Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right, we'll open up the meeting with generic public comments if anyone uh would like to take advantage of this opportunity because they have to leave. Uh otherwise, we'll hold the specific comments for the specific applications. Uh but understanding time constraints, you're welcome to say whatever you like here and now as well as or at the individual time. Anybody? Anyone going once? Buler. Good morning, counselor. All right. Good morning. Good morning. How are we start then? Go ahead. Sorry.

Sorry. I was just going to start the meeting. Um just first for your all awareness um because there are only five of you here uh this morning. I just wanted to make a note about quorum. Um I did discuss with one of the planning commission members um commission member Baker about recusing himself on two matters. The first is the comprehensive solid waste plan and the second is the county ordinance 2606 related to the text amendment. In both of those instances, um, council planning commission member Baker has a potential conflict of interest. Um the first in the solid waste plan being that he has an entity that is u supported by that plan and in 2606 he has a property under that zoning which could potentially be um positively benefited by the text amendment. So he is going to recuse himself from those two matters. Um he will leave the meeting room prior to the consideration of those matters. the laptop. I'll text what you did.

She was doing so good. I know. Can somebody just text her and let her know it's not on her end? Awesome. You got it.

She just recused herself from the whole meeting. It might

stories repeat on the agenda. This break was brought to you by the Queens County Office of the Sheriff.

Okay, there you go. Nice little coffee break. We thought the meeting wasn't going to be long enough.

That's on that agenda. Yeah, certainly. So, you're going to miss that first one. There she is.

Okay, she should be able to hear us. Should be good. You're on board, Lindsay? I can. Excellent. All right. You were just you were just getting started on recusals. Yes.

I was saying

are we are we broken again? No. No, we can hear you fine.

Okay. I wasn't sure because I popped up. So um That will leave a body of four of you which is still a quorum. I just wanted to bring it to your attention because any matter on the agenda in order to um be approved has to have a favorable vote of a majority of you. So that would mean that at least three of you would have to vote favorably. If there is a two two tie vote um it's essentially a no vote on any matter. So that's important because in this instance for those two matters there will only be two of you. Um, last I wanted to bring up I did send you all an email. I just wanted to make sure that you all had the opportunity to review it regarding exparte communications. Um, I know we have a lot on the agenda, so I won't go through it in full detail. Um, but what I discussed with you all was that there may have been some expertate communications to planning commission members by applicants andor um, property owners. And I just want to highlight the importance of you all not considering that exparte communication um as it could violate procedural due process. It's also important that you all are are fair and impartial on your judgment. And when you judge a certain application or matter on your agenda, it should be related to all the information that is in the public record. So that would be an application, a staff report, and any evidence that is presented at the public hearing so that both the applicant and any party in opposition or in favor of an application has the full and fair opportunity to consider a potential matter and all the information relative to it. Um, so I I think now would be appropriate if any of you have received exparte communication just to disclose that and um affirm that you feel that you can still adequately, fairly, and impartially consider an application and that if you did receive any information

that is not part of the public record or not put on the record today, um you will not consider any of that information. And if you all have any questions about expert communications and happy to answer them. As Commissioner Tilman, I did have a request from a member before this com commission today. Um, it discussed the possibility of a phone call. That phone call never occurred and uh we agreed to meet after the meeting today, but there was contact made. Thank you.

Okay. U Mr. Mr. Vice Chair. So, I've received contact as well um just from an applicant relating his um the contents of his application. Um but I will assure you that my decision today will be based upon evidence um provided here in this public hearing.

Great. Thank you. And and I think, you know, going forward, if if any of the planning commission members receive communication from an applicant or property owner specifically related to a matter that's going to be on an upcoming agenda, um I know it can be awkward, but that you politely um kind of deter any of those conversations and communications from happening so that you can be fair and impartial and transparent and make sure that any of the information that you would consider on a matter is um done so in a public record. Lindsay. Yes. Also received a phone call. However, I'll be able to be fair and impartial in my judgment. Great.

Any other questions for council regarding exparte communications? Not regarding exparte communications, but I have a question. Go ahead. So, in the event of a tie, uh, since this commission only hears text amends amendments once a year, is that text amendment then done for a minimum of 12 months? Yeah. So, uh, that text amendment, there would be no vote from uh the planning commission in favor or against the um recommendation. So it would proceed to the commissioners as the track that it's supposed to, but there would be no finding from the planning commission in favor of it.

Okay. Follow up on that please, Lindsay. Is it's my understanding that the applicant can withdraw or withhold that today's hearing on that because of that concern. Can you elaborate on that? Um, so there is case law supporting that when a full body is not present that the applicant does have the ability to postpone a public hearing on a matter so that they have the benefit of the full consideration of um the the body. In this instance, we have a quorum. So it would really be up to the applicant to decide if they wanted to defer, but there's no guarantee that there's going to be different members at the next hearing. um what they couldn't do would be present their application, get an unfavorable finding and then ask for a postpone and it would have to be at the onset of their consideration.

Right. And that that request for deferral in to follow up on Commissioner Sylvester's question, that would push them back one, two months, however uh many would be appropriate for them to be reheard. Yeah. So I I we'd have to check with staff as far as um whether the May agenda is already set and full, but it would generally be at the next meeting. And again, they would take the risk that the same instance would occur at the May meeting, right? Yeah. Often times that's a 45day wait rather than a 30, I think. Yeah. Yeah. Understood. Any other questions for Lindsay? Thank you so much. Appreciate it, counselor. All finished, Lindsay. I am. All right.

Sorry.

No problem. Um, moving on to legislative up and legal matter updates. Okay. It's right here in my face. All right. Good morning. Stephanie Jones, uh, long-range principal planner. Um, I have a few legislative updates for you, but pretty quick. um sin die which is basically the end of the Maryland legislative session is Monday. Um so we'll give an update to you next month of the full gamut of what might impact the county. Um as well um the text amendment for Gunston 2512. I know it's been a while since we've uh done anything with that but they got commission approval and now the commissioners have set the public hearing and that'll be Tuesday. So they'll hear the public hearing on that. Um and that's all the legislative actions that I do or matters I do have. So,

excellent. All right. So, the next item up for bid is the Queens County Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan 26 to 2035. Uh, Stephanie and Teddy, you're going to step out.

John or Ted, are you going to be in the back room? We'll send John to get you.

All right. So this morning I have Shane uh Moore and Connie Tolson from Department of Public Works. Um what we're looking at is the 2025 2036 uh comprehensive solid waste management plan and your job essentially is to indicate uh to the county commissioners if that plan is consistent uh with our comprehensive plan. So the annotated code requires uh this plan to be a 10-year plan. Um basically it has to address um like I said the conformance of the comprehensive plan. In the 2022 plan uh there are chapter 3 which is the community facilities and services chapter addresses solid waste management. Um it lists basically your transfer stations. the Midshore Regional Solid Waste Facility um and also curbside collection and then also includes um some goals and recommendations for recycling and also for the Midshore regional landfill. Um chapter 1 and two of the solid draft solid waste management plan do address the conformance. It also includes uh the 2022 comprehensive plan and then the status and details which is what's required uh to be in the plan. Um, essentially your job today is to give a recommendation to the county commissioners. Uh, there are some three overall major updates to this plan and I will let Shane and Connie speak to those in specifics, but um, those big updates are the midshore uh, agreement which is Caroline has extended the life of their uh, facility which will give Queen Ants County more time to contemplate um, the location of our facility. um Baker cell 3 that has been included and then also the removal of the solid waste sighting criteria um as requested by by MDE has been removed. Um so if you have questions the draft letter is attached um I do know the signature will have to be changed uh based off our meeting today but if there's any other uh

comments please let me know and we can do so. So I'll let them Sure. Um um as you may be aware of the uh MERT program, not the merg yourself before we get going. Uh Shane Moore, Chief Roads Engineers, Department of Public Works.

Um as you may or may not know, the uh Midshore Regional Program uh for the solid waste facility is a is a 4ount uh program, uh Kent, Caroline, Queen Ans, and Talbet. Each county takes a 20-year turn at hosting a solid waste facility landfill. Midshore one was in Talbet County, midshore 2 was in Caroline County, and midshore 3 will be in Queens County. That original target date was 2030. Um, however, there have been a a trend downwards of waste disposal. The facility in Caroline County can be extended much longer. Um, as projected now, that's 2042 versus 2030. And Caroline County has agreed to keep that site open and extend the terms of the agreement from 2030 to 2042. As part of that um agreement, the county was given a three-year window to um uh continue to look for a midshore 3 facility above and beyond with the current selected site. So, that's probably the biggest update in the plan alto together. Uh this next plan the next uh update was that RB Baker cell 3 which is on the west side of Route 18 is planned to be open this summer as cell 2 is coming to a closure and that will facilitate the county's needs and the county's um needs for rubble landfill from the citizens of the county as well as the the stuff that we do in the roads division as well especially trees come down there. We use bakers for that a lot for that. Um and then the last one is um the sighting criteria. The 2004 2014 solid waste management plan um initiated um some sighting criteria. Uh Maryland environment approved excuse me um reviewed the plan. They they wanted that information taken out. Um they wrote a letter in protest of that information but we moved forward with the plan with it. Um this year we have taken that out per their recommendation. Um the this plan was submitted to them in January of 2026. They have uh given us their review comments. Those review comments were

included in the current set and that is what is out for public uh information now and we have a public hearing on Tuesday uh April 14th with the county commissioners for adoption. So that kind of sums it up. Could you explain? I'm I'm I'm asking if Oh, you're here for questions. Fair enough. All right. Sorry, Mr. Chman. Go ahead. That's all right. Um, what's behind the extension uh to 2042 in Caroline County? Was there some particular reason that they've agreed to continue?

I don't know the particulars of the agreement. I know when Midshore one in Toba County was coming to a closure in 2010 that there was still capacity. That's a very valuable commodity to have that volume and Toba County pushed very hard to close it. It's a 20-year term per the agreement and they wanted to hold to that. Um Caroline County was more um helpful with having that that volume, but I do believe there was a restructuring of the agreement and a cost sharing uh for using that space. And 2042 is the projected. It could go longer. So in the agreement of 2042, but it could extend. They could also expand a little bit from my understanding. So it could even go further. I and I think it's very valuable to maximize the site to its potential.

Well, that that data is tied to capacity issues as much as anything else. Projected capacity projected. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. And does Mr. more. Does that then and for for Queens County, does that push the closing date back the 20 years or does that maintain that 2035 uh sunset for Queen Ans County?

Um 2035 date I believe is the is the the date in which so um landfill if if Queens County landfill was Queens County if the Midshore 3 was going to open in 2030 um it's about a 10-year permitting process. So, you start the permitting process in roughly 2020. During that 10-year period, there is a point at which that property will change ownership from Queen Ants County and will become the owner. The owner will be the Maryland Environmental Service as part of the Midore Regional Program. So, they will actually own it. I believe that 2035 is when MEES projects they would become the owner for a site that would open in 2042. But that pushes then the end date back likely

20 years. Yes. And and then of course it could be based on capacity you could continue to keep using. So it's a moving target. Yes. But a slowmoving one and one that all parties are are you know involved in. Yeah. And it's based on projections of the amount of solid waste and those trends were were going up until about the great recession 2008ish time period and they have steadily kind of stayed or gone down a little bit. So that's what we're seeing every year. Lots of inputs to calculate, right? Any questions for department staff? You guys have two. Um, just out of curiosity, why is Talbet County against extending it?

Um, that was before my time. Um, I believe it was just the terms of the agreement and they felt they had served their term. Okay. And the other one is uh I'm not sure if you really said this in your statement, but am I to believe are we to believe that maybe the county is looking for a different site than what we currently have? I think was it just north of Centerville here a little bit?

Yes. Mitch 3 was identified um back in the uh a study was done in the 1990s and the commissioners purchased a farm um um out on Harper Road just north of Centerville to be Midore 3 and that's been identified as the Midore 3 location and all the solid waste management plans and that was part of joining the Midore regional program was to have a a valid site and that site is currently under was under um uh permitting because I it had to start in 2020 roughly to get that 10-year process. Um, this window allows the county to step back and look if it wants to move that site and we have a three-year window to study and come up with a new site and identify one. Okay. Thanks.

Yeah. Any other questions for Department of Public Works? All right. I will entertain a recommendation. Actually, there's there's no public comment, is there? I'm looking at Lindsay and Amy. Is there public comment required for this counselor? Um, no. There's no public comment required for this. All right. No public comment. I'm looking for a recommendation from the panel. Looking for a favorable recommendation or unfavorable recommendation to be sent to the county commissioners.

Mr. Vice Chair, I um I make a motion that we send a favorable recommendation on the wastewater management plan to the county commissioners um having determined that it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Excellent. There's a motion. Is there a second? Second. It's a motion to second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? No abstensions except for Mr. uh Baker in the back room. Uh thank you very much. Appreciate your update this morning.

Thank you. Uh, apparently it is doing some updates. We might lose Zoom again. Okay, you understand that, counselor and other attendees there? Yes, thank you. Yep. I think the other attendee might be frozen. But that would be on her end likely, right? Not not this end. Yeah. All right. Yes.

Fantastic. Thank you. All right. Moving along. Major subdivision 25-07-0475 Bishop's Meadow Phase 3. Mr. Summers. Good morning.

Good morning. Uh Doug Summers, County Planner. Uh, as mentioned, this is 255070475 in which Warrington Farm Properties LLC is proposing to create one new residential lot as part of a major subdivision plan. They are requesting preliminary and final major subdivision approval. Uh, general locations, the south central portion of the county, just east of Queenstown. It's just south of 301. Um and the proposed lot is a/4 mile southeast of the intersection of 301 and Warrington Farm Lane. It tax map 51 parcel 64 is located at 110 Warrington Farm Lane. It's 256 acres by deed. 116 acres are located north of Warrington Farm Lane and the other 140 acres is located south of Warrington Farm Lane. Both north and southern portions of the deed parcel are improved by a residence accessory structures and an agric agricultural operation. That northern portion 116 acres is zoned agricultural and south of Warrington Farm Lane. It is dual zoned as suburban estate and suburban residential. Phase one of this major subdivision was approved in June of 2005. It was 17 by cluster lots that is shown in the white outline here. 11 years later in 2016, phase 2 was approved. That was uh an additional 14 by cluster lots that is outlined in orange. 10 acres of land uh outlined here in blue with deed restricted open space to support both phases one and two.

Uh this phase three proposes one single large lot at 2.1 acres. Environmental site uh features on the site include a perennial stream along the southwestern, southern and eastern parcel lines. There are non-title wetlands uh located on the southern portion of the property shown here outlined in the dashed green. There's 27 and a half acres of priority forest area that is in protection to support the first two phases. There is possible forest interior dwelling species habitat in the forested areas. There's no 100-year flood plane steep slopes and it is not located in the critical area. The proposed lot is located outside of all these natural resource areas on the site. The proposed lot is to be supported by private well and septic. It takes access off of Warrington Farm Lane. Uh to avoid any nonconformities for this subdivision, the existing trailer on site must be removed prior to recordation. And either prior to or within or within 60 days of recordation, a residential building permit must be filed for the lot. If that permit is not filed, the accessory structures on the lot would have to be removed. And with that, I take any questions or turn it over to the applicant.

Any questions for Doug? Morning, Mr. Kirby. Morning. Jack Kirby with Kirby and Associates, Inc., PO Box 27, Centerville, Maryland. I'm here with Mr. Ethan Whiteside. Hi, I'm Ethan Whiteside. Address is 120 Warrington Farm Lane. That's Queenstown. Um, I'm representing Mr. Whitesside and his grandfather Dave McCclement uh who is the owner of the existing farm. Um Mr. Whiteside has the intention of creating this lot to build a house so that he can stay on the phone and on the family farm. Um the staff's pretty much covered everything. I'll be glad to answer any questions you have, but hold on for just a second. Make sure we're still squared away with it.

We're good. We're on thin ice still. You want a couple? You want a minute? Uh, I can get her back up in once this loads up. Okay, we'll just take listen to some elevator music. Need like a hold music. Elevator.

Yeah. I appreciate everybody's patience in this Thank you.

Gotcha. Come on in. We're in holding pattern here. Can you hear us, Lindsay?

Yes, I can hear you. All right, we're back. Welcome back again, counselor. All right. Did Did you need a Did you need a a brief or did you are you um comfortable with where you pulled off? Nothing was discussed while you were offline. I'm comfortable. All right. You you you proceed. Fantastic. The question remains if there's any comments, questions for the applicant and or staff from the commission. Yes, Mr. A quick one. Um in this we're asking to receive preliminary and final approval at the same meeting. Yes. Um I have no problem with that. Um is that unusual or is that a fairly routine request?

No, there's five criteria that must be met. Um, I think the applicant provided a narrative that should be in your packet that explains that criteria. Um, staff doesn't need any more time to review this project. That's definitely one of the one of them. Um, it's not unusual. Um, I think the last one we did was playcheck's place went through the same process. So, okay. Everybody's comfortable with it.

Good. Doug, if if you don't mind if I jump in just um so that you all to bring to your attention, the bylaws do require that if you are going to grant both preliminary and final at the same meeting that at least five of you vote affirmatively um finding that it may be waved because there is a provision in your bylaws that say both preliminary and final will not be given um at the same meeting unless five of you vote to wave that requirement. ment and the five conditions that Doug were was just referencing were waiverss in the public interest. Special reasons exist for the departure from policy of the commission. The reasons do not involve to any degree any delay or inaction by the person for whom the policy is waved. The purpose of providing prior notice of action to be taken at a regular meeting will not be unduly compromised and the department of planning and zoning has certified no further time is required to make any determination required by Queen Anne's County zoning ordinance. So you would have to have two separate actions. The first would be five of you have to vote favorably to uh wave the requirement that you do not grant preliminary and final at the same meeting. And then a second action would be to um approve preliminary and final. Right. Thank you for that outline and explanation counselor. Uh is that any every all questions have been asked and answered from the applicant staff. Is that correct? All right. In that case, I will uh entertain a motion to

Is that a public comment? Uh not yet. Appreciate it though. Uh, I will entertain a motion to discuss or uh consider um providing both preliminary and final subdivision approval simultaneously at today's meeting. So moved. There's a there's a motion. There is is there a second? Motion a second. All those in favor? I we have five in agreement. So we are going to proceed counselor. Does that satisfy your requirements? Yes. So I would I would um clarify in that motion that you are proceeding finding that the five factors in the bylaws um have been found by the planning commission.

I will amend my motion to incorporate council's um comments in in my motion. All those in favor still I I All five. Great. Silence is is approval. I taking Liz. Thank you. Appreciate that. All right. Yeah, I'm it's it's hard being virtual. I'm trying not to cut you all off. So, no, no, there's a technical delay and but you're smiling, so we're we're And you're still with us, so we'll we'll keep going. Yes. All right. I would cut you off if not. Fair enough. I appreciate that. And please feel free to do so.

All right. Uh secondly, we have um the opportunity to make a motion to move the suggested resolution along. Mr. Chairman, we hereby res at this point. You want public comment? Ask for public comment. There we go. Any public comment on the request for this applicant, Bishop Meadow phase three, to move ahead? Anyone in the room? Anyone online? Bruce, I have no one. No. All right. Hearing no. None. Seeing none. Mr. Tilman.

Mr. Chairman, be it resolved that the planning commission regarding the request by Warrington Farm Properties LLC for major subdivision approval to create one new residential lot utilizing the large lot technique and is more particularly described in Department of Planning and Zoning file sub number 25-07-0475 hereby finds the subdivision to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Queen Anne County zoning and subdivision regul. ulations and the 2022 comprehensive plan hereby grants major subdivision approval to the following conditions subject to the following condition. Prior to final signature, any remaining edits and/or documents required by the document of public works planning and zoning or any other reviewing agency be reviewed and approved. All required signatures must be obtained. All required legal documents must be approved, signed, and recorded prior to obtaining final site plan signatures. The trailer that spans the proposed parcel line between lot one and lot 33 shall be removed prior to the subdivision recordation. The owner will apply for a residential building permit within 60 days of sub subdivision recordation and remove all existing structures on the proposed lot 33 site.

Mr. Mr. Tilman, one point of u I think you misspoke and you uh suggested that there we had a document of public works. I think that's a department of public works for clarity. Um correct. All right. There has been a motion. Is there a second? There's been a motion to second. All those in favor. Any opposed? Any abstensions? Motion carries. Thank you.

Congratulations. Appreciate you coming out today. Thank you. And let's start with our citiz everybody's good. Marilyn, you're okay. All right. Um, we will move on to first citizen sponsor text amendment application county ordinance 26-04. Good morning, Vice Chairman Lee and planning commission members. I'm Marielle and Gray. I'm the senior planner here and uh this is the first of seven text amendments and I understand it's it's it's a long list but uh we we will do our best to be informative yet succinct in our comments. Uh the first one is county ordinance 2604 HT uh BB Holdings LLC. Cara Ryan Shaw Walter. Uh the intent of this uh text amendment county ordinance 2604 is to add boat sales and repair and marinas to the list of individual uses or tenants space that can occupy more than 65,000 square feet of gross floor area within the airport protection and Kent Island gateway district. Uh currently the uh AP KIG district allows some uses to exceed the 65,000 square foot requirement. uh that that includes airport related facilities, banquet facilities, conference center, hotel uses as well as offices. Um there are also some districts that allow uh boat sales and repair uh to exceed the 65,000 square foot uh requirement. that includes suburban commercial, urban commercial, village center, town center, and the Grayson Graysonville village commercial uh

center uh village commercial. Marinos are also included as an exception in some uh districts by conditional use. These include suburban commercial, Kent Island suburban commercial, suburban industrial, urban commercial, village center, waterfront waterfront village center as well as town center. They're previously approved uh when the these two parcels were in the uh urban commercial district. Two parcels in the APKIG district have developments that currently exceed the 65,000 square foot gross gross floor error area requirement. These include the Bay Manor uh at 214 Pier One Road as well as the uh ch the inn at Chesapeake Bay Beach Club and Spa at 180 uh Pier1 Road. Should this amendment be adopted? uh the current provisions, design provisions as well as the approvals required by the Maryland Aviation Administration and the Federal Aviation Administrations would have to be addressed. The comprehensive plan supports the preservation, promotion, support, and exploration of innovative markets of the maritime industry as well as the adjacency of the APA KIG district to the waterfront. Boat sales and repairs and marinas are are supported on the comprehensive plan whereby the maritime industry uh supports approximately $80.3 million in economic activity which is 5% of the county's annual gross county um product. During the stack uh committee review of this proposal, uh the economic commission uh uh offered their support as well as the airport manager uh com

commented that she has no comments or concerns regarding this proposal. based on the consistency with other commercial zoning districts within the code, the support of the maritime industry and the comprehensive plan and overall location of the API KIG district. The planning commission, the planning staff recommends that the planning commission send a favorable recommendation to the board of uh county commissioners on the proposed amendment to add boat sales and repair and marinas to the list of individual uses or tenants space that the county can occupy more than 65,000 square feet of gross floor area and the AP KIG district. That concludes my remarks. I'd be happy to answer any questions or turn it over to the applicant.

Thank you. Anyone have any questions for Miss Gray? Just one. Nope. So, is there a maximum limitation? That would depend upon the other design requirements to u of the of the district such as impervious surface requirements, parking and and the actual parcel itself. Okay. So, mostly sight constraints. So, site constraints putting it. But other if there's no sight constraints, then there's no limitations. Just I'm just curious. Certainly there there be height and and other other requirements. So So yes, I'm talking more about square footage, not so much on height. Uh so no there would would not be. Okay.

But it would just depend upon the size of and location of the of the I have one, Miss Grant. I'm not sure if you're uh prepared to answer this because your your tenure, but uh is there any backstory or knowledge why that 65,000 is in place in you know historically? Ah, so there is there is some backstory to that. U so why it is what it is. Uh go ahead.

I'll take a stab at it and then Stephanie can fill in. I understand it it was the uh the big box provision uh back in the uh early 2000s. Was that uh little little earlier somewhere somewhere around and uh that there was concern uh to limit the the size of some commercial buildings uh to uh yeah just to limit the size in this particular district and um in in in some in commercial districts. Is that is that a fair fair? Yeah. Um and then that that carried forward. Great. Thank you for that backstory. I appreciate that. Any anything else for staff? Mr. Sha Walter,

thank you for your time this morning. Good morning. I I think that's a very fair summary. I'd like to highlight just a couple of Can I ask you to introduce yourself first?

I'm sorry. Ryan Sha Walter, for the record, 100 Northwest Street East in Maryland. Uh, and I'm appearing on behalf of Hank BBB Holdings. Um the the site that is driving this text amendment is the the site that you previously reviewed a site plan for uh Inkley Yachts working to produce a uh a facility adjacent to the airport as part of that marina that will house uh wintertime indoor boat storage as well as boat repair. Uh it will have extensive carpentry, upholstery, electronic shop um but also needs large floor area just to start store boats uh indoors. And this um staff report I think very adequately runs through uh the comprehensive plan which has uh numerous areas where it supports the maritime industries. Um as was noted there are five different districts in which boat sales and repairs are excluded from the 65,000 foot cap and there's seven different districts where marinas are excluded from the 65,000 foot cap. Um, this property was previously zoned urban commercial. It falls in both of those categories. So, prior to the imposition of this district, the site that is the driver for this was zoned urban commercial and boat sales and repair and marinas could exceed 65,000 square feet. Um, and I understand that this text amendment is not parcel specific, but the um the APKIG zoning district is nevertheless very small and a constrained area. And so, uh, we believe this text amendment really will only have one practical partial that that it benefits. Uh, and that's that's the purpose for this request. Happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Any questions for the applicant?

I have one if you don't mind. Has has we we heard no comment from the airport manager. Is there are there any concerns or construction equipment that have been thoroughly vetted with the airport manager? Cranes, I'm thinking, come in for this construction. So, so there's been significant coordination with the airport. Uh, as you you may recall some some discussion before, um, we're still working through the FAA process that we discussed and getting getting coordination there. Uh, there are height standards that are applicable. Um, one of the interesting dynamics between the FAA and the Maryland Aviation Administration is that the FAA has a um a notification process and they evaluate any proposed construction, whether that's temporary cranes or permanent height of structures and and they only um deal with issues that they view as obstructions to airport safety. Um the MAA has applies a similar standard, but basically anything that penetrates a defined elevation they identify as something that is restricted whether or not it interferes with airport safety. So the the county commissioners recently adopted a process to allow a variance from MAA's uh standards. Um the FAA has determined that no proposed construction will will constitute an obstruction to the safety of the airport. The county commissioners are working through a process that would require uh lights. So there would be a light on the tallest point of the building and any cranes um would would have tempor any temporary construction activity. Cranes um excavators that exceed those height limits would have flagging and uh and lighting.

Okay. I figured somebody crossed that tea and dotted to make sure. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Shaalter? All right. Hearing none, uh, we'll open the floor up for public comment on 2604 KPI. Uh, F, floor area ratio. Discussion. Bruce, anyone on call? No one. No one online. All right. Closing public comment. I will open up the floor for recommendation.

Mr. Chairman. Uh, having considered testimony presented, the planning commission makes a favorable recommendation to the board of county commissioners regarding citizen sponsored text amendment 2604 to amend section 18.1-34 delta by adding boat sales and repair marinas to the list of individual uniters users or tenant space that can occupy more than 65,000 square feet. gross floor area in the APKIG district. The planning commission provides the following findings. This recommendation does include consistency with Maryland section 18-1 of the Maryland code annotated land use and the comprehensive plan. and as described in staff report dated April 9th, 2026 recommends a favorable vote. Period. All right. There's a motion, counselor. Does that satisfy your your smiling? You're good.

All right. Yes. Thank you. Yep. No problem. Um there's been a motion. Do we have a second? Second. There's a second by Mr. Sylvester. All those in favor or excuse me, any further discussion? All those in favor? I I No opposition. Unanimous. Congratulations, Mr. Showalter. Thank you for coming in. Guys want to do one more and take a break. I'm Yeah, I'm good. Does that work? Sure. All right, we'll keep going. One more. Uh 2605 3C's LLC. Five.

Mr. Chairman, if I could ask a uh couple of questions before staff gets started with their report only if they're relevant prior to staff giving their report. Yes, sir. They are.

Please do. Um so in light of the uh limitation of five members today and the staff report received by the applicant two days ago um there is a preference to defer this to your next meeting in the hope that there are more uh attendees on the from the planning commission. I do however want to ask and confirm that uh prior to the hearing interested parties and citizens would still have the opportunity to submit exhibits and testimony in in written form and at the at the next meeting. I would defer to council for that. Lindsay.

Yeah. So if if um the preference from the planning commission is to vote to defer consideration of this particular matter on the agenda um the same processes would be used going forward being placed on the agenda. So, it would kind of start over. As far as the staff report using um I'm sure they would use the same staff report, but if public had any comments or the applicant had any additional comments, they would have to be submitted within the time frame that is consistent with when a matter goes on an agenda. Um the record would not be closed because you all haven't considered it at this point.

Fair enough. Anything to add, Amy? Anything to add? No. All right. Um, based on the applicant's request, is there a motion to defer this uh conversation to the next available or should we just what is it a 35 or 40-day wait? Do we know?

I'm not sure as far as staff, but I do want to make note that your uh the Queen Ans County um zoning ordinance does require consideration by the planning commission within 90 days from the date it receives the proposal. So, I'm not sure. I know that the submitt was in February. Is there maybe Amy knows or staff knows when the application was submitted? I think I have it here in front of me. 21026. We're coming up on 60 days. The May the May agenda will be set on April 30th.

When's the date of the meeting? And to confirm with with council that 90 days is from the date that the planning commission received the application. Correct. Not the date of application to the county, but the date that the planning commission received it. That's how we've always applied it. The date in which the planning the date in which the county commissioners convey it to the planning commission. So that' be the February 24th um date, I think. Okay. Yes. So we should be three months out from that. We should be okay date wise with the May date. Yeah. Oh,

and there is the opportunity that the um county commissioners can grant an extension on that 90day, but it sounds like it's not necessary at this point because we can still reach the the May date assuming that there was already planning to be a meeting in May. Okay. Uh May suffice. Yes, sir. Uh does that suit the county as well? May meeting? I don't know the agenda for the May meeting. We I Yeah, I don't see a reason as to why it couldn't.

Okay. Uh and if for some reason, Miss Jones, something comes up, the county will reach out to the applicant to come to a conclusion of a mutual agreement. Excellent. All right. Uh do we have a motion to defer this um hearing on 3C's LLC to the May 2026 meeting of the planning commission? Mr. Chairman, I move that we move uh the citizens sponsored text amendment number 2605 to the May meeting of 2026. There's a motion. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? I unanimous. We'll see you in 30 days, gentlemen.

All right, let's take please. How about we come back at 9:45 about six minutes?

Silver. Wait for Amy out of here. We're just going to punt till next month. All right. All right. Like to bring back into session the planning commission meeting for April 9. Um, county ordinance 26-06, deep water. Excuse me, DW LLC. Um, and staff,

but Mr. Council has to go first. Applicant has asked to go first. Tongue won't work. Excuse me. Go ahead. Sure. Brenda with Mallister Dar Show Walter and Walker 100 Northwest Street. I'm sorry. Could you reintroduce yourself, please, for us? Thanks.

Yes, sir. Brenda Melanie with Mallister Dar Show Walter and Walker 100 Northwest Street East of Maryland. here on behalf of Chesapeake Boatlift LLC, Chesapeake Family Flooring, and the Mill. Um, on behalf of the applicants for this text amendment, in light of the composition of the planning commission and Mr. Baker's recusal, we would ask that this also be deferred to the May planning commission agenda uh and be able to appear in front of you with hopefully more planning commission members at that time. Can do. Any questions of applicant? Otherwise, I will entertain a motion to defer for the till the May meeting uh 2606. So moved. I have a motion. I have a second. Second. Second. All those in favor? All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Thank you all for your time. See you next month. Yep. Indeed. All right. Good. Sorry. No, I missed the deferral. Oh, yeah. Nope. All good. All right. Moving along. County Ordinance 2607, lot 3 LLC. Mr. Stevens is not here. See out in the hall perhaps? I have not seen him actually. I haven't seen him either. Come on in. Yeah. You lot three, Jody. Yeah, that was a probably a mistake on my part with Joe not being here.

Oh, so he's not here coming. Okay. No. So, I guess you got me. Lord, I will need Lindsay. Are we okay with an applicant representing themselves without counsel or is that something that's frowned upon? No burden. So if they want to proceed without counsel, that's their prerogative.

Sorry, we Joe's out of town and with what I had going on. Okay, let's start with staff, Jody, and then we'll turn it over to you and your side gig as a lawyer. May I say something? Uh, sure. Should Mr. Schulz be offered the opportunity to defer or can he defer? He he has chosen to I think move on as far as I'm aware. Yeah, I'll I mean, deferring is not going to change anything, I don't think, but except get a big bill from Joe. Fair enough. Mary Ellen, I believe you're lead staff. Yes, sir. Yes, Vice Chairman. Floor is yours.

Okay. Uh, good morning again, Vice Chairman Lee and Planning Commissioners. Uh, Mary Ellen Grace, senior planner. I'm here to present county ordinance 2607, lot three, care of Joe Stevens and, uh, Jody Schultz. Uh the intent of this text amendment is to increase the byite maximum non-residential floor area ratio known as FAR uh from 30% to 40% within the waterfront village center um known as the WVC district and remove the bonus standard that allows for a floor area ratio of 40%. The proposed change in F to 40% is consistent with many other zoning districts uh commercial zoning districts um in Quinance County uh town center urban commercial suburban industrial light industrial highway service uh suburban industrial business employment and airport uh protection kent island gateway all have 40% FS uh and the Graysonville neighborhood commercial and Graysonville Gateway and Medical Center all have 50 uh both have 50% FS uh uh percent uh F of 50%. uh with a with the proposed uh amendment uh deletion uh uh which deletes the 40% F bonus standard uh which which requires 50% of the first floor to be raised for parking. Uh all flood paid all flood plates flood plane standards would be met would need to be met. Um the additional bonus standard there is an additional bonus standards in the in the code uh which allows for the planning commission to grant a specified bonus of up to 50%. Um and that would continue to

prevail. The comprehensive plan uh does not directly address F and bonus provisions in this in the WPC district but supports economic development. The 2022 Kentro's community plan supports the evaluation of floor area ratio standards and review of the bonus standards and also encourages the preservation of water viewscapes through the stack review process. The economic development commission and the Kent Narrows Development Foundation supports this amendment based on the minimal increase. The fact that many commercial districts allow for the 40% F by right consistency with both the Kent Nero's community plan and the county comprehensive plan and existing bonus standard. The planning staff recommends that the planning commission send a favorable recommendation to the board of county commissioners on the proposed amendment to increase the byite maximum non-residential floor area ratio from 30% to 40% or.3 to point4 how it is in the code and remove the bonus standard that allows for a floor area ratio of point4. Further, in order to clarify the proposed amendment, the planning staff recommends that um this clause of uh bracket 2 um and the term end be deleted uh from this code provision 181-261A and that's articulated in the staff report. And that concludes my comments, Vice Chairman Lee.

Excellent. Thank you. Any questions for Mary Allen? Is that a hand raise? No, sorry. Um, just one point of clarification and uh, Miss Gray read appropriately. However, in the staff report, there are several references to an increase of a 10% in F, and it is not right. 10% of 30 is three. So, it's a 33 and a3% increase in F to go from 30 to 40. Numerically, it's 10%. Ah so you spoke correctly and some places in the staff report you appropriately say go from.3 to point4 but mathematically it is not a 10% increase in floor area

are correct you're math is not my strong suit it's not dimminimous but it's it's important to point out that it's not a 10% increase uh it's a 33% increase. Thank you sir. Um but you spoke well and in other places it's correctly noted to go from.3 to point4 without the 10% not uh nomenclature. All right, everybody clear? Everybody happy? Everybody good? Any other questions for Mary Allen? Excellent. Uh Mr. Schultz, please introduce yourself.

Uh Jody Schultz, Chester, uh here representing lot three LLC. I don't have much to add. It it's I think fairly simple. I know it has been suggested I think in the last two comp plans that the Kentara's uh 30% byite floor area be increased to be more consistent with most of the other zoning jurisdictions in areas in the in the county took 04 um if you have some specific questions but you know it was she laid it out pretty pretty good. It's not and it's just in the WV VC obviously. So um um I don't there's I I specifically don't have any projects currently that it would affect. So it affects the whole WBC

which is Kent Neros which is Canteros. Correct. So, like I said, I don't have a dog in the fight currently or nothing really planned, but it's something I think that's needed because then you go through have to go through this bonus density um complicated um um process that you've all been a part of. That's um so I think this helps just clean that up a little bit. Questions? Any questions for the applicant? Just curious u Mr. Schultz uh has this ever prevented you from doing anything in the past?

No. No. Because right now you have um it's at 30%. So if you exceed the 30% you have there's a provision in the WVC that allows you to bonus density up and that's a whole another door to open per se. And you have to go through um what do you what are you offering to get more of a percentage? And rarely do you get up to 40 because your parking usually restricts what you're doing. So you may get up to 32% 33%. Rarely do you get really up to 40%. Because of the parking restrictions, storm water restrictions. It kind of but you it's not unusual to get up to 32 or 33%. But it it still kicks you into that bonus density. And that's just that's a very u I think staff will agree that's a that's something that's even been in the comp plan just been trying to eliminate that that process because it's not real it's it's ambiguous in a lot of ways on what what do you give what do you get type of thing. Any other questions for Mr. Schultz or staff? All right. Uh we'll open up the floor for public comment if there is any. I don't have anybody signed up. Anybody online? Hearing none. Seeing none, we'll close public comment and I will open up the floor for a motion. Mr. Chairman, be it resolved that the planning commission makes a favorable recommendation to the board of county commissioners regarding citizen sponsored text amendment number 26-07 to amend 18.1-25 by increasing the BYU maximum non-residential floor area ratio from 0.30 to 0.40 and removing the bonus standard that allows floor area of 0.40 40 in the WVC district with proposed recommended staff changes are articulated in the staff

report. The planning commission provides the following findings that this is consistent with the Maryland code annotated land use section 4-102 which allows the legislative body to regulate the percentage of a lot that may be occupied and the size of buildings to promote health safety and general welfare welfare of the community and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. There's a motion. Is there a second? Second. There's a second. Uh, any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? I I. Any opposed? Any abstensions? Hearing none. Motion passes. Mr. Schulz. Thank you.

The next one, too. So, all right. Fair enough. All right. We will move on. County ordinance 2608, lot 3 LLC. Mary Ellen, floor is yours.

Very good. Marielle Gray, senior planner. Uh the intent of 2608 is to add additional provisions to allow commercial apartments within the waterfront village center district, the WBC, to locate the commercial apartment dwelling uh unit on any same floor, including the first floor. According to our code chapter 18 uh appendix A commercial apartment is defined as a dwelling unit located above the first floor of a commercial building. Commercial apartments uh include supplemental use standards uh that do not require commercial apartments to be included in the first floor area calculations for commercial building as well as maximum building height, outdoor balconies and patios and landscaping requirements. All these standards will remain applicable under the proposed amendment. Commercial apartments are permitted throughout multiple other districts. Uh but they do not include the specification that a dwelling unit may be proposed in any same floor. All other districts require the dwelling units to be placed above the commercial. Uh the proposed amendment is applicable solely uh within the uh WBC district alone. Similar to to the proposed amendment, uh first floor apartments are a use or another use uh that requires a dwelling unit on the first floor of a commercial building and additional floors above the commercial above additional floors above to be commercial. Uh first floor apartments are permitted uh in the f in some zoning districts which include town center, Stevensville historic village center as well as Graysonville uh village commercial and first four apartments are permitted in uh suburban commercial, Kent Island

commercial, urban commercial and village center as conditional use. The proposed amendment would allow a commercial apartment on any same floor including the first floor. Um but uh the design guidelines, parking requirements as well the supplemental uh use standards that I just described um as well as all other applicable code requirements would still prevail. The comprehensive plan and the 2022 Canteros community plan uh support the facilitation of orderly mixeduse commercial light and industrial marine oriented and seafood indust seafood industry oriented uses at Canteros. The Economic Development Commission as well as the Kant Narrow's Development Foundation support uh this proposed amendment based on the on the intent of the WBC district to provide flexibility and orientation to the water, similar uses permitted in other districts, including first four apartments, the keeping of residential dwelling units in any same floor, and consistency with both the Kent Narrows community plan and the County comprehensive plan. The planning staff recommends that the planning commission send a favorable recommendation to the board of county commissioners on the proposed amendment to add additional provisions to allow commercial apartments within within the waterfront village center to locate commercial apartment dwelling on units on any same floor. Concludes my comments.

Thank you. Any questions for Miss Gray? All right, Mr. Schultz. Uh good morning again, Jody Schultz. um Chester with lot 3 LLC. Um the commercial apartments um definition is first floor commercial apartments which allows you to do uh commercial I mean I'm sorry commercial use on the first floor and then you're allowed apartments above that. So it's residential residential apartments above that. Is this why I should have Joe here? You're doing fine.

Um, the Centers is a little bit unique. We've had I've had discussions with some people that want to rent um commercial space, but they said we don't want to be on the bottom floor. We want to be up top where the view is and Kenton is very unique in that situation where there's phenomenal views. So we we um introduced this text amendment, talked with staff about it, that as long as the intent of a whole floor is commercial and the rest is apartments, it shouldn't matter whether it's on the first floor, the commercial, or whether it's on the second floor or or the third floor if there's a third floor. And um it's just an an option for u you know leasing space. space is tough to lease now in the in the in the market now. So again, we had a a group that was interested in commercial space, but they said, "We want to be up here." And I said, "Well, you got to be down here." And they said, "Well, you know, we want the view." And that's and that and that kind of led into meeting with staff and saying, "Can we just long as the intent is the same?" And that's a whole floor of commercial use. It it should be irrelevant where the apartments are and it's just in the WVC because that's where the opportunity for the view is up there, not Chester or or or you know UC any other zoning district just in the Kentos. Um so that's that's kind of how we got here to this text amendment. Um everybody seemed to be okay with it. EDC was fine with it. The canton foundation was fine with it. Staff was fine with it. So unless you have some questions.

Any questions for Mr. Schultz? To be clear, one it it doesn't dictate that commercial is on floors two and above. It just says that wherever the commercial is, whatever floor commercial is, that entire floor is going to work. Correct. Right. So can you have residential, commercial, and residential if you have a three-fold building? just um you mean residential commercial residential you could I guess as long as the whole floor where the intent is keep the way it is because we support that we want commercial use we want commercial we just don't want strictly residential we want the mix particular floor right the base floor typically

but hey give us the opportunity if somebody wants uh to rent the top floor and not the bottom floor because of the view then you know maybe we should have that opportunity to rent because It's just it's tough renting commercial space now. So, we don't want to do strictly commercial apartment uh commercial. We don't want to do strictly just apartments. We want the mixed use. So, it doesn't change that. It just changes kind of where you put it. The ability to put it up or keep it where it is, you know, type of thing. And we're talking three floors because that's the height limitation in that district, right? 40 45. And you can bonus up to could bonus up to 60. 60. Yes, maybe that's a bonus provision come before you.

We're just using these one, two, three floors, right? Because that's typically what's confined to that correct district. Yeah. Right. Right. Right. Right. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Yeah. With with deference to the fine views in Ken Island, you know, I know there are people that like fine views of soybean fields as well. Um it it seems to me that um and I'm not particularly concerned about this. We are opening ourselves to the possibility that people would like to do this in other districts.

Um I don't know if the commission has concern about that or not. I said I'm not particularly concerned as long as it's on a floor byfloor basis. Uh when I first read it, I have to admit I misunderstood and thought you'd have a mixture on any given floor and that doesn't seem to make sense. But so I don't know if anybody else has any opinions about it or not. It came to mind when Mr. Schultz was was going through his testimony. Does staff have any feedback or comments on that? Well, this this provision is is just limited to the WPC district. Yes. Mhm. That's understood. But sometimes when you open the floodgates I see.

Uh and you know, as I say, in this situation, I'm not particularly concerned. I don't think it's something that we'd worry about in other districts all that much, but I think it's important to note that it does open us up to that possibility. Well, there is the the provision currently that first floor that the the first floor pro uh apartments are allowed that you can have u first floor commercial apartments. Thank you. Sorry. um that that use that you have apartments on the first floor and then commercial above. So there is that use that's currently allowed in our ordinance if that if that helps.

Thank you. All right. Anything else from All right. Uh any public comment?

Nobody online, nobody on my sheet. Anybody in the gallery? Seeing none, hearing none. Public comment is closed. I will open the floor for a motion. Uh, Mr. Vice Chair, having considered the testimony presented and having reviewed the findings in the staff report, be it hereby resolved, the planning commission makes a favorable recommendation to the board of county commissioners regarding citizen sponsored text amendment 26-08 to amend 18- 181-26F4 district to locate the commercial apartment dwelling unit on any same floor. Planning Commission finds it is consumm consistent with the zoning and subdivision division regulations, consistent with the annotated code of Maryland land use article, consistent with the comprehensive plan, and I'd like to incorporate the findings from the staff report um into my motion.

Uh fantastic. Um however, can I get you to reread the sentence? You skipped a sentence. You went from 18126F4. Okay. Skip the by adding line. Okay. And went straight to district. Okay. May I would like to amend um my motion to read quote to amend 181-26 F4 by adding additional provisions to allow commercial apartments within the waterfront village center WVC district to locate the commercial apartment dwelling unit on any same floor. Thank you. There's a motion. Is there a second? Second.

There's a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Seeing none, all those in favor? I. No opposed. No abstensions. Motion carries. Congratulations, Mr. Sch. Again, I apologize for the Jon. No apologies. Send him your Enjoy the view. Send him your invoice. Good luck with that. Good luck with that. All right, moving along. County Ordinance 26-09, Thompson Farms LLC. Stephanie's on point now. All right. So, Ken, good morning. Oh, sorry, Jeff. I'm sorry.

You're good. Okay. Um so 2609 um is to amend the transfer of development rights uh program to allow the transfer of parcel which is designated as open space um to be able to be administratively subdivided um to accommodate lot line adjustments but not to allow reconfiguration or the creation of new lots. Um so the transfer parcel um is essentially the parcel in which development rights are lifted um through the transfer development rights program. Um and then those uh that acreage is designated as open space and that um is restricted to uses that are um strictly permitted as agricultural uses and listed in the code at 181-12. Um so the essentially this is only within your A and CS district where these uh development rights are lifted. Um let's see. So this um provision that essentially does not allow the transfer parcel to be subdivided has been in the code since 1987. Um and essentially allow requires soils to be designated specific soils and they have to meet a soils criteria to be designated as open space. Um through this code provision uh change it will require um the open space to stay on that same acreage. It will not be able to be re reconfigured or moved around or changed on the parcel location, but it does allow a property owner to move a lot line essentially to split um the open space parcel in order for another property owner to purchase the open space parcel. Um basically we do not see much transfer development rights and you do not see much uh program of that since the septic bill in 2012. Um so the current uh current code is not really utilized but this is a change in order um which would allow administrative subdivisions. The

soil conservation did um indicate that as long as there's no reconfiguration they do not have any comments. The economic development uh indicated that because it's not really in their purview they were not providing um a comment based on on that. Um the comprehensive plan does speak to the TDR program and also the obviously these open space areas are um cap captured as acres of conservation in the county. Um and essentially the co the comprehensive plan does address analyzing the TDR program um how it exists today. Um so based on I know the fact that these TDR parcels um the where they are the open space is indicated it could then reside on multiple parcels whereas now um they usually reside all in the same parcel um but will allow multiple parcel owners. It will not allow um the property owner that is purchasing that area to change the uses that are permitted on the property. So they're still restricted to all the everything that's encumbered, everything that was in the easement um as the the previous property owner. Um so based on that, uh staff is giving a favorable recommendation specifically um to the fact that reconfiguration is not permitted and that there's continued support for the agric agricultural lands, sorry. Um and also the fact that uh the comprehensive plan, you know, does outline the intent of that staying um preservation lands in the code. So, I know this is a little different one. Uh Jeff did submit this is the one you might recall uh from last year. Um so that one did include reconfiguration, but now it's been amended to not include reconfiguration.

Questions for Miss Jones as in your report? Yep. Any questions? Mr. Thompson.

Yes. U Jeffrey Thompson, 124 North Commerce Street, Centerville, Maryland. I'm here representing one myself on behalf of my family and uh Shirley Schaefer. Uh I last year when we got into this you you were interested in uh the subdivision piece and you asked to see examples and then at the end of the hearing it kind of got you know in a different uhstead. At any rate, I have an example of our personal farm that I want to show you and what we had intended to be able to do that we intend to be able to do at the time we subdivided it probably 25 years ago. I'll wait until everybody has a copy.

You know, is council, do you have a copy of this that's being passed around? No, she doesn't. She does not. Okay. No. you are you okay with that? What um some way I can is there some way I can show it to her short of emailing it to her send it to her. Yeah, I don't know. It's the burden on Let me explain. The burden's on you. I'm just asking counsel if she's fine not having the information that we have in front of us and I'll hold off Mr. Thompson if I can. Yeah, take a picture. Take a picture of it and send it. Is that okay? Yeah.

Just so I can have an understanding of what you're looking at. Jeeoff, can I still get a copy as well? That would also help. Yeah, we need to put the record. You can have pulling out all the bells and whistles of technology today, aren't we? Can I get a copy? Oh, yeah. One didn't make it over here. Got it. I was expecting seven members, so I have a lot of copies. Thank you.

Of course, we're not here about any specific property. It's just I know last year you wanted to see, you know, how it might affect a particular property or a group of properties. And I can describe it from this, but give you other examples using this as to how um being able to subdivide the TDRs in this case makes sense. Um when this farm was originally two farms, the Thompson farm and what is now Barry Waterman's farm, um most of this was Barry Woodman's farm. My father owned it with two other people. We owned the adjoining farm. they wanted to sell. My father did not. So, we needed to do an admin. So, we we wanted to cut the line down the road. I mean, you can see that the road coming in, which is which is a hedge now goes along it. The hedge goes all the way back and then what's to the north of the red line is all TDR open space. All right. And just forformational purposes, both our farm and Mr. Waterman's farm. Everything else on that side of Sparks Mill Road is actually in um Rural Legacy. So, it's all deed. Um we wanted to run this line straight, this red line here straight back. You'll see there's an implement shed. There's a red line going back toward the creek. We wanted that line to be able to go straight back. You'll see what's marked on this is map 21, parcel 31. That is actually owned by Mr. Waterman, not by us. That is not a separate parcel. It's just I created a perpetual easement when we were unable to subdivide it where we wanted to subdivide and add this to us which makes sense. I created a perpetual easement. We we have all the beneficial right and use of that property. It's been that way 25 years. First it was with Lou Schaefer. Now it's Barry Woodman. Everybody is has agreed it's the right thing to do. Mr. Woodman actually appeared at the county commissioner

meeting last year. I didn't ask him. he just happened to be in the room and got up and testified we should really get this straight and we should it shouldn't be a separate parcel what it's shown that way. The reason that makes sense is that's not just a branch. I had I had um Mr. Kirby go ahead and show on a topography scale the base of that branch is at is at level 12. The top of that is at level 50. It's a 27 foot drop 29t drop from top to bottom. the base of what branch? This branch right here. We wanted to cut the line straight. I see now. Thanks. That's all.

Because it made sense to us to do it down the center of this branch because we've we've owned those farms for well over 50 years. None of us would ever dare go into that branch. I mean, the fall, you can imagine it's as high as a two-story building. It's not that wide. And it drops right straight down and it's heavily brushed and treed. So when you're standing to the edge of it, you have no idea it drops off 29 feet, but it does. Um, at any rate, what's being proposed is to be able to subdivide, not reconfigure, not change the restrictions, not change anything attached to the staff report. You also have what's shown as the environmental areas in Queens County. that will not change because the only things changing is ownership. Not the location, um not the restrictions applicable to the underlying land, only who owns it. And really, land use doesn't have to do with who owns it. And the point is whether it's this plat or let's just say instead of that deep ditch, we had a perennial stream running all the way across the farm and it bicted non-ontiguous development or TDRs. You ought to be able to subdivide where it makes common sense to subdivide. You if if we had a perennial stream running here, we would have in all likelihood made that the breaking point because it made common sense to do it. And that's all we're trying to do. We ran it down the road. We're trying to biseect that. And again, this is just an example. It's not about our farm. It could be a hedge running through a perennial stream. It could be ditches. It could be hedro. It could be anything. But when the joining owners are trying to decide where they might draw a line, they want to do it based on common sense, not where where a non-ontiguous or TDR line might be drawn. And that's the only point I'm trying to make. So it's not about this. It's just about let's use common sense when we're cutting a line. And if we're not doing any offense to the to the covenant itself, to the open space, what difference does it make? And you're

going to hear from me also on the on the non-ontiguous. When you think about it, whether it's non-ontiguous or it's open space, it's all just open space, same restrictions, same covenants. If you're not moving it, you're not affecting it, and all you're doing is cutting a line where two different people have to abide by those same covenants and restrictions, what difference does it make. So that that's the point I'm trying to make. Unless you have any questions, questions for the applicant. Yeah. Can you try to describe to me again? It's a little slower. Okay. Folks, just what in layman's terms something short, not so long. What are you trying to accomplish here? What are you trying to accomplish for you and Barry, I assume?

What's Well, us and and I Mrs. Schaefer is also on here. She'd like to subdive her property at Finer Point. So, in her case, what we'd like to do is draw the line along the farm field. So, there's actual when you get out of the woods, have you been out to Schaers? When you get out of the woods, it's always But you you're you're you're digressing. You're moving from the what are you trying to do here? You're trying to get

you're trying to be able to subdivide open space, TDRs, non-contiguous, whatever to allow the division between two adjoining farm properties because that's what you've got in open space. So the two adjoining properties can cut a line where it makes sense to cut the line and not necessarily where the TDR line is or where the non contiguous line is. So I think in in even more uh broad terms, you have a property that has a a TDR that's applied to it. Right now the way the code is written, they can't do anything within that TDR space. What this would allow would be that you could take the DR and essentially divide it in half so that part of it is is now a a new or a recreated lot. As long as the overall um original shape of the TDR doesn't change, a part of it can then be part of lot two instead of the original lot one, but the overall shape of it and size of it can't change. It's just now on a new lot.

Just trying to clean up the ownership and the map and the boundaries. Correct. Right. And if you look, that's all. And if you look there, there's an attachment to the staff report that shows all the environmental properties. None of that changes. Not one iota if anybody subdivides because nothing's changed with regard to the location or the restrictions and staff has no issues. So due to the fact that they can't reconfigure the open space and change essentially the soils that were bound within that easement essentially that um the concern um there's no concern. The fact is that all they can do is change the property owner of the open space is the changes there. So the answer is no. We have no no concern. Yeah, that's what I will say.

Thanks. And the fact that they can't change the uses that are still the uses that are permitted. Any other questions for Mr. Thompson? All right, I will open up the floor for public comment. I have two folks listed. Mr. Falsstead, Mr. Pippen. I'm not worried about it. Yep.

Sorry about that. Jay Falstead, Queen Ants Conservation Association. Uh, good morning, commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I understand what Mr. Thompson is doing. Uh, it makes sense to me, but I still urge caution just as I urged caution last year. And here's why. The NCD, TDR, and and sliding scale techniques all represent an agreement that was done long ago with the land owner and with the county. It is a contract. And so there are encumbrances to those properties which all of the land owners understood when they either either owned the land or sold the land, bought the land, whatever. If you allow this text amendment to go through for Mr. Thompson, then you must allow it all 57 land owners, 57 land owners that are part of the um TDR program to also be eligible for this. And there could be unintended consequences there. Additionally, any neighboring land owner uh that either bought property uh and if they want to challenge any of this, you are unfairly opening the door to force them to have to go to the board of appeals and contest it, pay the thousand fine and raise an objection. And so it just seems to me like you're opening up a can of worms that does not need to be opened. Um I thought Mr. Sylvester's question was a good one. What is the ultimate aim here? The ultimate aim is not clear. And for those reasons, I would urge that you um not approve this text amendment. Finally, I'll just end with this. QACA is now a land owner in Queen Ans County. We're about to become a land owner again for another parcel. if I were to come forward asking for this type of accommodation on encumbered land given the board the composition of this board

I would doubt that you'd give it to me and so I'm just asking for a matter of fairness um these land owners under these programs understanding what the incumbrances were they should not be adjusted and my comment's going to be similar to uh the next one but with that thank you for the time

Joe Pippen Good morning board. My name is Joe Pippen, Queen Ans County Soil Conservation District. Um I handle the easements uh with the county um mouth, Royal Legacy, and the CREP easements. Um the only comment I have is the TDRs are considered uh preserved land. Um we do count them within the county towards our total numbers. Um the key word here is reconfigure as in Mr. uh Thompson's testimony this morning and um Miss uh Stephanie Jones's uh staff report. Um they did mention that there will be no reconfiguring. With that being said, uh I have no issues with this. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other public comment in the gallery? Anyone? No one online hearing none. Seeing none, we'll close public comment. Is there any address one of the comments, Mr. Yeah, on the on the encumbrance, there is no change on the encumbrance. That's the whole point of doing what we're doing. It's still encumbered exactly the way it was encumbered before. Exact parcel, exact encumbrance. There is no change in the encumbrance. So,

a question for you, Stephanie, is that based on Mr. False dad's comments. Does staff have concerns that this could come back for these other parcels that fit the similar description in the county that folks are going to, you know, the precedent that this sets? We've we've talked about this with other applications in the past. Does staff foresee that being burdensome to the county and the staff? So the TDR program um those um the lifted parcels essentially those are all A and CS districts. Um this change in the code would be applicable to the entirety of all the TDR lifting areas. Um so it could be any of those parcels could come in with an administrative subdivision. Um go through the process. Um all deed restrictions would still apply. Uses would not be able to be added or changed. Um they're subject to 181-12 in the code. Um, so I don't, yes, others could come in and apply just like anybody else could, but they could only be um, it would be the in the A and CS where that would occur um, and be the TDR um, where those properties are open space and lifted, those rights were lifted,

but it could be any of them, right? It's it's certainly a possibility as as Mr. Fost suggested. Um, but again, the total number of acres of preserved and encumbered land would not change. Correct. It's a nothing changes except on paper. Correct. On the lot line with respect to the lot could be could become multiple owners. But yes, but at that point in time but all the restrictions are still in place in the same exact incumbrances are still in place. Yes. Perhaps an oversimplification but this will permit fractional ownership of TDR land. Yes. That's all it will do.

Yes. Okay. And to that, Mr. Fals said, I think your point is made about uh fairness and equity across the board, and I think there's precedent now if you were to come back in with your newly described properties. I I would would I would expect and hope that this board would would treat you fairly under under the same um reading and interpretation that we have here. Councelor, are you okay with everything thus far? Yep.

Fantastic. All right. Uh any other public comment? All right. I will close public comment. Uh any other discussion from the panel hearing? None. Seeing none, I will open the floor for a resolution for 02609.

Mr. Vice Chair. Um, having considered the testimony presented and having reviewed the findings outlined in the staff report, be it here by resolved that the planning commission makes a favorable recommendation to amend 181-1-101 and 104 transferable development rights standards to allow a transfer parcel which is designated as open space following the conveyance of devel development rights to be subdivided through the administrative subdivision process to accommodate lot line adjustments but not to be reconfigured or for the creation of a new lot. I'll further find that it is consistent consistent with zoning and subdivision regulations, consistent with the land use article of the annotated code of Maryland, consistent with the comprehensive plan, and I'd like to incorporate findings from the staff report into my motion.

Excellent. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Second. There's a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? Any abstensions? Seeing none, motion carries. Uh, rinse, wash, repeat. County ordinance 2610. Uh, Calvin Gay, Queen's Farm and Land LLC. Miss Jones, you're still on point.

Yep. Um so this uh amend amendment sorry is specific to the non-ontiguous development uh program is to allow non-ontiguous and developed parcels uh which are designated as open space to be subdivided through the administrative subdivision process to accommodate lot line adjustments but not to allow reconfiguration or the creation of new lots. So very similar to the previous one we just heard. Um so this amendment and you see a summary in your uh staff report. We had three applications to this part of the code. Um we worked with the applicants to merge them all to one and that's why the last one was um essentially taken off the agenda. We worked so it'd be much easier to um work through this amendment process.

When you say last one, Stephanie, you're talking about 2611. Got it. Yep. So that's why there's a 12. That's Yes. Sorry. The forest conservation. Yeah. But the one that was uh taken off

the one that's redlined in our staff report is combined. Gotcha. Thank you. Sorry. Um, so what this it it does it allows property owners to increase their does not allow I'm sorry the NCD program allows property owners to lift development rights from a parcel place them on another all within the um A and CS districts and it's specifically for residential development. Um what happens when that development occurs you have your non-ontiguous parcel which essentially is um your open farmland. those rights, development rights are lifted and placed on your developed parcel, um, which is where your cluster subdivision is usually located. So, it's lifting the rights from one, placing it on the other to allow a greater density. What this text amendment will allow, it will allow the open space on both the non-ontiguous parcel and the developed parcel to be reconfigured um, through the administrative process. um all that open space of both the non-ontiguous parcel and the developed parcel are subject to all those uses in 181-12 like I mentioned in the previous um in the TDR um and they're subject to the covenants which are established when the time of the subdivision that's created. Um again this um program is not utilized much more because of the septic bill. Um so we don't see many changes or much u movement with it at all. um soil conservation district did give the same recommendation um as the previous one as long as there's no reconfiguration they have no comments to offer um and the same with the EDC um they did not provide comment because they don't see it in their purview uh the non-ontiguous development program uh basically is a method of conservation in the county and you'll see it on the conservation lands map um but basically what this um amendment does it does the same for the non-ontiguous program but both for where you're lifting and placing the development rights. Um essentially the same process though through administrative subdivision changing the

land owner um and allowing multiple owners of the same open space um to that um basic staff is giving a favorable recommendation because it is basically keeping those a open space acres and soils in the same exact configuration. It's not moving them. Um and that deed con the deed restriction is still applicable to any new land owners. So with that, um, favorable recommendation. Any questions for Miss Jones? Mr. Thompson?

Just just one. Yeah. Um, as she's pointed out, this was sort of a reconciliation. I filed an amendment on the same section on behalf of Mrs. Schaefer. Uh, Bernie Parker here filed one on behalf of the Goodman's. Uh, and then I filed another on behalf of, uh, Cal Gray, uh, addressing both the sending and receiving parcel non-ontiguous. originally Chaffers was sending Burries was receiving and so we got together with with really you know Stephanie and and Amy and came up with what what I've referred to as a reconciliation language for three text amendments and that's what's really before you um which we would like you to consider rather than my original or any of the other originals. Okay, that said um I guess I should Jeffrey E. Thompson, 124 North Commerce Street, Centerville, Maryland, representing Cal Gray and Queen Anne uh Land and um Farm and Land. I've asked Bur to join me because it was a reconciliation. It was a group effort.

I'll introduce myself. I'm Bur Parker from Parker Counts in Easton and I represent Jamie and Caraki Goodman and is one of my law partners and they reside at uh on Dean Road. Their home is adjacent to the Meadows Edge subdivision, phase two of that. And uh their property adjoins the 150 acres of open space on the developed parcel of that subdivision. They wish to acquire approximately 35 acres of that open space to expand the boundaries of their home property. Currently, the way the ordinance is construed, any reconfiguration of the open space parcel had to occur during phase two of the development process for the subdivision. uh that passed and without this amendment, we can't adjust the Goodman's property line through an administrative subdivision. And that's what administrative subdivisions are limited for is adjustments to property lines between adjoining property owners. Those subdivision applications go through multi- agency review. It won't disturb in any way the deed restrictions that were recorded on the open space. This amendment will just allow for the Goodmans to move their property line into that open space with the same protections of those deed restrictions and allow them to add 34 acres of protection and control under their ownership. They've had some issues with some poaching in the of hunters in the

woods behind their property. They want to acquire that land so they could uh control it. It will not affect in any way the protection of that open space acreage. Um the open space deed of easement specifically says those restrictions will be binding upon successive owners of the open space and they certainly intend to adhere and abide by that. So this amendment is necessary to allow these lot line adjustments. We're not creating new lots. We're only moving a property line after phase two, which was interpreted as being the only time you could do this. So, that's the purpose of the amendment. I think it's really it's best said by Stephanie and and really both of the staff reports on the two amendments that that the one you heard before and the one you're hearing now. It just says in the spirit of continued support of conservation of agricultural lands with the continued application of deed restrictions which is what we have not allowing the creation of any new lots which this will do not allowing reconfiguration. It goes on to say this proposal offers flexibility with which is consistent with the intention of the code and that's what within the flexibility is in what I was describing earlier about whether it's a perennial stream or it's a ditch or it's just a common boundary it's a road it's just a way to be able to subdivide um recognizing that all those restrictions and the land encumbered remains the same all we're changing is ownership that's really that's really what this is all about I have another example but it's too large I don't want to try to send it to your council. Um but in that case, Mrs. Schaefer, she actually on her property has both a lot of TDR and a and about 40 acres of um non-ontiguous. So, she needs both. And on the non-ontiguous, it's located in three

different locations on the farm, but because you have to have 40 acres, we'd have to keep them all together. The configuration of the way I have to sub would have to subdivide that is is just ridiculous. I mean, you you ought to be able to cut the line where it makes sense. In her case, what we're trying to do is preserve all the farm field where her home is and um where her granddaughter is likely to put a equestrian center. It's just we want to keep all the the agricultural land on that property selling transferring to the adjoining property owner about 300 acres of other TDR non-ontiguous. It just is the place that made common sense to cut the line. So, it's no different than the example on our farm with the TDRs. It's all the same. When you look at Schaffers, for example, you've got some that's shaded, that's TDR, and a lot of it that's that's hash that's that's um non-ontiguous. Bottom line is all of that subject to the same set of open space covenants. Shouldn't differentiate between the two. It makes sense to treat them all the same, but we had to do two amendments because they're two different TDRs in the in the critical area. Upland is further noticulous. So that's why we had to do it twice.

Questions for the applicant? Miss Mock, thanks to technology and cooperation in the audience with surveyor Jack Kirby, we were able to get all of the exhibits that uh Jeff Thompson just referenced to Lindsay and I was able to forward those to uh John Shelton and Stephanie for the record. So Jeff, if you would like to share those exhibits, if you would like to share, sorry, share those exhibits into

I only did right. I only did this because last year you you wanted to see examples and I wasn't going to show up here today without examples. No, you're you're clear to share. Thank you. Your techie director.

While this is being passed around, any questions for staff or Mr. Thompson and co-consel? have a comment which is you know in acknowledgement of Mr. Falsstead's observations. This does make me squirm a little bit in that I I really can't project out what the long-term ramifications of it might be of this change. I can't see that there's any reason not to approve it uh because none of the incumbrances or restrictions change. Uh it's just sort of this faintly disquing feeling that of unintended consequences and I just offer that as an observation and thank you for your indulgence.

Recognition of your comment, what you're going to have is when you do the admin, an admin subdivision is between two adjoining parcels. You're going to have the admin. It's going to show all the restrictions on both parcels. There's going to be a note on there referencing the actual um deed of open space easement sending you there in the land records. shouldn't be any question. Um, I told staff we can actually require the the deed to contain, you know, a statement when the transfer is made that it is subject to those covenants. So, nobody can claim they don't know. It's it's it's all it's all of record. Um, the Schaefer plat, if you have it open, um, this parcel is something over 400 acres, proposing to sell all but about 80 acres of it. The uh shaded area represents the shaded speckled area represents TDRs. Uh the hashed represents um non-ontiguous sending parcel non-ontiguous development. So all of this area is TDR. This area here, this little area here,

could you sit down and speak into the mic for Thank you. I was not on mic myself, so I'm guilty.

Oh, okay. Guilty. So, you've got the larger 33.67 1acre non-ontiguous. Non-ontiguous is required to be a minimum of 40. So, we have this little uh pieshaped piece down at the intersection, the apex of, of course, Connect Road and Sunset Drive. Then, we've got a sliver going up the left side of the private drive going into the Schaffefer property. And then we got a piece on the other side of that drive. In order to subdivide that, it's a mess because staff considers that 40 acres to be one parcel even though they aren't contiguous. So you sometime have to fish up and pick up all those pieces and keep them on on the one piece. And you can see as you as you get up to that one that's 3.076 076 acres. Adding that piece out in the middle of nowhere to the pilot, it just wouldn't make any sense. You'd also have to um Mrs. Schaefer would have to give up a part of a roadway because you're crossing that private road to get to it. It just doesn't work. Um the real intent here, if you look at what there's a line going across the TDR land that says proposed property line, you can see the wood line. the intent, what you'd really like to do is retain all of that open field as as one parcel, which makes sense for farming operations and the like because why have this 14 or 15 acre piece owned on the other side of the woods in the ber farm? It just it makes sense. It's just a common sense place for the property to be subdivided and that's what we're trying to accomplish. It's that flexibility that Stephanie referred to that that we'd like to see so that adjoining property owners can make sense out of subdivision. And like I say, it it could be a woods line, it could be a perennial stream. It's it's say this is just an example. Um but again, all these covenants that

the TDR underlying land, underlying restrictions, everything remains the same. I don't see there's anything to be fearful of because everybody's going to be on notice of it on the on the on the plat. They're notice of it on this plat they'll have the notice when the new admin plat is done. If I'd add that the same would be true in the case of the Goodman's desire to buy 34 acres of 150 acre open space piece that's covered by a deed recorded amendment of open space easement. When that plat is submitted under the administrative plat process, it will no doubt shade the 34 acres and have a note that it's subject to a particular recorded deed of easement. And so everybody's on notice. The land area isn't changing that's being protected. It will remain protected. All we're doing is changing the ownership of that of that dirt, so to speak. Any further questions of the applicant or staff? All right. Is there any public comment? I've got two listed. Mr. Falstead. Good morning, commissioners. Jay Falsstead, Queen Ans Conservation Association. As I noted, some of my comments here are going to reflect uh some of my earlier ones. Um I do want to acknowledge Mr. Thompson's emphasis on conservation. I get it. I I as I said earlier, I understand everything he's wanting to do. However, on this particular one, there are 8,000 acres in Queen Ans County enrolled in the non-ontiguous development program spread among 124 different land owners. Once again, if you open it up for him, you're

also going to have to open it up for everyone else. I've been doing this job long enough to know that sometimes the unintended consequences take years to ultimately show up. But I assure you, there's going to be an unintended consequence somewhere along the line here, and we're all going to come back to this point and say, you know, I wish we hadn't done that. So, I just urge caution. Uh I know I'm probably on the losing end of this argument, but uh still appreciate the opportunity to comment. Thank you, Mr. Fstead. While you're there, if you don't mind, do you have any particular foresight? I mean, I'm asking you to predict, but what based on your your your suggestion that there are unintended consequ

anticipating that that question might come up. I have racked my brain on what those anticipated those unanticipated consequences might be. I confess I haven't come up with anything, but um it's not the first time that I've seen this where everything looks good on the first run, second run, third run, and it's years later when something else comes up. Uh I just wanted to post my objection at this stage of of the of the record. Understood and appreciated. Thank you. I'd like to make a comment.

So, in light of Mr. Paul Stad's comments, you know, it seems to me that that he's applying the precautionary principle to the changing the lines of preserved land. Uh that we can't see the the future consequences of today's actions. I might also add that you could apply that same principle to preserving farms forever and not without knowing what the future needs of the county will be. That's all I'm going to say. You know, there's there's consequences everywhere. We we will all be guilty of myopia at some point. Um to me, I think they've Mr. Thompson, I'm sorry, I can't remember your name. Uh they've done Yes. I They've done a pretty good job presenting their case, I think.

Fair enough. Any other questions of the applicant? Mr. Pippen, I have you down for comment as well. Again, Joe Pippen, Queen Anance County Soil Conservation District. My comments reflect the same as uh ordinance 2609. Um I do understand respectfully what Mr. F stat is saying, but again, as if there is no reconfiguration, I I don't have a problem with this. Thank you. Thank you.

Just add one thing. I I do a great deal of work for Eastern Shoreland Consery. I also work with property owners that have mal easements on their property as well as uh Maryland Environmental Trust easements. All of those easements allow for changes of ownership of less than 100% of the protected land. You need to apply for that pro uh permission to do it. But that's what our administrative plat process or subdivision process is going to do here. Currently, you have a prohibition that you could never change ownership of less than 100% of the land area. There's no other easement major easement uh holder in the state of Maryland. As I say, Eastern Shoreline Conservancy, MAL, ME, uh, Maryland Environmental Trust, all allow for this through a review process. That's all we're asking is to have the same opportunity.

Anything else? Any other public comment? Anybody online, Bruce? No.

All right. Seeing hearing none, I will close public comment and open the floor up for uh a motion. Uh, Mr. Vice Chair, having considered the testimony presented and having reviewed the findings outlined in the staff report, be it hereby resolved that the planning commission make a favorable recommendation to the board of county commissioners regarding citizens sponsored text amendment 26-10 to amend 181-98 non-ont non-ontiguous development standards to allow a non-ontiguous and development parcel which is designated as open space to be subdivided subdivided through the administrative subdivision process to accommodate lot line adjustments but not to be reconfigured or for the creation of a new lot. Uh we further find that the um the text amendment is consistent with zoning and subdivision regulations, consistent with the land use article of the annotated code of Maryland, and consistent with the comprehensive plan. And I would like to incorporate the findings of the staff report into my motion.

There's been a motion. Is there a second? Second. There's a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? I. Any opposed? And no uh abstensions. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you very All right, moving down the line. Everybody's good. We're going to finish this up with last one. Uh, planning commission sponsored tax amendment county ordinance 26-12 Forest Conservation Act. Mr. Summers, Ms. Gray, dynamic duo. Yes, indeed. We're tag teaming once again. Out the house, didn't we? Yeah.

Right. All right. Up the rear. The last one.

Okay. Good. Still morning. Good morning again, Chairman, Vice Chairman Lee, and planning commissioners. uh Marielle and Gray, senior planner. I'm uh presenting co-presenting with uh community planner Doug uh Summers. Uh that even though um the uh documentation is longer than last time, our presentation will be shorter. Um so by uh the uh to start this off the uh Senate Bill 279 uh was a precursor and impetus uh for the current legislation I'll get to in a minute uh that uh required a study to be done uh by the Hugh Center uh for a statewide assessment of the forest canopy. And uh the that assessment uh indicated that while the pace of the net forest loss has slowed, it did confirm that the forest conservation measures that are currently in place um are successful in reducing forest loss. But then it also indicated that uh due to the hugh study that um uh new new excuse me new legislation uh Senate Bill uh 526 uh which is passed in 2023 and H bill 1511 which was passed in 2024. Um the main objectives of this legislation uh was a state level policy shift from no net forest loss to net forest gain. It also uh strengthened uh the uh objective is to strengthen the forest conservation act uh which is what we're here today as well as other policy goals of implementing various programs to support sustainable forest management and growth. Uh where we are today uh we had a work session last month uh where we went over the highlights of the proposed legislation proposed changes to

our forest conservation act. Um we also have drafted the replacement code language um which we are presenting uh today. Uh we presented that language to our DNR staff uh which they reviewed and got back to us in a timely manner which we're we're very thankful for. Um and they um indicated that uh this that language is consistent with the changes uh the the statutory changes and that they would uh approve that language. So, I'll pass it over to Doug to highlight the the changes.

Doug Summers, county planner. Um, just to highlight some of the more significant changes. Um, there were exemption language updates, some reforestation mitigation rate requirements that were changed, riparian buffer restoration um, updates. Actually, that's new language. There were changes to prior priority forest areas. uh updates to notification requirements and uh fee and loo updates. I can provide details on what we kind of discussed last month at the work study. Um most of it's up here on this slide. Um following a recommendation, um the next steps include um proceeding to county commissioner review and consideration and also outreach efforts to citizens, developers, surveyors. Um I think we're planning a podcast um with QACV to get some of the information out um possibly some memos and such. So that's where we are now. branching out into new

new platforms. Huh? Any questions of staff? Just if the public review process showed up some comments or would indicate that modifications needed to be made, would it come back to us at this point or are we passing it on? Um, the recommendation could go either way. It's just the state's going to require implementation of this language. Um July 1st is a hard deadline. So it's kind of where we are. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sylvester. Is there anything in this thing that's uh going to prevent farmers from timbering their land?

No, it doesn't really make much changes to commercial timber harvest. Um you'll still have like the declaration of intent and stuff where you don't develop for that fiveyear period and such. So, all right. Anything else of staff questions, comments, or otherwise? Uh, public comment. Seeing no public. Um, nobody online. Bruce. Nope. All right. I'll close public comment and open the floor for a motion.

Mr. Chairman, having considered testimony presented and having reviewed the findings outlined in the staff report, be it hereby resolved that the planning commission makes a favorable recommendation to the board of county commissioners regarding draft county ordinance number 26-12 to repeal and replace section 18.2 two Forest Conservation Act based on Senate Bill 526 and House Bill 1511 as found in the staff report dated April 9th, 2026 as part of the motion. Hereby submitted for a vote. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Second.

Motion and second. Any further discussion? I have one question that I neglected to ask at the moment, so my apologies, but there's a note in the staff report on the bottom of page two about the fee and l rates and l rates. Yes. Can we get an update on it's you know the in the first sentence of that county commissioners must approve an increased fee and l rate and violation penalty rate. Is there an update on how that process is to be carried out or when and if is that before the July deadline June deadline that would be so it's not that they must approve the increase in fee it's they are the body that has the authority to approve that change in rate.

So it's like the planning commission awkwardly worded. Yes. So the planning commission can't approve any increase to a fee. It has to be the body of the the county commissioners. But I understand your concern with the way that it is worded. Yes. But the your the staff recommendation will carry forward to to them as written in the staff report. Understood. Y and we'll change that language a little bit. Yeah. I just wanted to be clear on that. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. There's a motion and a second. Further discussion. Seeing none. Hearing none. Uh there's been a motion. Uh there's been a second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed?

No abstensions. Motion carries. Thank you so much for your time. And a couple of housekeeping things before we uh check out for lunch is um I've been told by our esteemed clerk that the next three meetings next three months May, June, July uh con convenings of this body will be at the Liberty building commissioner meeting office uh based on elections. So May, June, July, planning commission meetings will be held in the Liberty Room in the building, excuse me, the county commissioner's room in the Liberty building. Um that is all I had. Anything else from staff or from council for as an update? Let me hit the right button for me.

Thank you. Appreciate your uh long distance uh meeting attendance, counselor. Absolutely.

So, I don't want to drag this meeting out any longer. It's been a long meeting and I appreciate everyone's uh close attention to all of the text amendments that you've reviewed. I did want to touch upon the nebulous idea of unintended consequences because I know that that's an area of concern and from my perspective I think that the fear of an unintended consequence occurs once there is one change that appears to be dimminimous that change in to any provision in the code often becomes comes the grounds for a larger change. So I can see that there because that th this board and staff and other agencies see that there's uh no harm in the proposals that we saw today as relates to those encumbered acres. I can see that in future and it would be incumbent upon staff at the time and uh uh the planning commission and our elected officials to evaluate fairly any uh additional changes. But I think that the fear of an un unintended consequence might be that there then might be some request to change that to change the reconfiguration language to change the locations of those easement areas. So, it's a a step down a road that has some safety nets around it because of all of our practices of due diligence and professionalism. But I I believe that is if I am reading

the room and reading the concerns that is what how I see an unintended consequence and that as I said it's incumbent upon us not to let that happen. appreciate it. And I I'll take that one step further uh in that I believe and I don't want to speak for the board, but I think again sort of because of of what we do is that you are one of our safety nets, right? you all, you and your staff, uh, Amy, are much deeply, much more deeply involved with, um, code and hopefully, and I think, um, sort of presumptively, we think or and expect you to be thinking down that unintended consequences um, pathway as part of the process to get to this point. um and that those would be brought up in a staff report or a stack if there are if those unintended consequences are indeed uh materialized or or recognized in you know far horizon events. So appreciate that and we have full faith and confidence in your efforts and to get us to this point but uh nobody's crystal ball is that clear uh because if it was I don't think much many of us would be sitting here we'd be sitting somewhere else. Um, so appreciate uh everyone's attendance and and uh professionalism uh today and moving forward and look forward to seeing you all in May in Liberty Building. Anything else to add, John? Did I miss

Bruce? You're good online. I just want to thank the staff for everything you do all the time, but today in particular, tackling and explaining some fairly complex issues. I thought just thank you so much for I know there's a lot of work that goes into that. I'd second that. Yeah. All right. That being said, the motions have been made to move