I don't know anything about  storm water management. So, that's not a that's  

just an observation because again, that just the  water's going to want to go that direction. Um yeah, I it I am curious h how many total lots at the end of the day  are we getting out of this? Seven or eight?   Seven new lots with the remaining buildable right  for the existing parcel being the eighth. Being   the eighth. So is it the case that you know  on the under the conventional plan you were   getting seven and under this you're getting  eight? No, it is the same seven new because   of the septic minor uh requirements. Great.  Um there's no change in the number proposed   either either way. Great. Thank you. I  appreciate that clarification. That's it. And we are just here for an  action item um with this plan   um requesting your determination  regarding the cluster plan. Good. All right. Public comment.  Any public comment hearing? None.   Seeing none. All right, open for a motion. Um, I move that uh we approve the request uh and  the authorization to cluster uh for P-22-000068. Second. Okay. Should we take a roll call?  We're doing roll calls these days. Uh,  

let's do a roll call vote. Mr. Huff?  Yes. Mr. Lester? Yes. Mr. Robertson?   Yes. Mr. Smith? Yes. Mr. Swson? Yes. M.  Yes. Mr. Gordon. Abstain. Mr. Chairman,   let the record reflect. We have six yays and  would abstain. Okay. Well, congratulations.   Good luck moving forward. Thank you. We will see  you again. Great. Thank you. Have a good day. Okay. Item number 11. Nice. How about if we uh take a um  a fivem minute recess? Good. Good.

All right, we're back in order, back in session. Okay. Uh, item number 11, concept subdivision  plan for Papsco Estate section 6, P2458. And David, we are we're we're down a staff  member. Here he comes. David, you're on. Good morning, commission members. Morning, David  Bcraft with the development review division. Uh,   I am going to be presenting  two items for you this morning.   Uh the first one being the  one on your screen. Papsco Estates. Very interesting. Um same spot, same  everything. Just looks like the wrong name and   number on that screen there. Um but Pepsco  Estates. So I have a few representatives   of the project and with me here and I'll let  them introduce themselves. Josh Royal with DSA   Associates, the engineer in the project. And I'm  Mark Fzera, one of the owners with Clear Ridge   Developers. And so what's being proposed uh in  front of you is a six lot residential subdivision.   Uh this is in front of the commission as a concept  plan. So generally there's no action required.   However, with this proposal, the developer  is also requesting a driveway modification,   which I'll get into a little bit more into the  presentation. So, for those who are unfamiliar,   uh we are in the southern portion of the county.  You can see by the blue highlighted area here,   uh that is the property in question. This  uncolored area down here is Howard County.  

And this uncolored area over here is  the town of Sykesville. Uh, in fact,   the the Copper Ridge site, the first  one that you saw is right here. Got it. So, the property as it sits now uh is on the west  side of Tapsco Drive. Um, as you can see from the   aerial, it is currently undeveloped. Uh it is  zoned R 20,000 and uh there is a stream on the   west side of the property. As you can see here,  there is no FEMA 100-year flood plane associated   with that stream. Uh if you're standing on the  road on Papsco Drive, uh the property does slope   downwards from the road and it continues to do so  all the way to the stream. uh adjacent properties   are either zoned R10,000 or R20,000 and are fixed  with uh private dwellings. Uh all the properties   including this one are um utilizing public water  and private septic systems. So uh it's a little   unorthodox, something we don't see too often where  you have public water but private septic systems.   And um I'll mention this is section six  within the Papsco Estate subdivision. So within this current proposal um the  developer is proposing six residential lots   uh and a non-residential storm water management  parcel. These six new lots will range in size from   uh about8 acres to about 2.2 acres. uh the storm  water management parcel which will house the storm   water management facility shown here uh that will  be about 1.1 acres. All of the proposed lots will  

meet the standard minimum size of 20,000  square ft in this zoning district. The lot   width of 100 ft and the setback requirements  from all property lines as applicable to the   R20,000 zoning district. Uh and all lots will  again utilize public water and private septic   systems. So the public water is currently  shown on this drive here. It is proposed to   be extended down Pasco Drive and then hook  into the property to serve these new lots. The proposal was originally submitted to the  county September of 2024. The concept plan was   subject to citizen involvement at the technical  review committee meeting in November of 2024.   At that meeting, there were seven citizens in  attendance who uh voiced concerns of flooding on   the property, uh damage to the existing roadway,  distance of the new houses to the property   boundary, and uh the number of trees to be removed  from the site. Uh, a phone call was received after   the meeting uh, and outline concerns with the  current road conditions and, uh, speeding on   the roadways. And an email was received, which  I believe you guys, uh, were included on as a   recipient. Um, and it voiced concerns of flooding  on the property as well. Access to the new lots is   proposed from a new use and common driveway, which  will connect to Patsco Drive. Um, as you can see,   it's a pretty straight shot. So, here's PepsiCo  Drive and then here is the new driveway. Uh, the shared driveway will necessitate  a name in accordance with county code. Um,   and a declaration of maintenance obligations and  an access easement will also be required. Uh,   and those will be determined later on in the  process. Uh, within this zoning district,  

the maximum number of users is five. Uh so  because it's a residential zoning district,   uh shared common driveways have a maximum of five  users. Uh a request for a modification from the   developer uh was submitted and is requesting  six users be allowed in this instance. Um,   this determination of modification to  requirements for a shared driveway,   uh, is up to the planning and zoning  commission per section of code,   uh, which I would like to not read, but I'd be  happy to read if you all would like me to. Um,   but it essentially puts the power in your all's  hands as far as these types of modifications. Looking at the proposal. Um, so this has been  reviewed as a whole as a concept plan by county   agencies. Engineering review has granted concept  approval of the plan. Additional comments are   going to be required with subsequent submitts. Um,  as currently designed, the landscaping ordinance   does not apply to this project. The plan has  received concept approval from flood plane   management and water resources management. grading  and sediment control has granted concept approval   with additional comments again to be provided on  subsequent submitts. Uh the Carol County Health   Department and the Bureau of Utilities have  both granted concept approval of the plan with   the public water and private septic systems being  proposed. Uh forest conservation will be addressed   by on-site aforestation. And to give an idea of  what that looks like, so this is the proposed   forest conservation plan. Uh all these areas in  the back here are going to be encumbered by a   forest conservation easement. If you recall, this  area back here is where that stream is currently   located. Uh stormwater management has granted  concept approval. Um the stormwater management   requirements will be addressed via various dry  wells for the proposed uh dwellings, but mainly  

by this new facility here um which is going to  capture a lot of what's currently uh or what's   going to be on site. Uh in accordance with a site  development plan memo from comprehensive planning,   the proposed land use is consistent with the  Carol County master plan's land use designation of   residential medium density. Uh this site is also  consistent with the 2019 water and sewer master   plan. Finally, the project is subject to the  provisions of concurrency management. Uh prior to   coming back before the planning zoning commission  requesting preliminary approval, uh the property   will be tested against those adequate facilities  to ensure that uh there is adequacy there. Uh   so just looking at the property too, um just a  couple pictures here from Tapsco Drive. So, both   of these show that slope down into the property.  Um, here are some existing inlets that reside uh   in the roadway and I believe they feed into a pipe  that run onto the property and discharge onto the   property. Uh, and the bottom two pictures are just  two sites or two pictures looking throughout the   site. So, I'll be happy to answer any questions uh  or um if you guys have anything additional to add.   Yeah, sure. I'll add a few things. Thanks, David.  I had written a letter to David uh at the end of   2024 with a few of the uh I guess justifications  or reasons for the the modification uh to the   sixth user on the driveway. So, we have zoning  here for 21 houses. Uh, but because of no access   to public sewer and because of the environmental  features and subsequent perk results, we're only   uh requesting six uh six houses. Uh it's not  practical to with only six houses to put a to put  

a public road out here. So, that's why we want to  do a driveway. Uh we are upgrading the driveway to   be 18 feet wide and include a full 70 foot uh wide  culde-sac. So we feel like that will you know help   mitigate traffic going in and out of there. Um  it's not feas so the property as you can see has a   50 foot strip accessing it. Uh so it's really not  feasible to put a second roadway through there. So   those are the reasons we thought it may you know  this was the the best design um for the community   uh the the road itself would be fully maintained  by the you by the uh owners of the subsequent   lots. The other thing that I wanted to bring up  was and I'll let you Josh if you want to chime   in if I say something wrong here. Uh a little bit  of a challenging storm water management site. Um   David alluded to this a little bit, but it seems  that when Papsco Valley Overlook was constructed,   uh they drained roads into into those inlets that  he showed and then they there was a pipe placed on   this property, half in the ground, half below the  ground um that just discharged into the property.   You know, we we worked with county staff to try to  determine who did that, why why was it done that   way? It was done so long ago that there really  wasn't any information on that. Um, but what   we're doing is replacing that substandard uh pipe  and creating, you know, as as David said, creating   a new pond that will that will uh that will  manage not just the two and the 10-year storms,   which we're required to manage, but will also  manage the 100-year storm. So, we're going to be   lessening uh the the off-site water that comes off  of this property today um because we're aware that  

you know there's at least one downstream issue uh  with uh you know with properties getting flooded   in storms. So, we're doing our best to mitigate  that. You have anything to Yeah, basically when   this project was analyzed, we established two  drainage points. one down at the corner right   there and then rest draining to the stream roughly  and and at both in the proposed condition both   points receive less drainage than they did prior  to. So basically five acres is being taken from   that corner point that we're analyzing and  placed into the pond where that water will   be managed and released at the rate that we've  found to be being released in existing condition.   So really what I'm saying is both points  that are being analyzed are being improved just as a a point of clarification  uh because I think you mentioned pond   um this is an underground facility so a submerged   gravel wet so it's not going to be a  wet pond in the location. Sorry. Yeah. And I guess the only other thing I would bring up,  David mentioned some convers or some uh opposition   regarding condition of the roadways. I'm not  quite sure what that means. Um I just wanted   to point that out. You know, these are existing  subdivision roads that seem to be in, you know,   wellmaintained. Um so, and we have for this  entrance that we're proposing, we have more than   adequate sight distance. There's 1500 feet one  direction and over 500 feet the other direction. David, are we pulling water? I'm just  trying to get my make sure I have my   bearings. We're pulling pulling water. The  existing water termination is over there by  

Swallow Road. Is that right? Is that where  it's coming from? That's correct. Yeah. So,   the existing water line terminates  about this point um right there.   That's correct. The developer is looking  to extend that to feed in for these lots. Any other questions? Any uh public comment? Yes. Okay. So for public  comment, please uh step up to the microphone,   identify yourself. He has requested to come  up to the table. Staff approved it so that   he has use of the cursor um on the map. Okay.  Thank you. Comments. Uh please state your name,   address, and talk uh into the microphone there  at the table. Um comments are strictly limited   to three minutes. Uh citizen testimony  is not a question and answer session.   Questions may be directed to staff after  the meeting. And if any individuals failed   to comply with these rules, planning  and zoning commission chair may call   the person out of order and may require him or  her to leave. Wow. My name is Phil Rus. I live   at 136 Schoolhouse Road. I am the bottom  corner that's surrounded by all of these. That's my house right there. Gotcha. Okay. Uh,  I'm amazed I only get three minutes here. You   would have seen me at the previous meeting had  we put a placard sign on the road that we live   on. I I think it's an SOP for you to put a  notification on the road where the project   egresses. But the problem is this project deeply  affects not only my residents, which by the way   with the three major rainstorms that we had  in July, my basement was flooded three times  

because the window failed. This Oh boy. This is  a very active stream right now. And in this area,   we It was such a bad gully washer that it washed  the embankment off that was in front of that   house. And they had to put in rip wrap. That's a  large rock about rip wrap one. Okay. So, I I don't   have really an issue with development. I I grew  up in construction. I you know, I'm for it. But   the problem is before this I even knew about this  development. I was already in contact with the   county about the major flooding and the amount of  water that comes off Papsco Road. You saw pictures   of some storm drains. There's four of them there  when nobody has any record of why they're there,   how they got there. And you're talking about  improving these concrete pipes that are dilapated. The problem is you're going to take this right  here. Let me let me give you some imagery here.   We don't have the whole Patapsco road there. It's  about 045 miles long, less than a half a mile.   Let's say it's about 20 ft wide. If you do all the  math with that, you get a certain square footage.   And then with the depth of rain that comes down.  So between December 23rd 2023 and March 2024,   we had an accumulated rainfall of about 2 feet. We  had a massive amount of let's look at the records   okay if you have that much rainfall accumulation  rainfall of 2 feet based on doing your math of45   miles times 20 ft wide and the depth of the rain  comes to about 1.1 million gallons. Now any of you   you all can we can sit down and we can do the  math. We'll reconfigure the math. That's 1.1   million gallons. And it's not just the rainfall  that comes off the road. I have to deal with the  

rainfall that's off the property behind me. Now,  that's some of its wood, some of it's meadow. But   if you can imagine, if you take a a dry towel  and you pour a little bit of water on it,   the towel absorbs it, right? You take the  picture and just dump it and it just splashes   everywhere because it cannot absorb it. And this  right here, this underground retention pond,   how many gallons is that supposed to hold?  How many gallons is this supposed to hold   right here? And the problem is it runs off here  into a stream that when we have a large rainfall,   it can't handle it. Imagine so much rain is coming  that I got snapping turtles that are walking in   this area. That should tell you something.  And after those floods that we had in July,   I had a black snake in my house. I don't know  how it got up there. I frogs in my basement. It   was just the stream just is backing up. I have  uh a French there's an aquifer underneath my   house that runs underneath my house that drains to  this stream and it is a twoft elevation from the   bottom of my house to this stream which means if  you start approaching the three-foot whatever is   in that stream is now backing up into my basement  which happened because I had a whole bunch of dirt   in my basement. I am still drying out my basin  and trying to clean out my basement. I and I met   Mr. J. Excuse me. Let me interrupt this. We're  already at three three minutes as it t has gone,   but I I'll allow you a little bit more to wrap up.  Okay. Okay. You, like I said, you would have seen   me before had I there been a road sign and I could  see it. Your little postcard gets lost in all the   junk mail that's, you know, that comes with the  post office. So, you would have seen me a lot   be before. I already talked to storm management  before this project went on at is it a Todd Goff   I think back in the spring of 23 maybe something  like that and then we discovered that then people   in the office were saying oh we're going to fix  these little pipes well here's all right here's

y'all are going to do a drain that's going to come  in this see that that's a drain there's my house   you have another drain it's not on this map it's  not on this particular map right here you have two   drains shooting off in this area and right now  the property cannot handle the rainfalls that   come in especially the gully washers the type you  know you look at the radar and it looks like it's   purple I don't have a problem with these people  and the problem there's also a pond that's just   north of this that's not on any of the maps  you see a depressed elevation that's kind   of a circle that's an actual pond it's not  listed on these maps when that pond it's I   surrounded by water. And if it's  if it's just 2 in per 15 minutes,   we're talking like 125,000 gallons of  water. Just Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you for letting me have the  cursor. Mhm. Any other public comment? Okay. Um, can I speak for  my wife? She can't be here   because she works for Howard County  government. No, sorry. Okay. Yeah. And are we able to speak to the any of those  comments? It's really not a Q&A session,   so prefer not. Okay. Yeah. This plan doesn't work.  Okay. That's the short of it. Thank you. I I I would say that um the county most likely will  look at that as part of what's going on. Um,   but from development experience myself,  

um, it looks like what they've done should take  care of what what you're seeing. No. No. Yeah. Okay. All right. I mean, I'm available for questions.  You can do that outside the meeting. Yes,   you can. I've got to go because I work for I   don't get a $125 predium if I'm not  moving. So, good luck. Thank you. Okay. So, we need a request. It's uh what's being  considered is a request for modification to the   driveway surface for use in common driveway and  the number and the numbers there's six now six   instead of five the surface that's the next point  yeah I'm sorry I'll clarify so um the surface   material is for the next proposal the the only  thing needed for this one is the number of users   Okay. So, I don't see any problem with having  the extra user on the driveway. And so,   I would uh how do we word this? Uh do you want me to give you a Okay. Yeah. Um, I  would recommend that you um move uh to approve   the maximum number of users for use in common  driveway in accordance with chapter 155.039  

from 5 to 6. Okay. I will uh what she just said.  Yeah. Yeah. What she said. But make a motion to   uh chapter 156.039 039 to allow six users  on a use in common driveway. Chapter 155.   Sorry. Huh? 155. 155. 16 156 won't quite get  you where you want. Okay. 155.039. Second.   Okay. Roll call. Mr. Hoff. Yes. Mr. Lester?  Yes. Mr. Robertson? Yes. Mr. Smith? Yes,   Mr. Swissen. Yes, Kirkner. Yes, Mr.  Gordon. Abstain, Mr. Chairman. Let   the record reflect. We have six yays and one  abstain. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck. Can you ask me down? Thank you. So Laura  stepped out and she's next on the agenda. Oh,   wait. I had one more. Oh, we have one more. I do.  My bad. Sorry. You can present if you're looking.   I'll give you my notes. David. David, are you  are you doing uh this concurrency uh management   report section? We have Bradic Estates still.  Yeah, we I'm sorry. I missed that. I'm sorry. I   know. I I didn't have the report in my I know it's  states today. Okay. So, item item Sorry. Oh, it's  

perfectly fine. I mean, item number 12, special  reports reubdivision of section three. um FX-22-2 and David, you still are here. I am still here.  Uh so this is the last proposed development or   modification that we're going to present to you  this morning. Uh this is in reference to uh the   Bradica Estates reubdivision of section 3 project.  Uh now this project has already gone through the   process. uh it has already been approved and  recorded. However, the owner of the property is   now looking to make a modification uh and so it's  back before you for that consideration. Um I I do   have uh representatives here uh and I'll let you  guys if you can introduce yourself please. I'm Jan   Collins the owner of Bradic Estates and my sister  Ellie of Ellie Ringwalt. So as mentioned uh this   is before you as a special report. Um, so we are  going to to look for some sort of action from the   commission. So, uh, although most of you may be  familiar with this, uh, just in case you are not,   um, this is the property that we're talking  about highlighted here. Um, if you look up here,   here is the intersection of 26 and 27. If you're  familiar with this area and you follow through   the intersection going south, right here is where  you'll see the the big red barn and the roadway   to turn left. that is Bradic Road which leads  to Perry Road which leads to this site here. So looking at the property um this section of  the Bradic Estate subdivision created lots 82   through 84. Uh prior to the subdivision, just a  brief history, uh the property was about 19 acres  

and it housed a an existing dwelling, various  outuildings, uh as well as a private driveway   to Perry Road. And you can see all of those  still shown uh right here. So, all of these   were existing prior to this subdivision. After the  subdivision, um, they put all of those features on   lot 82 and then created lots 83 and 84 as you seen  highlighted. Um, and I'm going to go to the next   slide. It it reorients the site, but it makes  it easier for everyone to see when you have it   sideways. So, this is all the existing features.  And then these are the two new lots back here. So,   feeding these two new lots is this new private  driveway. the shared driveway. Um, and this hooks   into the existing driveway right at the apron  onto Perry Road. That is gravel. And that's   right. And the existing driveway, the existing um  singleuse driveway is a gravel driveway. So, the   this subdivision was processed through the county.  Uh, it met all applicable codes and regulations.   uh as a result of that it was presented to the  planning zoning commission on May 3rd 2023 and   was granted final approval. So uh regulations  applicable to UIC so shared driveways uh include   the requirement that the driveway be paved. A  paved surface enables uh optimal access for the   department of fire and EMS under variable weather  conditions and over the longest course of time. So   maintenance is minimized in that matter. Um and  the access will be more predictable in case of   an emergency. The request for modification to the  driveway is specific to the surface material. uh  

their request that they submitted was uh sent to  the commission members um and it does not include   modifications to any of the other requirements.  So the approved pullover, the approved width uh   or the vehicle turnaround. So the only thing  being requested is the surface material. That same long winded section of code as the  previous report still applies to this one as well.   So because this is a modification to the shared  driveway requirements, uh it is being heard   by the planning zoning commission for your  determination. Um this request was forwarded   to a select few agencies within the county to  to get their take. Uh and those agencies were   the fire department of fire and EMS, the resource  management division and engineering review. Um,   the Department of Fire and EMS stated they had  no issues with the modification as long as it can   be demonstrated that the driveway uh can support  heavy vehicles and that it is maintained properly.   resource management division stated they had no  issues with the proposal to change the driveway   surface material and engineering review stated  that the department of public works requires a   paved apron be provided where the driveway meets  the county roadway. Uh this proposal does not   um does not include a change of that surface  material of the apron. So that apron will still be   uh paved or concrete I think is is  what it currently is now. Um, so,   uh, in accordance with the, um, reference code in  the report, and I'm just going to read a snippet   of it, where the planning and zoning commission  finds that because of unusual circumstances of   shape and topography or other physical features  or conditions of the proposed subdivision or   because of the nature of adjacent developments,  extraordinary hardship may result from strict  

compliance with the UIC design requirements uh, of  current county standards. There may be a granted   modification when requested by the developer and  or owner. Um the property owner has made that   request which is why we are in front of you this  morning. Uh and again that request is changing   the surface material from a paving to a gravel.  If this request is granted by the commission,   the proposal will be subject to plan review. Uh  so revisions to the existing approved plan going   through a type of plan review to make sure that  that change doesn't ad have any inadverse effects   on the previous approvals and then to update those  records as necessary. And so just looking at the   property here um there's no snow on the ground but  these pictures were taken last week and so you can   see the extent of where that driveway connects  in. So, here is the existing driveway. Again,   hooking to the left here is the uh single-use  driveway to the existing home. And then tying   right into that is this new shared driveway  called Munchie Drive. Uh and then the two   pictures on the bottom show entrances to Perry  Road. And so, if if you have any questions,   I'd be happy to answer them, as well  as the the two representatives here. How long is that driveway? That's a good question. Let me find out for you. Okay. Should we talk about any of that other stuff  that you wrote on the letter, please? Well,   while Can you hear me? Yes, ma'am. Um Oh, while  he's looking for that, um I just wanted to go   through uh the letter that we wrote. I don't  know if any of you have taken a look at it. Um,  

but the the reasons that uh we were requesting  this is um we're environmentalist and we're   making a serious effort to make the subdivision on  this property environmentally friendly. We spent a   fair amount of time and money planting trees and  creating an extensive water resource protection   area. After all that effort, a paved road does  not coordinate with this effort. Paved roads can   release harmful chemicals into the air and runoff  into water sources, contributing to pollution and   and degradation of aquatic life, which is what  we are trying to prevent with the water resource   protection area. The production of asphalt for  paved roads involve significant energy consumption   and greenhouse emissions. While gravel roads  require less resource and intensive maintenance,   a gravel road is a lot more environmentally  friendly due to its permeability and its ability   to filter and replenish groundwater. A gravel road  typically consists of layers of crushed stone,   gravel, aggregate, and sometimes clay for binding,  allowing for water drainage and surface porocity.   Heat island effect. Pave roads absorb heat from  the sun leading to excessive heat especially   during the summer months. Gravel roads create  a more casual aesthetic which is appropriate   for this location and rural lifestyle. We feel it  critical to preserve this country charm. The road   goes to only two houses which does not require  hightra surface. Paved roads require more frequent   maintenance to prevent erosion u potholes and  other damage which can be costly. The current   list price of the two property does not justify  the additional expense of the paved road. Um the   cost is prohibitive. Also our engineer said that  the Maryland code does not require pavement. Carol   County design standards um recommend it. So  thank you for your consideration. Thank you.

I was prepared for a lot of questions but not for  that one. Um the plans look like they show about   a thousand foot length uh up to the extents of  the end of the shared portion and then it turns   into the a single use for that user at the very  end. So about 1,000 ft. So the driveways into   the houses would all be paved right off of that  road. or not. It's not a problem. Yeah. Okay.   That that would be up to 18 ft wide by 1,000 ft.  It'd be uh 12 feet wide. 12 feet wide. Yes, sir. And is there much of a slope on that driveway? So  looking at the pictures, you see it has a little   bit of a slope hooking into the existing drive. U  but beyond that you can see it's it's fairly flat. The slope is just to where that tractor or that  piece of equipment is and then the rest of it   is completely flat. Completely flat. But this  the slope part is to that and so going back   um you can see the the contours on this plan  which are are not varied. Okay, I see them. Any questions? No. No other questions. Any other additional  comments you'd like to make? Nope. She's  

living at She's living at the back lot  and I'm staying in the front lot. So,   the they won't be paved. However, you'll have  the layered crusher run and it's it's pretty   solid. It's very solid. I've always worried about  using common driveways. Me, too. Always. it uh all   I don't think anybody remembers this here, but I  would because I'm the oldest guy sitting here. But   um it goes all the way back to a a driveway called  Shamer Lane that uh was such a nightmare using   Houston Common for a lot of reasons. I thought  we learned a lot from that debacle then. So, I've   always been very skeptical about use in common and  what happens afterwards. It's so hard to maintain   a use in common and then have everybody on that  using common driveway all on the same page. So, if   there's a problem, it seems like it would be nice  to address it up front and not kick it down the   road down the road. And that's just my concern.  Um, I have to voice it because I've I've seen it.   David, read re refresh what the EMS people said.  What What did they say about provided what now?   So, they said uh that they need it demonstrated  to them that this driveway with a gravel surface   material instead of paved uh can support heavy  vehicles and that it is maintained properly.   So, uh, one of the things that they voiced, uh,  was that there's a lot of of these driveways,   as Mr. Robertson mentioned, are not properly  maintained. And then getting the emergency  

equipment down the road, um, is troublesome in an  emergency. And so that's why he said that he wants   it demonstrated that it can hold heavy equipment  and that it is properly maintained. Yeah. Yeah. I   got to tell you, I'm I'm struggling here because I  I generally want to do what you as a resident and   good citizen want to do. I struggle with these use  of common driveways because I I don't I I think we   ought to as a county, Daphany, I think we ought  to be looking at this because, you know, things   have changed. um the amount of traffic that we get  in the afternoons from just UPS, Amazon, you know,   whoever. There just seems to be a lot more traffic  and I I'm just concerned that we're creating the   more we do this, the more issues we're creating.  You know, at the same time, I I I really struggle   with what y'all want to do. My driveway to the  farm is gravel, and I've been there for 50 years.   Yes, ma'am. And the the the gentleman that's  buying the other lot is also building the houses   and he's a builder and I know he's going to be  take a real interest in making sure that the road   is maintained. Well, I mean, but again, that this  is great. Y'all are sitting here, you know, if we   look 15 year 15 20 years down the road, we don't  know who's going to own that. And you I mean,   it's great that y'all you don't just get along. I  mean, this is this this is an embraced I I guess   to me where I have a little bit of a hard time is,  you know, I spent $22,000 planting trees where we   actually, you know, they said it was a flood area.  We actually bailed hay right there and big huge   tractors and and you know that you bail hay with.  So, I spent all this money to build all the put   plant these trees when I was getting hay right  off of that property where I've now built all  

these trees and then we've done all of this and  now you're telling me I got to put in this ugly   driveway. Uh, which, you know, she's a designer.  I've lived at this farm for 50 years and it looks   so much nicer just to be gravel like my gravel  going into my farm and um it's not a highway, you   know. No, it's Yeah, it's two houses. Typically,  when there's a use in common, you have maintenance   agreement and declarations that go with the  Yeah, we do. deed. So, that is specifically   spelled out there correctly. That's That's right.  Okay. And does the county have any enforcement if   they run into problem with the driveway down the  road? that they have no if the residents have   use common agreement and like EMS has a problem  with the driveway I mean there's no recourse from   the county to make sure it gets corrected  essentially so uh we we look to put those   checks in place requiring that declaration of  maintenance obligations requiring these standards   um so that way for the longest amount of time  assuming no proper maintenance is done um it's   it's manageable. Um, but once there there's an  altercation or or it's not up to current standards   any longer, there there really is no recourse from  the county. Yeah. And any disagreements between   the owners of how it should be maintained, that is  a private civil matter. Y as a farmer, you know,   we have a lot of gravel driveways, but they do  require maintenance. um you know as the county   went through and to chipped all the county roads  and I applaud them for their effort for doing that   and after hearing the reasoning why I totally  agree with the concept. Uh there there there  

is maintenance to require but it does give it  a different look. Yeah. I I don't really have a   problem with stone driveway but it's just got to  be maintained. It's got to meet these standards.   Um I mean fire and EMS they have these concerns  but if we allow this use there's nothing says   that it's going to pass what they require. Is that  correct? Because I know new stone roads sometimes   need maintenance especially if you don't put  cloth fabric material underneath of them. I mean,   they just don't hold up because you just don't  know where the ground can be softened. I I do   see there there's no water. It looks like all the  water drains off both sides. It's no place where   you have sheet flow. No. And they It looks like  there's a pipe underneath of it there. The one   spot where water might go underneath of it. Runs  all the way along if there's a pipe. Okay. I mean,   all that area has built, you know, we've bailed  hay there for years. So, I I wasn't, you know,   big things have run across there for 50 years.  And we bailed hay off of there for that many   years. And I I understand the aesthetics  and all, but it's still a development. And the bottom line, it's still a  development. It is. Y and all the   trees that I was told to be environmentally  friendly and then now we're putting asphalt   on all of this money that I've spent  for trees to make everything, you know,   and now we're going to put asphalt for two  houses. I mean, just doesn't go together. They will be two beautiful homes. She is  a designer. The guy is a builder. I mean, his daughter is going to live there. So

I I will say um I'm probably the lone  desenter here, but in my experience   um I have seen small subdivisions like this   um with the gravel roads and especially in a  farm like setting and there's been no issues   so long as there is adequate space for the  emergency vehicles. Um, and there's nothing   stopping the future homeowners to say we want  to black top our share and take it out further. I'm in agreement with you.  I me. Yes. Okay. I you know,   we got to make an assumption that you  will maintain that that driveway. Well,   I need to get to the house. So, you know, I want  a well-maintained driveway as well as you do.   So, you're one of the houses that I'm one of the  houses and then the our our neighbor is building   a house for his daughter on the other lot and  he's building both houses. So, um I guess it's   hard for me too because we've been there for 50  years. I've had horse trailers coming in and out,   Amazon coming in and out, people coming in and  out, people that work for me, the blacksmith,   the veterinarian over and over and over in my  driveway for 50 years. And, you know, ambulances   come in there to take care of my husband. Nobody's  at, you know, this. I mean, my gravel driveway is   as strong or durable as, you know, blacktop. The  pavement crack. I'm familiar with that issues,  

too. Space st there. And so, you know, Munchie  Drive is our mother and our mother would love   it to be gravel. That's why we named it Munchie  Drive because my kids named her Munchie. Yep. Um, any other questions? Comment. Oh, public comment. Thank you.  You're doing so good, Mike. Hearing seeing none and hearing none. Make  it. Uh, I make a motion that we approve   um the driveway surface  change to gravel of FX22-00002 um in accordance with chapter 155.039. I'll second Mr. Huff. Yes, Mr. Lester. They had me at munchie.  What' you think? Oh, Mr. Lester. Yes. Sorry,   Mr. Robertson. No, Mr. Smith. Yes, Mr.  Swissson. Yes, Mr. Um, Miss Kirkner. Yes. Mr. Chairman, let the record reflect. We  have five yays and one no. Okay. Well,   thank you. Congratulations. Good luck.  Thank you. When she says thank you

get so bad we can't stand it. Thank you. Be in here and help. Surprise.  Nobody asked how they Thank you so much. Okay. County life.  Right. Exactly. Okay. Uh item number 13,   concurrency management report fiscal year 2025.  Sorry. Good morning. Just to note, my name is   on this agenda item, but Amy was so excited.  She delivered this last year and she said,   "I'd like to do it again." Take it away. Welcome,  Amy. Thank you, Amy Barraftoft with Development   Review. I did ask to be more involved in the  presentation of the report since I do help input   all those decimal points and data that you'll  see in the report that was handed to you today.   You'll have an opportunity to read that report  and the full report with recommendations will be   presented at next month's meeting as an agenda  item. So the concurrency management report we   have an introduction for you today. It is a  report that is annual since um concurrency was   first established in 1998. Um this is chapter  156 of the county code and the purpose is to   ensure that residential growth in the county  will not unduly strain public facilities. So there are uh different things that are included  and subject to concurrency management including   major subdivisions, residential sites and  mobile home parks. some uh development is exempt  

um such as offconveyances, minor subdivisions,  commercial industrial projects and municipalities.   I will say that you will find data for  the municipalities included in the report,   but each of the municipalities have their own  standards for adequacy of their public facilities.   The public facilities that we test include  schools, roads and bridges, water, sewer,   utilities, police, fire, and EMS. And we look  at a six-year reporting period for each uh item   um to ensure um I guess to really measure where  things are adequate, where funding might go um   and to look at what development is approved coming  through the pipeline in the future. So once uh the   full report with recommendations is presented  to you next month um it will be forwarded   to the board of county commissioners to make  recommendations centric to residential growth. The first slide we have today represents uh  some data found in the report. We have the   number of residential lots that have been approved  by the planning commission. Um and you'll see over   the six years at the top of that chart we have  fiscal year 25. So there were 137 lots approved   in a preliminary plan phase and in the final  uh subdivision plan phase there were 32 lots   approved in the last fiscal year. So that means  those that are in the preliminary phase are still   working through the process. That is an increase  from last year. In the second chart, we have new   residential lots recorded for fiscal year 25.  We have 45 lots recorded in the county, zero in   the municipalities. Um, and that is a little  bit of a decrease from the last fiscal year.

Those lots recorded have been platted and  are at that point in the development process. This slide shows building permits and we have  another six-year reporting period ranging from   fiscal year 2020 to fiscal year 2025. The code  does state that building permits must be capped   at 6,000 over a six-year period. And you can  see in the total column for the six years   um we are at a total of 2,129. So we  are not close to that 6,000 threshold.   We have 976 uh building permits issued  in the county limits. Um but within the   municipalities we're at 1,153. So those are  building permits for new residential units. So that is just a brief overview  of the development for the last   uh fiscal year that is shown in the report  and Laura will be back next month to give   you a full overview of the report, show um how  things are tracking and provide recommendations of the 2,00. Can you kind of break them down? Were they mostly  in the southern part of the county or or is it a   fairly warm mix? Um, is there is there a statistic  that shows us where these lots were located? The   percentage of them. Break it down by zip code  or anything? Zip code or commissioner district   or I love that. Just an area, right? No, I love  that. Uh, it's not part of the concurrency report,   but we do, I believe, maintain that data and  I could probably get a hold of it for next   month just so you can see that. I'd kind of  like to see that in the report if possible. Yeah. You're talking about  the use and occupancy permits,  

correct? That's correct. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Let me  look into that and see if I can come back with   uh even a map that that shows  that. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Yes. questions. Okay. Well, thank you. We'll see  you uh in January. Technically,   we have public comment on this one. Oh, I  was doing so good. Um any uh public comment? I know you have to, right? Um,  okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Item number 14, text amendment,  use off the premises signs. Discussion. Billboard. Sounds like billboards. Yes, it  does. All right. Um I'm joined up here by   um Claire Stewart who is the division chief for  comprehensive planning, Tiffany Faucet who's a   comprehensive planner in that division. And Kelly,  do you want to introduce yourself and Steve? Sure.   Yes. Good morning. Kelly Schaefer Miller, 73 East  Main Street, Westminster, Maryland, 21157. I'm   here with Steve Bennventic, uh a representative  of Clear Channel Outdoor. Thank you. Welcome back.   Thank you. So, as you recall, um we introduced  this, um this idea of a text amendment to address   consolidation of use off the premise signs, also  known as billboards. Um I believe that was back  

at the beginning of October. Um and we are back  um this month to go through in a little bit more   detail what the proposal is, what it seeks to  address, some of the um some of the wrinkles or   nuances to um addressing the consolidation of um  use off the premise signs, many of which in the   county are currently nonconforming uses. So that  adds a little bit of a of a um of a wrinkle here.   Um we've tried to lay out as much as possible  the issues um the points of discussion and   um we anticipate that this will go into the next  at least one more meeting. So, um, so what my   hope is is that we can have, uh, get some general  direction from you all in terms of, um, specific   things that you want us to work on, um, addressing  in a proposed text amendment that you can then   um, continue to discuss in January. So, with that,  I'm going to turn it over to Tiffany, I believe,   to start us off with um with a little bit of a  presentation, and then we'll have um time for   questions and um answers and uh direction setting.  Good morning. Yeah, still a little bit left of it.   Good morning. Um so, yes, I'll lead into the  presentation and this is just some background   on what how we will go through the presentation.  We'll begin with the proposal and the background   information, some considerations and then  the discussion and then lead into next steps. So we'll start with the goal or purpose of  the amendment amendment proposal. Uh we have  

it coming forward to reduce visual clutter and  enhance community aesthetics while increasing   the overall revenue for the billboard  owner. And then it's also uh cited in   the Finburg corridor plan to periodically  review and update zoning regulations for   off-remise signs to protect and improve  the aesthetic character of the corridor. Here you see a map of eligible properties  in the county for for the consolidation.   Um it does the properties as the proposed  amendment states now are for one or one   parcel or a parcel and an adjoining or adjacent  parcel that have two or more signs on them. So   with our inventory, this is the these  are the locations that we we did site. The text amendment mostly the proposed amendment  is about um consolidating the square footage of   multiple signs, non-conforming signs into one sign  and allowing it to be up to 50 ft. So here you can   see what the current inventory in the county  looks like for height and total square footage   of existing use off- premises sign inventory. The  one on the left is strictly our own inventory and   the one on the right is from M DOT's inventory. So  that's why the numbers are a little bit different.   M DOT has a different square footage on theirs.  We'll kind of need to update ours in the future   for that. But that's why I used it for more  accuracy. But the M do one on the right or   the MDOT inventory does not contain the height  information. whereas our own our own inventory   does. So the one on the left consists of 121  signed structures in the county and you can see   them broken down by height there with the majority  being in the 20 to 30 feet high and the 30 to 40   feet high range. And then the graph on the right  you can see the breakdown of total square footage  

of the signs panels. I should say that the that  at the state level they deal with a sign panel as   being a sign and then here in the county we look  at the whole sign structure. So that's per side in   the county total square feet and most of them fall  into that 300 to 400 square ft per side range. Next we'll look at a couple examples  in the county. These you'll find   uh on along Maryland 140 just east of  Westminster or a little southeast of   Westminster and east of I'm sorry west of the  landfill. This would be an eligible property   right here with these three billboards  located on it in the industrial zone. We're going to look at them going down  140 uh westbound from the east going one,   two, and three. So, the first sign that you  come across on this property is 27 ft high,   288 total square feet. Then you drive further,  you'll see the second one here, and that one's at   24 feet high, and 112 total square feet. and you  drive a little more west and you'll see on that   same property sign three here at 20 feet high and  128 square feet in size. So here's just that same   image showing the different sizes down here in the  lefthand corner of the 288 square foot sign number   one and at about the approximate height of 27 ft  compared to the other signs as two and three at   112 ft and 128 square ft. The proposed amendment  would combine the square footage potentially of  

these three uh bit um use off premise signs and  that would make them eligible to have a 528 square   ft sign at 50 ft high. It's also worth noting  that it could also be two 264 square ft panels   for a total of that 528 square ft. Also worth  noting is this the height of these. Right now,   this is a 27 foot high sign and a 24 foot high  sign from the ground. So, you see where those are   placed. Every property is a little different as  far as how high that would actually be. And we'll   we'll revisit that later on in in the discussions  as well. Just worth noting here. The next examples   will both be down in the area. I apologize for  that sign being I mean for that uh slide picture   being so blurry. Um down in the Finburg area off  of Maryland 140 on the uh on the eastbound side. Here's the intersection of about DD Road and  140 and seeing this digital sign that's up on   the right hand side here. If you're uh going  eastbound, it's located here. And if you're   going westbound on Maryland 140, a little further  down, it's located right here. This sign is about   45 feet high and the total of 672 total square  feet per side. So that's about five feet shy of   the proposed 50-foot height restriction. And the  panel is at maximum size for the square footage   of the proposed amendment. Down here on the  bottom, you just see a closer look from beneath   it. This is a digital sign. It's worth saying  as well. And here it is just shown a little  

bit differently in a different angle. Again, uh  going westbound, eastbound right here. And then   just an uplose version. Next, we're looking at  a uh a printed sign also on Maryland one uh 140,   a little further to the east than the other  sign coming into the county. It's the first   sign that you see on the left hand side coming  down 140. There it is. And then here it is going   out of the county. It's the last billboard. Well,  it's not the last. It's second to last billboard,   I think. Um, on your right hand side. And here's  just a clo closer up version down at the bottom   there. Again, this is five feet shy of the 50 foot  proposed maximum height restriction and the same   square footage per side of the maximum proposal  proposed square footage. And here it is again,   just a little different angle to get  an idea of it. Here is westbound,   eastbound, the second one, and then just a  close-up image on the right hand side there.   Next gonna pass it over to Claire Stewart to go  over the table. All right, thanks Tiffany. Okay,   so um uh so use off the premise signs located  along state highways um are required to re receive   a permit from statewide highway administration.  Um, if you refer back to the I think it was the   first map that Tiffany showed, um, all of  the billboards that we identified would be,   um, that would be eligible for consolidation  relocation are located along state highways. So,   it's important to note that those billboards  would be required to receive a permit by state  

highway administration. Um, so over the next three  slides, um, we're going to identify, um, where the   proposed text to our zoning ordinance, um, either  aligns with or conflicts with the state. Um, okay. So, in column one on the  table that you're looking at,   um, we will list a provision. Columns two through  four will list um the existing uh county zoning   code. Um the proposed text to the county zoning  code and then um state code and policy. Column   five will identify where the proposed text either  aligns with or um or I'm sorry, whether the   proposed text either aligns with or conflicts  um with the state. And then column six will   identify whether the proposed county um proposed  county zoning text would be more restrictive or   whether the state would be more restrictive.  And then if you see a star next to um that   row that indicates that we will be asking for  um uh your discussion and consideration on that   specific provision um further further into  this presentation. So we're going to start   um in row one with non-conforming signs.  Um, according to our existing zoning code,   non-conforming signs may remain. Copy changes  are allowed. Um, they also may be rebuilt and   replaced. Um, however, they may not be enlarged  in height or area beyond their 2003 conditions.  

So the proposal um uh is uh I guess the proposal  is to allow for consolidation and relocation into   a new non-conforming sign. Um and that sign would  have to be located within 25 ft of one of the   existing signs that's part of that consolidation  plan. So, if you have three signs on a given   property, um I think Tiffany showed an example  of that. Um the ultimate location um or relocated   location would have to be within a 25 ft radius of  um one of the existing signs that's part of that   plan. Um under the state, non-conforming signs may  remain. Maintenance repair is allowed. Um however   they cannot be enlarged, rebuilt, relocated or  enhanced. Um so as you can see the consolidation   and relocation would be in direct conflict um  with the state not allowing enlargement um for   them to be rebuilt, relocated or enhanced. Um and  in this situation the state is more restrictive. Um so next we'll talk about zoning districts. Um,  use off the premise signs in our zoning ordinance   um are permitted in commercial and industrial  districts. Um, it's important to note that any   nonconforming use off the premise sign as it sits  right now um can remain be rebuilt or replaced   in any zoning district where it sits. So if it's  if one is sitting in the A district, it could be   um replaced in that in that same footprint in  the A district. Um so the proposal um would  

allow for consolidation and relocation of a new  printed printed keyword outdoor advertising sign   um in any zoning district. only in the commercial  and industrial zoning districts could that   um sign result in an electronic message sign.  So again, the consolidation relocation can   take place in any district only in commercial or  industrial. Could that result in the electronic   messaging under the state? um uh uh use off the  premise signs are permitted in commercial and   industrial zones. So again, the consolidation and  relocation would be in conflict as it would allow   um the relocation within any zoning district um  while the state um specifically says commercial   and industrial. Um and again, the state is  more restrictive in this um in this instance. So, we're going to move on to height. Um, our  existing zoning code allows for a use off the   premise sign to be a maximum height of 10  ft. Again, worth noting that an existing   non-conforming use off the premise sign could be  um could remain, be rebuilt, or replaced at its   current height. So, if you've got a 30-foot sign,  that could be rebuilt at 30 feet. Um the proposed   text um uh is uh would like us to consider a  height uh maximum of 50 ft. The state allows   um 25 ft maximum for uh use off the premise sign.  So um that 50 feet versus the state's 25 feet max  

um is in conflict and again the state  is more restrictive in this situation. Now, when we talk about um area of the sign  itself, um the existing zoning code allows for use   off the premise signs to be um 32 square feet per  panel. That would be a one-sided panel. You could   have a backto back sign. Um so, a panel on each  side for a total of 64 square feet. Um, as I've   been stating again, those existing non-conforming  signs um could remain, be rebuilt or replaced at   their current um area. So, if you've got a 300  square foot billboard, it could be replaced at 300   square ft. Um, the proposal is to allow 672 square  feet per panel. Um, and that would be a one-sided   panel. So, the maximum for a a two-sided billboard  would be um 1,344 square ft. Clar just to clarify   on that one though, as Tiffany pointed out in  her example, the proposal is is that area or the   maximum of the consolidated area of the signs that  exist today. So, it could be lower than that like   the example that Tiffany provided. Thank you. Um,  right. So, if you've got those three billboards   that only add up to 400 square feet, then that's  that would be the max that that could be. Um,   they wouldn't be able to reach the uh the maximum  that's listed here. Um under this state um they   uh use off the premise uh signs are allowed um to  be a maximum of 800 square feet per panel or 16  

um 1,600 square f feet for a backtoback sign. So  there is no conflict in this situation and the   county would actually be more restrictive  with that lower number of 672 per panel. Um the existing zoning code requires use off  the premise signs um to have a setback of 10   ft from the property line. Um the proposed text  um the proposal uh would not allow relocation to   be closer to the frontage of the property than  the than the sign currently sits. Um and then   under the state um use off the premise signs are  not permitted to overhang or be within the state   right of way. So um I see this as a possible  conflict I guess on depending on location.   Um and then again who is more restrictive  I think that's on a case by case basis. Okay so last slide of um tables we're going to  talk about spacing. Our existing zoning code   um requires um spacing in between signs  be 300 feet if in the commercial district,   800 ft if in the indust industrial district,  and then 1,000 ft apart um if along uh Maryland   30 bypass. Um they must be 1,000 ft from the  Maryland 30 bypass. Um and then um the signs   must be located 300 ft from an intersection along  Maryland 26, 30, 140, and 97 and then 100 ft from   an um all other intersections in the county.  Um, so the proposed text there is no specific  

spacing requirements because again that's  going to be located within that 25 ft radius   um of where one of the existing signs was. Um and  then under this state um uh sign spacing has to   be 100 ft apart if the intersections are if they  if they're located in between intersections that   are less than 1,000 ft apart. And the signs  must be located 300 ft apart if they are   um between intersections 1,000 ft apart or more.  I know that's very wordy. Um uh they also must   be located 250 ft from a public park, forest,  playground or cemetery. Um this does the proposal   does conflict with the state um and again the  state is more restrictive um in this situation. And then the last provision is electronic  messaging. Um, our zoning code um allows   for use off the premise signs um or permits  electronic messaging for use off off the   premise signs in commercial and industrial  districts um with provisions on light sensing,   display time, transition time and dimming. And  then a certification is needed from our zoning   administrator. Um and then uh existing  non-conforming use off the premise signs   um uh may partake in this provision as well.  Again, they have to be in the commercial or   um industrial district. So the proposed text um  basically says the same thing. the consolidation   and relocation. Um they could be converted to  electronic messaging again given that they're in   the commercial and industrial districts. Um under  this state uh they prohibit flashing intermittent  

or moving lights. Um I believe the county in this  situation is actually um more restrictive and then   there would be no conflict um with the state. So  that is all I have for that comparison. And I'm   going to turn it back over to Tiffany and she's  going to um talk about how this relates to um some   of our plans. We did review our three uh three  comp plans. um the 2014 Carol County master plan,   the 2018 Freedom Community Plan, and the 2013  Finburg Quartrer Plan for consistency with any   changes uh to the off- premise signs or any  verbiage that would reference the offremise   sign use off use premise signs and uh the only  one that did speak to it was the Finburg corridor   plan as referenced earlier to periodically review  and update the zoning regulations for off-remise   for aesthetic um character of the corridor. The  prevalence of the billboards near Fininssburg and   along the MD-140 corridor is a stated concern of  residents. Many feel that the large signs diminish   the scenic qualities of the community and leave  a poor impression on those visiting the county.   One critical step toward improving the appearance  of the corridor and establishing Thingsburg as one   of the welcoming gateways into Carol County is to  periodically revisit and the regulations and uh   that pertain to the off-remise signage to ensure  that they remain current and address the concerns   related to this issue to this use. Now I'll turn  it over to Daphne to start. Yeah. Oh, you can hang   on to that. I think um so before we um really dive  too deeply into some of the details of the um of  

the proposal, there are a couple of questions  that I wanted to pose for your consideration   discussion that really get at um whether this  um proposed text amendment is something that   you want to support. Um it would be really easy  to start getting into the nitty-g gritties of   square footage and heights and all of that sort  of thing. But um but first I wanted and we will   get into those those nitty-g gritties. But first I  wanted to just pose the question um the first two   questions that we have up here. Number one, um is  consolidation desirable? Because if it's not, then   um then it kind of makes uh some of the remaining  discussion um almost a moot point. Um so is the   consolidation of use off the premise signs and  used off of the um yeah is that um desirable? The   second point is, are we comfortable allowing  nonconforming signs to be consolidated and   enlarged? And some of that would probably tie into  why you think consolidation might be desirable.   So in other words, we have a situation in which  um we have an ordinance that has um reduced the   uh square footage and height of use off premises  signs to um something much smaller than industry   standards um for an explicit p purpose to uh  reduce the visual impact of those signs. Um if  

if you all feel that it would be um desirable  to be able to take the existing billboards and   if nothing more or yeah if nothing more at least  reduce the number of them if not reduce them or   get rid of them entirely. Um then then we have to  also battle with this question of whether we're   comfortable allowing those nonconforming signs to  then in the process of consolidation get bigger.   Um, so those are those are kind of the two basic  questions that I'd like to get a little discussion   going on so that we know how far down the road  on the additional questions related to height   area and uh what zoning districts they should be  allowed in. Um before we broach into those areas,   um what are your thoughts on those first  two questions? I guess from my standpoint,   I guess for Clear Channel, how this is beneficial  if you have three billboards, is it just because   it's more square footage and they pay per square  foot and therefore they pay more money? Um you   know what I mean? because you have let's say  three people advertising and then if you go down   to this then you either have one or two people  advertising. So I guess I'm struggling to see what   the actual benefit is from taking multiple people  paying for billboards down limiting that number of   people paying for a billboard in the same spot.  I think that's a good question. I'll let Steve   speak to the any financial considerations  going on there. One thing I'll share with   you is that part of the consideration for this  request obviously on behalf of Clear Channel,   although would be a countywide impact. Any  other owners of boards, if they were eligible,  

could apply for this process if an amendment were  adopted. Um, one of the benefits that we see is   increasing the aesthetics and safety of some of  these boards. If you drive up up and down 140   specifically, you'll see that certain boards  have a tendency to get vandalized more often   than others. And a lot of times that's related to  their height and accessibility of the sign. And so   that's the impetus for some of our proposal here  in terms of the height and those sorts of things   is to allow a rebuild of a better structure that  can be safely maintained by the owners of of of   the board itself, but also prevent other I'll call  them community issues, if you will. Um but Steve   I don't know if you want to speak to sort of the  benefit from a financial perspective at correct   consolidating and we also have three general  uh industry standard sizes for our billboard   panels today uh which are 12 by 25 10 12 by  36 and 14 by 48. Those are the three general   billboard panel sizes that you'll see. And as part  of consolidating some of these older structures,   rebuilding them, we'd like to get more to that  industry standard size. That's easier for us to   work with selling across across the county if we  have industry standard pan panel sizes versus a   lot of the more smaller oneoff sizes that you'll  see. There was a uh as part of this presentation,   there was a good example of a property um where  there's where there's three panels where we   would consolidate potentially and those were all  outside of those industry standard sizes that we   utilize today. And I believe that this would  be advantageous not just for Clear Channel,  

but for other billboard operators. Steve,  could you give me the the three standard   sizes again that you're trying to get to? 12  by 25, 10 12 by 36, and 14x 48. Thank you. The uh this is just we're not talking  municipalities when we're talking about   the numbers here, right? That's  correct. Other than in the graphs   in in the graphs that you were shown, did  it did include municipalities? So that Oh,   it did. Okay. Yes, our inventory does uh  track those as well as um the Maryland   uh MDOT's SHA uh inventory does as well.  140. It's all included. 30. Okay. However,   those would not be impacted by the proposed text  amendment. Just to be clear, uh the proposed text   memo would only impact signs located within the  county. Right. The municipalities have their own   zoning code provisions related to use off premise  signage that we would have to comply with. Okay. I think it if it's okay with you, it might be  helpful for me just to summarize a little bit   of our conversation last time since it's been a  little bit of a gap. Um, so just to to give you   a picture of how the code works right now and it  is very nuanced when it comes to use off- premise   signs because of that non-conforming provision.  But when you have a non-conforming sign, which   almost every billboard in Carol County right now  is non-conforming, you can rebuild it. you can uh   remodel it at its how it looks today. And there is  a registry that the zoning administrator's office   keeps that in 2003, every owner of a billboard  filled out a two-page form that said, "Here's the   size of my board. Here's the height of my board.  Here are the specifications of the board itself."  

That's kept on file with the zoning administrator.  So when somebody comes in and wants to renovate,   rebuild the board, the zoning administrator checks  that registry to ensure that any permit request   is within the parameters of what was on file in  2003. Likewise, if you have a board that is in   a commercial or an industrial zoning district,  you've seen a few over the past few years that   have converted to digital in the county. Um the  one was was pictured in the slide presentation   today. That that's an application process before  the zoning administrator where they again they go   to that book and they check to make sure that you  are converting to digital in no greater size than   exists as of that 2003 date. That process that's  an application process to the zoning administrator   to request a conversion to a digital board. If you  were granted that approval through that process   um through either that process for a digital or  for a rebuild, then Clear Channel has to go and   request uh a state permit. And part of that state  permit requires a sign off from the local zoning   authority confirming that it has gone through  whatever the process is that it's required to   go through. So they ask for for Anna's signature  on that and then that gets transmitted back to the   state. We have a in in Clear Channel's experience  in dealing with the state, we have a different   opinion on how much this conflicts with the state  code because we do not foresee any of this being   an issue if this were adopted um in the state  approving these permit requests. But in case the   county has any concerns that the state wouldn't  approve these, we've proposed a provision in the   text that's set that just confirms that we need  to get a state permit signature before we can do   anything. Um, so that if that does arise, then  we we'll be disqualified from from going through  

this process to begin with. It's not our intent  to try to propose anything and get around any   state requirements. Uh, could I ask you something  on that? Yes. So then who has the last word on on   the approval? The state or the county? Well,  if the state does not sign their their permit,   then it wouldn't even come back to the county  for a county. If the state did and the county   disagreed with that, are we then overridden again  by the state? I don't I don't think that the two   are equivalent in that sense. I think that the  county in that in that scenario where the county   has approved the permit and then it comes back to  the county for zoning sign off or where the state   has approved the permit and it comes back to the  county. I think the county is the last voice. Um   but I don't know that it's necessarily that the  county is overriding the state. the county has the   legitimate authority to have certain provisions in  their ordinance in our in our projects. I'm just   saying who has the final say on the approval in  the projects that we've executed. Yes, sir. We've   gone to zoning for approval. We've submitted a  state sign tag application and then we've received   Carol County building and electrical permits.  Okay. So, it's gone back to Carol County. Okay.   on the state permit approval application, it asks  for specifically for the zoning administrator's   sign off. So they want to see that our zoning  administrator has signed off on this before   they would even accept that application. Yes.  And along with the property owner sign off and   the billboard owner and operator. So could be any  any billboard operator within the county. Okay. Okay.

Well, I just want I I think that that it's a  confusing section, so it worth it it is worthwhile   revisiting. But the request here today in a very  basic form is to be able to take existing panels,   consolidate them into one that would be restricted  to a height maximum of 50 ft. That could not be   greater than the 672 feet, which is the 14x 48  panel, but in fact, as you saw from the example,   might be less because it would be that or the  total of what exists today in those signs. Uh   um and then that sign that results from  the consolidation could be located within   25 ft of any of those existing signs. 25  ft farther back from the property line,   not closer to the highway. You're talking about  farther back, but how about just the relocation   itself? So that if there's an existing sign and  there and you want to consolidate that, I I'll   give you the what I'm after. Mhm. At the corner of  Kate Wagner Road and Ridge Road. Yes. In my mind,   that is the worst possible spot for a sign and  a big sign that's there. If you would move that   back, not back from the road. I'm talking about  up the road farther. Is that the 25 ft or you   talking about moving it back from the road 25 ft?  In other words, that sign should be moved. That   sign could be part of a consolidation though. It  could be. So they could consolidate and keep that   sign there and make it as big as we're talking  about. I don't So you'd have to have two use off   the premise signs on the same property, right? To  consolidate. I think there's only one there. Yeah,   I'm doing a what if. Oh, okay. Sorry. So, so  they so they can only make that sign bigger  

if it's a consolidation. Yeah. Mhm. Right. So, if  if someone would come in and say that sign is in   terrible shape, we need to rebuild it. There's  no restriction at all on them rebuilding it.   They could rebuild it in the same state that it  exists today. And we have nothing to say about   that. Even though it's a terrible location as  far as traffic and the lights and everything,   it's just we've had some bad accidents there. I am  very well aware that have occurred at that. Yes.   Yes. And just to be clear, that's not a Clear  Channel outdoor sign. For today's conversation,   I know you would never allow that to happen.  Well, I will actually say that Clear Channel   has removed signs because of safety issues. their  company will remove a sign here about the 25 ft   uh whether that's maybe too restrictive there and  then the other one is um why don't we just make a   uniform length from an intersection instead of 300  feet here and 1,000 feet here and so that's a good   why don't you make a uniform length let me address  both of your questions first of all related to   the 25 ft. I think that that uh I don't think I  know that we proposed a specific 25 ft because   originally we had drafted a reasonable proximity  language to give the zoning administrator that   discretion. Um and I think that I won't speak for  Anna, she's here, but she wanted a little bit more   strict guidance that she could look to and know  what she's able to approve and not approve. And so   we proposed 25 ft. we are not we would be willing  to to let that be at the zoning administrator dis   reasonable discretion um in those instances there  are instances where you might want it to be a   little bit farther than 25 ft for whatever reason  um so that that's the reason behind the 25 ft and  

as for the distance from the intersections  that governs please please keep in mind it's   important to remember that that column of the  chart really what's on there dictates new signs   It does not dictate the non-conforming signs. So  most of the non-conforming signs do not comply   with those setbacks and those distances right now.  So if you came in for a digital conversion or if   you came in to rebuild, you would not be subject  to those requirements right now. You would be   subject to where the sign exists today. So the  same thing would be true under our proposal for   the consolidation. you'd be able to consolidate  within that reasonable proximity, whether it be   25 ft or or some sort of discretionary number.  Um, from the existing signs today, you would not   always meet that requirement of the intersection  distance and those sorts of things. Those were put   in there for the new non the new use off premise  signs, which are those 32 square feet signs. It's a complicated subject matter. You know,   I recognize not everyone's a zoning  attorney who looks at billboards   every day. I'm trying to help you make it  more simplified. So, I appreciate that. So, in the end, I and I may be wrong,  but I'm thinking we'll have fewer signs,   but larger signs. So, and possibly the tradeoff.  Yes. So instead of having those photo you showed   up on 140, those three will have one maybe  still two uh larger signs not to exceed the   existing square foot. Yes. One's 300 and  one's 150. The new sign could be 450. Yes.  

And would they be further back? They could not  be any closer. Would they could we make them? I think it depends on the property really. And  that's why I will say that's why we in our initial   proposal built in some discretion for the zoning  administrator because I think you'll find that   certain properties you might say, "Hey, you know,  that one needs to be a little bit further back."   Um, and other properties you might not have  that feeling. Elevations can change things,   too. All of those sorts of things um are really  taken into consideration when you're looking at   these. Um but yes, it could not under our  proposal could not be located closer to   the roadway. Um and what I'll say what Steve  just said, although not as loudly as I talk,   um that part of the rebuild effort here is  to create a nicer looking sign as well. Um   a more modern structure, those sorts of things.  And with that, you'll find that often times you   need a new new foundation for the sign. Anyhow,  so that's why you need to locate it a little bit,   even if it's only a few feet, it needs to  be located a little bit beyond what the   existing sign is because you need um you know  the modern foundation. Could I ask just a who   controls the contents the context the text on  the sign? Who controls that? Is it is it part of   uh freedom of speech or can you like you mean you  if I would say no on this you could put your sign   up and say Ralph Robertson's a terrible commission  member? I mean who controls the context? I'm   I'm curious about that. The the billboard  operator ultimately reviews and um so the   billboard operator will work with the advertising  client. The billboard operator will install the   copy that goes up on the billboard, right?  And they may have some restrictions like each  

individual owner might have certain restrictions  about what they will and will not allow on their   signs. So they like a publisher. So can we just  add to that last part? They said, you know,   25 ft unless traffic safety is of a concern  to give her a little bit more flexibility.   Because in my opinion, I mean that's, you know,  we talk about the one sign, but there's other   signs also that, you know, if they got moved more  than 25 ft would be a good thing. I don't know if   you could add that in there or not. I think  there's certainly an opportunity to add some   language that what you're seeing there is just  a little summation of the actual text proposed,   but I certainly think that there's an ability  to build in that sort of consideration. Well,   I guess what I'm concerned about is if that one  particular sign that that grates me terribly. Um,   it's a safety issue and I just think that if if  that would ever want to be rebuilt, there should   be some mechanism from some group to say this sign  needs to be changed because there's a there's a   safety concern here. I think that you should  propose a text amendment to this to the signage   section of the code that allows for that. Well,  I would love because I don't I our proposal would   not allow for that specific situation because  there's not multiple, but it could be allowed   for in the code. You know, when Kate Wagner was a  was a dirt road and like five people went up there   every day. Now there's, you know, 2,000. Oh, I  know. I live in New Windsor so I am well aware   of that intersection. Yes. And uh that is a very  matter what color that light is. Sure. Like there   are other areas that at the time it was put in  said, "Well, what's the big deal?" Now it is a big  

deal. Yep. And I'm sure I think we'll leave that  up. They have to craft that text amendment. And   that is that possible, Liz. I mean, we can draft  in anything we want in theory and then we will go   through the process of bringing it back to you and  re-editing language and things like that. It still   has to go to commission approval, all of those  fun things. Well, we're going through all this   all this now. Why not put a concern in there and  and help fix it in the future? So, you're looking   for language that's that allows for the relocation  of any sign if there's a safe compelling safety.   Exactly. That's really what I'm after. Because of  the safety issue and which we can't tell them they   got to move it, but if they're going to rebuild  the sign, they need to move it basically. Yeah.   I I really feel that that would be a a positive to  this this whole exercise we're going through here.   That may be have to be a separate request because  it is yeah it's different enough from what we're   doing right now but we can and I don't I don't  want to do it unless the rest of the membership   or the rest of the commission agrees. I think  we need to call it Ralph's corollary to offsite   sign name it after Ralph. All right I'll take  ownership plaque on every sign that conveys Yeah,   I'm I'm in on this. Let's do this. We can we can  do a little research on it and then when we come   back to you in January, if we have something  to share in terms of how we could address that,   we'll definitely It is a good idea, Ralph. I  mean, you mean if we can improve something,   right? What that's what we're here for. I'm not  opposed to that sign. I'm opposed to the location   location of it. Yeah, I'm I'm with you on that.  Let's There should be a mechanism mechanism to   trigger that. You're just going with Go ahead.  Yeah, I have a question. Um, not necessarily  

for this. However, the billboards asking for 50  ft. Um, currently our onsite properties that put   a sign up. We have a maximum there. Does doing  50 feet here give them a good question. question   to say they can do it. Why can't ours be the same  height? Do you mean the Just so I can understand,   you mean the height regulations in the zoning  code for signage? Uh, Liz, you want to take it   or you want because I would say no. It it has no  bearing on that. Um I I think that from a zoning   regulation standpoint that height restriction has  been adopted related to the zone specifically and   that's an authority of the planning and zoning  and the board of county commissioners. Excuse me,   frog in my throat today. Of course, someone  could always attempt to challenge that. Um we   cannot control whether someone chooses chooses to  challenge based off of the well they have it so   why can't we? Um, but as Kelly said, there was an  argument to be made for our side and in theory one   they could attempt to make for their side. Well,  and what I will say about that is there are signs   today that are close to 50 ft. Excuse me. The sign  on 140 that was on the um visual the digital sign   at DD that's 49 ft. So, if people were going to  use that argument in theory, they may have already   tried or started to try and I I haven't heard it.  So, it's not to say it couldn't be like Liz said,   but I don't know how much standing this change  would allow them to make that argument when we   today have have signs that are 49 ft. I think  the the big distinction there gets at the second  

question that we have up here, which is that those  signs that are 49 45 49 feet are nonconforming   signs. Um, if somebody were to come to you and ask  for a new sign that was 49 feet tall or whatever,   um, that isn't approvable in our code because  that's a new sign. The ones that are already up   at that height are currently non-conforming. So,  um, what the consolidation is doing is basically,   um, basically saying we're okay with this height  if you're consolidating signs. In other instances,   we're not okay with it. Um so I think it's a  question of what you know what are the what   are the trade or what are what are the um  the benefits of allowing for consolidation   and what are you willing to kind of concede  in order to reduce the number of signs and   with regard to the height that's where we're  in conflict with the state it looks like the   most because the state is 25 ft and we're 50 and  That's another interpretation that we have not   experienced from the state, but I understand  that there is some state language that they   found. Clear Channel does not foresee having  an issue in permitting those, but if they did,   we wouldn't get the permits and we wouldn't be  able to do it. From an advertiser perspective,   do you want to be high or low? I want to be seen.  But but I I I think part of part of the issue that  

we've experienced in the county has been with  the older structures being low to the ground.   They're easier for people to access, climb up,  and vandalize. So, we'd like to remedy that. I think I think from a driving perspective, you  know, I like seeing something at a more reasonable   level. However, I'm short. So, well, I look short,   but um coming from a distance,  looking up high, you notice it. Yeah. Yeah. So, um I guess back to your question,  is consolidation um desirable from   I haven't heard anything that says it's  not desirable from our comments. I think   it is less. Right. And um are we  comfortable with the signs being   uh enlarged a little bit? Combined and  enlarged. Consolidated. Yeah. Consolidated. Yeah. I say so long as they're combined.  You're you're getting a let you're getting   something and you're giving something. Correct.  Right. Correct. So I'm still a little So three   different billboards on the same property that  Clear Channel has all three or it doesn't have   to be you. Well, it would have to be them  requesting the consolidation. And again,   also as a point of clarity for any of those zoning  applications, you also have to have a property   owner signature as well. So that would have to  be part of the application. I mean in theory,   Clear Channel could either try to buy the  third sign or it wouldn't it wouldn't be part  

of the consolidation. Okay. Any any billboard  operator though, it not just Clear Channel,   any any billboard operator. So it could be  um anyone who currently owns and operates a   billboard in Carol County. So I have a billboard  on there. Mike has one. Matt has one. Mhm. So,   do all three get promoted then on the new  one? Is it a digital that rotates? You mean   like you have an you've bought advertising on  it? Correct. Um I don't know. I guess that's   an internal um marketing decision on Clear  Channel's part as to what they do. You know,   I I think you have monthly contracts for most  I don't I shouldn't even begin to speak. Um   I think it's different digital printed. Okay.  Because digital they they have the ability to   change it quicker and they can do instantane like  if there's a fire or an emergency service need   they can put up a thing on there instantaneously  on the digitals. Obviously you can't do that on   the printed but they have different contracts  with people if you want to advertise um on the   board. So I think it would just be subject to  whatever that the contract was with that person. Interesting. And with regard to the maximum height, um,  that are we saying not to exceed what's there,   the existing billboard that's there? No larger  than that, no higher than that. That's what I'm   hear. And that maximum height is the top edge,  not not the bottom uh the bottom edge of the sign.   Good point. Yes. Yes. I thought I knew that, but  I, you know, didn't want to speak out of her. So,  

if I could just break in, are you, did I just  hear you say that you're interested in the maximum   height not exceeding 50 existing height whatever  the existing height of the consolidated signs,   existing height of the existing board. So if you  have a So if you have a a sign that's 25 at all.   Yeah. No, because he wants to get up off the  ground so he doesn't have to worry about people   vandalizing. Yeah. So we're going to a 50 foot  height but a consolidated square footage. Well,   right. Maybe that's the request. I think  that's that's the dis that is the request.   This is the point of discussion. Yeah. You  got it. Got it. number four on our list of I mean I'd be fine with it going up to 50  feet especially if you're I mean you're   making it that much larger. So yeah  I mean if you have one now I think   one of them was 27 feet off the ground  or something like that. So there's no   way you could do a 672 or whatever it is  square foot billboard 27 I mean it would   be literally touching the ground be close  to ground level. Yeah. And that Yeah. Okay. Is it helpful to pull up a a specific  slide or we have the proposed text   we can pull up. Whatever might help  your discussion, let us know. I mean,   that's really the page right there, I think,  because you're taking three signs. 288, 112, 128. And if you did have to, it was a larger and you  had to push it off the road a little bit the way   like where the bottom 127 ft is. So if that was  the way the ground slopes, if that were to be a   top of 27 foot off the ground, the billboard  would almost be below or part of it would be  

below the actual street level. Yeah. Yeah.  Okay. So Anna can correct me if I'm wrong,   but I think we do measure in these cases, we do  measure the height from the grade of the road   um as opposed to like this is a this is a there's  a steep drop off right on the on the side of the   road. So they might well you can see some of the  some of the um uh supports there are taller than   others. So the topography of the land adjacent  to the road does matter. Yes. Yes. It says the   the existing code says um it's measured from  the grade of the adjacent roadway including   any extensions or cutouts or the grade of the  sign location whichever is greater. Okay. Okay. Okay. Well, D. Can you say that again, Kevin? Yes.  Measured from the grade of the adjacent roadway,   including any extensions or cutouts,  or the grade of the sign location,   whichever is greater, and that's what's in your  code today. Okay, that's what's in there now.   So along the lines of, you know, I generally  think fewer is better than more. So I'm   I'm cool with consolidation.  I'm cool with the 50 foot. Um I'm I'm I'm I'm cool with what we're what they're  suggesting. I think um unless somebody can talk   me out of it, I I think it's a good thing. And  while they are larger, I mean, it just is a much   cleaner product when you get the the larger ones  because I mean, some of the billboards look like   somebody went out there with a post hole dicker  and threw a couple poles in the ground 50 years  

ago and they're all wonky and you know, and this  is worth a this is worth a pause for a second. So,   we do this and we're talking about cons. We're not  talking about new signs. We're not talking about   um we're talking about consolidation of existing  signs. We're not we're not going to have a a gold   rush of new signs being proposed because we've  gone to 50 ft and because Okay. All right. I   just want to make sure there's not some silly  unintended consequence that the geniuses on   the left here who are are good at what they  do. I will actually say your county staff   pointed out that there was maybe a loophole  where you could put all these 32 foot square   square foot signs and then consolidate. So  we we exempted that as an option from the   proposed amendment. There's nothing to nothing  to eliminate the yard signs which we all love,   right? No, these are use off the premise signs.  They're specifically defined in the code. Yeah,   I'm I'm fine with what we're talking about.  I think it's generally a good thing. Um,   you know, Michael, you live in Frinksburg. Sure  do. You you're you've you've got neighbors who   who do you how do you think they would perceive  this? I I think they're fine with it. Uh the um   to be honest with you, they become wallpaper.  Yeah. Yeah. I don't even look at the billboards   because they've been there so long. I don't even  look I don't even see them anymore because it's,   you know, we've been there 25 years and it's  just even the digital one. I don't even Sorry. And we do have, at least down in the Finburg  area, we know that we do have some properties   that have multiple sign companies that own  those billboards. So consolidation um unless  

unless there's some some um great um meeting of  the minds between different um sign companies,   the consolidation would probably only occur  within whatever signs like Clear Channel owns,   but there may still be some other signs on a  particular property if they're owned by another   sign company. So you wouldn't necessarily see all  of the signs consolidated into into one. So you're   not looking for a motion today. You're looking  for a general temperament of you're getting it   trying to read the room. Um no, we would like for  for some specific things that we can put into a   proposed cut. And we already have some draft uh  draft language, but um so it sounds like we're   good on the first two questions. consolidation  is desirable. You're okay um with those existing   non-conforming signs ultimately being enlarged  because the because there is a benefit to being   able to reduce the number of signs. Um so then  we then if we get your sense of the maximum area,   the maximum height, um the 25 ft relocation, and  then um well, we'll talk about number five in just   one second, but um do we have a sense on the area  and the height? Sounds like 50 ft, which is what's   being proposed, is generally okay with you guys.  Yeah. Um and then the maximum area being proposed   is 672 square ft per panel or 1344 total. But  either way, it wouldn't exceed wouldn't be able to  

exceed the total of what's being consolidated. So  if you only end up consolidating signs that have,   you know, 500 square feet total, then that's your  cap. Yeah. Yeah, I'm fine with that. Good. You'll   have another shot at this when we're actually  looking at the the text, but in order for us to   put something together for you, So, so I'm I'm  I'm sorry. So, we're saying the maximum square   footage is 672. Is that what we're saying? 672 per  panel. Yeah. 1344 combined. And that's the 14 by   48. That's right. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Okay. And as  far as the the the 25 foot relocation proximity, I I I I you know, again, this is the guy who was  who's going to come back at you and start talking   about May. Um I like having definitions. I like  having you guys having guardrails. I see no reason   why if the site doesn't if the topography or for  some reason it doesn't work. I don't know how   we how do you how do you because I you know I I  also want to protect our right to be unreasonable   because you know you may not want to put it in a  certain place where the the person says put it.   Mhm. I don't know what to do there, Deafany,  because again, I I I would like to be I don't   know to 25 ft sounds good, but I also think  if you need to to get some sort of a waiver,   is there a recommend is there a way to have that  flexibility within staff to where you I don't   know. We'll put we'll propose some language and  you guys can massage it at the next let's look at   that because some have given you some flexibility  to do it would be a good thing too. Yeah. I mean  

because you could do 25 ft normal but then do up  to 50 ft with special approval or something like   that. Yeah. Something like that. Yeah. Because  it still puts limits but set back. Yeah. Exactly.   But it's not just we need to define what those  extenduating circumstances would be to warrant   that. Otherwise, Anna's making decisions that we  don't want to put her in jeopardy with. I mean,   you know, safety, things like that, like it,  you know, which we could again massage that.   It would have to I mean, 25 would have to have  to be a reason, you know, 25 ft is from me to   Liz. That's that's what we're talking about.  Yeah. I don't make any of those putts ever. I hear you there. Okay. I'd just like to point one  thing out on that that there it is consolidation   of multiple signs. So any of those sign locations  would also be potential location. So it would be   25 ft from from any of those locations. Potential  location. That's cool. One that's selected. Great   point. That's a great radius or whatever. Yeah,  that's a great point. Okay. Love it. Um okay,   so really quickly on five because I know it's  it's getting late here. um other parameters that   you might want to set for consolidated signs.  So some of the other text um relates to the   zoning districts that you can consolidate within  and between. So um sometimes you'll have a sign   that's located well actually let me go through  all of these. So you have zoning districts that   um consolidation can be done within and between  allowances that made for adjacent and or adjoining   properties in common ownership. So a property that  adjoins but is owned by the same property owner or   a property that's um on other different sides of a  road but owned by the same property owner. Um and  

then which signs should be allowed to remain on  the property after consolidation. So the way that   the um proposal is written right now um if Clear  Channel owns three signs on a particular property   and is consolidating two of them, would you also  require them to remove not just one that's being   consolidated but the the other one that they  own as well? That's a that's a question mark. Um, zoning districts consolidation can be done  within and between is a question because we do   have um the proposal that says uh it can  be uh consolidated in the commercial and   industrial districts. um you can consolidate or  consolidate and relocate into either a print or   an electronic sign. Um the as far as other zoning  districts, you could consolidate um or consolidate   and relocate into only a print sign. So that  relates to where we allow electronic signs to   um to happen. uh which is restricted to our  commercial and industrial zones. Um I personally   think that's a good idea. They keep them separate  because uh I know out in the country there's some   houses of worship that have lighted signs that are  very very distracting driving down the road. Yes.  

And just to be clear, those are not subject to the  same restrictions we are. However, our proposal is   not is not to change anything about the digital  conversion allowance that's in the code. Like we   our proposal is to keep that as it is. So, you'd  only be eligible in the commercial and industrial   zones. The the relation to the adjacent properties  is that if you have a situation where you have   two adjacent properties that are under the same  ownership and you want to consolidate those signs,   you can consolidate them. If a portion of that  property is zoned uh commercial or industrial,   you could consolidate them and put them on the  commercially zoned portion of the property. Um   I know that that sounds like way out there, but  these properties do exist. There are properties   with several split zoning districts that have  these signs on them. And so in that situation,   you'd have the opportunity to locate it  in the commercial or industrial zone,   which is kind of what we've a little bit  said is more appropriate for those types   of signs. Anyways, yeah, I would think if if  you have if you have one sign in commercial   and two in a or whatever else residential  that if you consolidate them, they needed   to go to the commercial to consolidate.  For sure. Agreed. I like that. Yeah. Okay. Um any other things that you want us  to look into in terms of this question?   um so that we can build build it into the  proposed text for your review at the next meeting. I I hate to do this. Yeah. But you know you I'll  blame you. You brought it up. So the three to two   um I'm thinking about that. So consolidate three  to two. You get the 50 foot, you get the bigger  

image, and the other billboard stays. I'm not sure  I like that. So, should all three should would the   would the U third be forced to be removed with  an with the um the the tradeoff being that you   can increase the image size to what the three  were. I I'll speak for the reason we put that   that proposal in there. The only reason, tell me  if I'm wrong on this, Steve. Clear Channel does   not anticipate requesting a consolidation and  excluding one of its own boards. It would only   be on s on properties where then there's another  board owned by someone else and we wouldn't have   control over that. So, if if that's the concern,  maybe we can build in that sort of restriction   so that you're only able to do that when the  ownership of the sign is different or something.   Um I think that would but that's the only  reason we kind of carved that out is there   are several properties that Clear Channel um  leases a board where there might be another   board that's under different ownership. There's  very few there's very few of those throughout   the county but they do exist and that's that's  why we have it in there. You know, and Michael,   you could conceive of a situation where they've  got three, somebody had somebody owns three and   you you move ownership for 60 days to some LLC  and then you make the consolidation and then you   bring it you buy it back and we did we didn't  accomplish what you're trying to accomplish,   right? There's an easy way to get around it.  Yeah. So, I'm not sure we can we I'm not sure   we can legislate that. Well, and I will also say  although some people may try to play those games,   much easier said than done because Clear Channel  actually has um leases for the area of the   property that's recorded in land records, it would  not be an easy process to to play a to play a game  

like that. Um so that's good to know. All right.  So, just to make sure I understand the suggestion,   and again, we can propose some language  for you guys to look at and see what you're   um if it meets what you're looking um if multiple  signs on the same property are owned by the same   sign company but not subject to the consolidation.  Your preference would be that all of the signs   owned by that same company be included in  the consolidation. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. We'll put some language together and  see if that's hitting the target. Okay. Okay. Anything else? I don't think so.  Okay. Thank you. Any public comment? Yes. Hearing none. Uh our next uh meeting is Wednesday,  the evening meeting, Wednesday, January 7th,   which is going to be a training session. Right.  Right. So, I um don't be don't be fooled if you   see something that says the planning commission  meeting is cancelled. We're still going to meet.   It's just that we're not meeting to do business.  Yeah. Keep it on your calendars. And then uh the   next day meeting will be Tuesday, January 20th. Um  so with that, I'll take a motion for adjournment.

Not all at once. Okay, we're  done. Thanks everybody.