Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everyone. It's July 2nd, and we're starting our planning board meeting. All board members are here, including Commissioner Petterm, who's virtual this morning, so welcome. Our first item this morning is adoption of resolutions. We have four. The first two, Commissioner Bartley, you cannot vote on, but you can vote on the last two, okay? So the first two are Fraley Farm East Preliminary Plan and Fraley Farm East Forest Conservation Plan to have a motion for approval of these two resolutions. I'll move to approve the resolutions. Second. All in favor? Aye.

Aye.

Aye. So it's 4-0-1. And the last two are Elmer School Farm Administrative Subdivision and Elmer School Farm Forest Conservation Plan. So I have a motion for approval of these two resolutions. Yeah, I'll move to approve the resolutions. Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Mr. Bartley, you can vote on these two.

Aye.

Okay, great. Five-zero. And next, we have Minutes of June 4th. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes of June 4th?

I move to approve the June 4th minutes. Second. All in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye. The ayes have it.

Mr. Bartley, you have an aye.

Okay, all right. Thank you. 5-0. And next, we have the item 1C is the Montgomery Parks Foundation Board of Trustees new nominee, where staff is recommending approval of Wayne Jacobs to this position. Do I have a motion for approval of Wayne Jacobs as the new board trustee?

I'll move to approve him as a new board trustee. I'll second. All in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye. The ayes have it, 5-0. And now we're on record plats. We have one this morning. It's subdivision plat 222. 20260570, Centro Square, where staff is recommending approval. I have a motion for approval of this record plat.

Move to approve the record plat.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. The ayes have it, 5-0. And next, we are on regulatory extensions. We have two this morning. The first is Edmonton Health Care Shady Grove Medical Center, regulatory extension request number one. And the second is Miles Coppola Phase 2 Site Plan and Final Forest Conservation Plan Extension Request Number 2. Do I have a motion for approval of these two extensions? Move to approve both the extension requests. Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. The ayes have it, 5-0. And next we have our roundtable discussion by Planning Director Jason Sartori. Welcome, Mr. Sartori.

Thank you, Chair. For the record, Jason Sartori, Planning Director, and welcome to fiscal year 27. Things are really heating up here, literally. I hope you all are staying cool. I'll refrain from any more corny jokes. This is going to be a relatively brief roundtable discussion this morning. although you're more than welcome to ask as many questions and make it as long as you'd like. So we'll just begin with a quick look ahead as I typically do. I'll talk a little bit about the chair of the full commission and then give some brief updates on zoning tax amendments that you have seen and that are now going to the council and then end with the usual personnel updates. So tomorrow the commission is closed. We are celebrating Independence Day. Our offices are closed and we are looking towards next week where we have the second installment of the board's climate speaker series with a panel organized by Montgomery Parks called Where Farming Meets the Grid, Agrivoltaics in Action. The session will explore how renewable energy and agriculture can be co-located to support working landscapes, land stewardship, and long-term resilience. And as you'll recall, agrivoltaics are a topic that has come up frequently in your discussions about solar projects in your review of mandatory referrals. And the state's Public Services Commission, in reviewing those projects, has actually been very supportive of the board's recommendations with regard requiring the incorporation of agrivoltaics in those projects. So I think the board and other stakeholders will be quite interested in this panel discussion, which is free and open to the public. The event is next Thursday evening after the board's meeting with a light reception starting at 5 and the panel discussion starting at 5.30. So I encourage folks who are tuning in this morning to consider coming out to our Wheaton headquarters to see that panel discussion. And I also wanted to highlight on July 13th, our Deputy Director, Bridget Breuer, will be joining Bhavna Sivasubramanian from our Design, Placemaking, and Policy Division and James Lee from our Research and Strategic Projects Division in briefing the PHP Committee on our Community Trends work. So that is great for us to be able to get that out there in front of a wider audience. And then our last planning board meeting before the August recess is gonna be a long one. We typically see a lot of activity in that last board meeting. It's gonna be on July 30th. And then we are looking forward to our MACO Summer Conference participation in August. That is the Maryland Association of Counties Summer Conference. So this is not news to any of our board members, our commissioners, but maybe to some of our staff and to community members who are tuning in this morning. The idea that the full commission has a policy that rotates the position of commission chair on an annual basis effective July 1st between the two chairs of the individual planning boards in Montgomery and Prince George's County. So as a result, Chair Harris is now chair of the full commission for the next 12 months. And I invite all of you and those watching to read a recent blog post and view a video that we've prepared of Chair Harris explaining his role as Commission Chair and the significance of this coming year in the history of the Commission as we begin to celebrate our 100th anniversary. So I wanted to just highlight this and to thank Chair Harris for your continued unwavering leadership here in Montgomery County, but also Commission-wide, so thank you. Thank you. And so now some quick updates on our zoning tax amendments. You've seen a lot of these come through in the past few months and the council's, now that the budget season is over and the primary is over, the council is ready to bring these through the PHP committee work sessions and to consider the comments that the board has provided. And so I just wanted to give you a quick update and a reminder of these. So on July 13th, in a couple of weeks, the committee, it's a Monday, the committee is going to be taking up two ZTAs. The first one, ZTA 2608, on non-conforming uses. You'll recall that this is the ZTA that allows the reinstatement of a non-conforming use that has been abandoned for less than five years if it's approved to be reinstated by the hearing examiner. The board had recommended that the non-conforming use for which an applicant is seeking the reinstatement has to be the last use, last approved use on that site. and that the reinstated use has to conform to all the same standards and rules that apply to an existing active non-conforming use, including not being allowed to expand. The other ZTA that the committee will be taking up that day is a modification to one of our expedited approval plan uses. And that is currently the Signature Business Headquarters. It's going to be renamed under the ZTA the Job Creation Project. And this expands the eligibility requirements for that expedited approval plan. by allowing it in more zones and lowering the employee threshold from 20,000 employees to 200. So quite a change there. But at the same time, it also targets businesses and strategic industry sectors that are identified through the county's economic development strategic plan. The board's recommendations here were to tighten the eligibility up a bit to ensure that it is both in the desired target industry and brings 200 jobs, not or. So we didn't want this to be, we're already kind of feeling the pressure of more and more of these expedited approval plans, which is great in many ways, but also it's a pretty big burden on us. had that or in there, I think we'd see many more projects qualifying for this to the point where it would just become kind of the standard plan, not an expedited plan. The following week on July 22nd, that's a Wednesday, the PHB committee is going to be taking up the data center ZTA. So this is the ZTA that adds data center to the zoning code as a new use that would be subject to zoning requirements. You'll recall that right now the term data center does not appear in our zoning code. So this ZTA would specify that data centers may be located in the county's industrial zones as conditional uses and then establishes additional development standards related to setbacks, noise, and environmental impacts. The board had recommended differentiating data centers by size and use intensity, which could allow for expansion for certain lesser or less intensive types of data centers beyond the industrial zones. And you also provided comments related to energy consumption, heat mitigation, and water usage. And so this will be taken up on July 22nd. Then the following week, back on a Monday, July 27th, there will be two ZTAs that the committee will take up that are ZTAs that we had recommended introduction for. So the first is related to accessory dwelling units. This would amend the use standards for attached and detached accessory dwelling units to be consistent with state law. So there were changes that state that we needed to reflect in our zoning code and that includes provisions related to minimum size requirements density calculations setback requirements and off street parking requirements. And the second is similar. It relates to solar collection systems. This would amend the use standards for solar collection systems, separating rooftop-mounted and ground-mounted solar collection systems, and would also amend the definition and use standards to be consistent with new requirements in state law. And the last thing I would highlight that's not on the screen is, you'll recall, a subdivision regulation amendment, SRA 2601. This is regarding the connectivity of streets. You all took a position on that to not support it. That is not going to the committee this summer before the council's August recess. It'll be going sometime after their recess. So I'll pause there just in case there were any questions. But our team is prepared and ready to go to the council on these. All right. So then I'll conclude with some personnel updates. I want to start by congratulating our finance intern, Isabella Spanagle. July 9th is her last day with us. Isabella has been with us since September 2025. She's helped the management services division with running budget reports, salary projections, tracking expenditures, updating monthly reports, and drafting journal entries for review. She graduated this spring with a degree in accounting from the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland in College Park. and we wish her all the best at her next career endeavor, which is going to be with the accounting firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers. Thank you for a job well done. We really appreciate it. She's made a substantial impact on our budget processes, and I know that Ralph Sherrill has really appreciated having her with us. And then lastly, I want to close with a very special personnel update. This week, Barbara O'Donnell retired from the commission after 42 years. Barbara started as an administrative typist on September 10, 1984. And I've learned through the commission's archivist that she has served under 44 different planning board members. And I'll note when she started here, and I don't know if she's listening because she's actually already retired. But when she started here, I was in the fourth grade. Ronald Reagan was president in his first term. And the number one song in the country was Tina Turner's What's Love Got to Do With It. I just want to say to Barbara, we love everything about her decades of dedication and service to the Bi-County region, and I just ask that you join me in congratulating her amazing longevity and wishing her all the best in her much-deserved retirement. We really appreciate everything she's done for us.

Jason, can I just say something here? Yeah. Barbara, I know her. And, you know, we did actually, if you guys don't know, she is a motorcycle rider and she has a few motorcycles and we ride together for a few times. And I work very closely with her. I heard she was retiring. I can't believe that. She is really an icon for the commission and someone for the years moving up like the way she did. And she was very important because I remember that when I was at the parks department, any kind of, you know, IT tools that we need, she was there to provide and make sure that it works well for us, her knowledge. of hard to get on different kind of, you know, PCs, iPhone, or everything, you name it. And anytime it was an issue, she was there right away to help you. They truly miss her. Good for her. I wish her the best thing in her life. But truly, having someone like that, It's a big asset for any workplace, and I wish her the best. Barbara, we miss you.

Yeah, I would say Barb's reach really went well beyond the IT elements of her job. And in part because of how long she was here, I had a knowledge and understanding of our history and what we had done. And in particular, as we were working through some of our reorg in the planning department, which is now we're one full year into that, She was a valuable resource to us in talking through how things used to be and what worked well and what didn't work well. Her understanding of the work that we did here was really broad, and we really appreciate it.

Yeah, you can find anywhere, anymore, someone stayed with the company for such a long time, and that is really important. in knowledge and asset. I truly understand what you're talking about. 40 years of knowledge and knowing that the commission has changed so much. And that knowledge by itself is very valuable.

Yeah. So she worked in your department as part of, through CAS, correct? That she supported?

She was in the planning department. I think she also worked for Parks at one point, didn't she? Yeah. So she's worked on both sides of the Montgomery side.

Great, great. But really, thank you for bringing her to our attention. Yeah, it is four decades more of service to the commission. It's just really wonderful, this continuity, the history. And we wish Barbara a happy retirement. Yeah, thank you for being here so long. Thank you.

Yeah, all done.

All done. Oh, yes. Well, thank you, as always, Director Sartori, for your very broad-based reports, you know, especially around the personnel. And, you know, I wish, you know, continue your great work, your team's great work, and we appreciate what you do. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Yep. Thank you. So we're going to take a two-minute break and start with our next item, the Serpentine Barrens Conservation Park, where staff is recommending approval. Thank you. Good morning and welcome back. We're on item number six, the Serpentine Barrens Conservation Park, where staff is recommending approval. And this morning we have Brenda Sandberg, the Parks Department, leading this discussion. Thank you.

Good morning, members of the board. I have with me Ann Fothergill, also from the Real Estate Management Group. And we have Bill Hamilton, who is the head of the Natural Resources Stewardship section within PPSD. in case you should have any questions for Bill. As you already mentioned, we're here to talk about the Serpentine Barrens Conservation Park and an addition that we're recommending that we make through acquisition. You can see the location here of the conservation park. It is in the sort of southwest area of the county in the Potomac Travilla area. Quick summary, this is the only remaining undisturbed forest on the serpentinite outcrop that is quite prominent in this sliver of the county. You can see in this graphic that the entire park is right next to the large rock quarry that mines the serpentinite rock that's been there for a long time. We're proposing the addition of 27.5 acres to the conservation park. The benefits are that it will preserve this unfragmented forest in a globally rare ecosystem. It will allow us to have better parking access to a significant conservation park. And there's the potential for future trail connectivity to other communities and other areas in the future as well. The property is owned by Amrise Mid-Atlantic, which is the company that actually owns the quarry and operates the quarry. It's 27 and a half acres in three different parcels, the area outlined in red here. You can see it's entirely forested, and it is between the Serpentine Barrens Conservation Park and Potomac Riding Lane in the northwest side. A little bit of background on the Serpentine Barrens Conservation Park. Serpentine Barrens Harbor Forest, it's a globally and statewide rare community. There's not a lot of serpentinite rock that's right at the surface anywhere on the planet, and that makes it quite rare. It's designated as an important resource by the state of Maryland through multiple programs, the Natural Heritage Program and the State Wildlife Action Plan. The overall serpentine barrens forest in this area of Montgomery County. It's the second largest bit of serpentinite outcrop in the state of Maryland. Legacy Open Space Functional Master Plan back in 2001 designated the serpentine barrens ecosystem as the most significant terrestrial community we have in the county and worthy of preservation. There's about 350 acres of serpentine habitat that's been conserved in the different units of the Serpentine Barrens Conservation Park to date, and this will add another 27 key acres. The natural resources that we found on the Amarize property specifically, and reflects the biodiversity that we see in the rest of the Serpentine Barrens Park. It's designated best natural area within the park system. It's mature hardwood forest, despite the trees sometimes being quite small, as you can see photo here with a pen on it. There's also a robust aquatic system within this particular parcel. There are streams, wetlands, floodplains, which make it an even more unique type of serpentine barrens habitat. There's a wide variety of habitat that our staff in various units found walking this property. reptiles, insects, bats. The lower left corner is a photo of an earth snake, which is a very small snake that normally lives underground and one was found. To reiterate the benefits to the park, there's protection of this additional acres of the rare forest wetlands and streams, benefit of new park trail access with a better parking location. Piney Meeting House Road is very fast, very curvy, and to put some parking there would probably require taking down of some trees, which we want to avoid. We think along Potomac Riding Lane, there's a way to provide parking for a trailhead without disturbing the forest significantly. Also, future trail connections between the north unit of the conservation park, adjacent communities, and potential future recreation areas that might happen At some point in the future, when the quarry closes and should it become a water storage area for our drinking water supply, there might also be a lot of recreation surrounding that use. Again, that's long-term future. By adding this to the park system, it preserves our ability to use prescribed fire as a management tool for natural resource management. There's big setbacks for being able to use that tool, and by adding this to the park, it preserves that buffer so we can use that tool where necessary in the park to protect the ecosystem. So at this time, we request the Planning Board approve Resolution 26-50 for the acquisition of Parcels 877 and 903 and part of Outlaw A as an addition to the Serpentine Barrens Conservation Park, negotiated price of $1.3 million, funded from the Legacy Open Space PDF. And we're here to answer any questions, should you have any.

Well, thank you so much for your presentation. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. It seems like a great acquisition for the reasons you talked about. It provides, you know, it helps to preserve this ecosystem. It's unique. It's prioritized in the 2001 Legacy Open States Functional Plan, and it for conservation, and also it provides some public access for parking to this area so people can come and enjoy this. So I'm very supportive of this request. Any other questions or comments from our other board members? Hearing or seeing none, is there a motion to approve this resolution 2026-50 for the acquisition of parcels 877 and 903, and part of Outlaw A for the purchase of this property, and also for a negotiated purchase price of $1.3 million, funded from the legacy open space PDF. I will move to approve the resolution for the acquisition of the parcels. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. The ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you, and congratulations. Thank you. And we'll just take a two-minute break, and then we'll go to our last item of the day, the Etchison Solar Mandatory Referral and the Forest Conservation Plan, where staff is recommending approval of the mandatory referral and transmitting comments to the applicant and the state of Maryland, and for approving the Forest Conservation Plan. Thank you.

Good morning.

We're on our last item of the morning. It's Etcheson's Solar Mandatory Referral and Forest Conservation Plan. And we have Mark Beal with the planning department leading this discussion. Welcome, Mr. Beal.

Good morning, thank you. For the record, Mark Beal, Up County Planner. Today I bring you the mandatory referral for Etchison Solar with a mandatory referral number of MR2026015 and a final force conservation number of F20260530. So staff will be making a recommendation of approval with recommendations to be transmitted to the applicant and DPS, as well as staff is recommending approval with conditions of the final forest conservation plan of the board. We had one recommendation needed to be tweaked a little bit. I messed it up a little bit, so this is just a correction. Basically, there's enough right away, and at a future date, someone will do a side path, or bikeable shoulder, sorry. So all noticing requirements have been met and on-site signage has been installed. As far as community correspondence, early on we received one email from the Patuxent Watershed Protective Association. They had some questions about the plans which the engineer addressed as well as the existing use on-site. The engineer did address the plans and staff referred the existing on-site use to DPS zoning enforcement. So earlier this week, or yesterday I guess it was, we received another email, from the Patuxent watershed asking about the existing use, which I told them that DPS is dealing with that, and then about the sheep, they had some concerns. The applicant replied back telling me that they're gonna have on-site water from an on-site well. There will be a heated structure for the sheep to be housed in in the wintertime, along with heat to make sure that the water doesn't freeze, and they will have supplemental food as needed.

I have to comment on this. As someone who grew up raising sheep, I do just want to make the comment that they look for places to die. So no matter what you do, the sheep will manage to off themselves. I laughed at the welfare of the sheep in that letter. Not that it's not a concern, I'm just saying that Sheep are really inventive at finding ways to die. So bless the sheep. I really appreciate that. But 18 years of raising sheep and goats in my childhood.

Thank you. So the property is located at 7100 Damascus Road. It is outlined here in the red dashed line on the southwest side of the intersection of Damascus Road and Laytonsville Road and is located in the 2006 Damascus Master Plan. So you can see the existing site here, again outlined in the red dashed line. It's a little over 31 acres. It's zoned AR, agricultural reserve. There is an existing contractor yard, storage yard or whatever that the Patuxent folks pointed out. There's an existing access, for the gas right-of-way, right around between the S in Damascus and the R in Road, right in that area. And there is a colonial gas line easement going through the property that, I've lost my cursor, sorry, that goes right through here in a straight line and lines up with this portion down here. So you can actually see the existing gas line easement on this drawing. It's labeled as well as showing the DAS line. The applicant is proposing a up to two megawatt solar collection system. It will have a fence surrounding it. There is a fire department access road up here in the dark blue here with a turnaround and an underground cistern. The applicant actually has an agreement with Colonial Black colonial gas for that to be able to be on that easement so that we have no issues there. And the applicant is providing agrivoltaics for sheep grazing. With doing that, that exempts them through the state code as far as setbacks, screening, landscaping, and all that sort of thing. So here's a side view of what the panels will look like and just a generic picture of some sheep grazing around solar panels. so mark uh if there is fencing around the solar how do they get into that area is the fence open how the ship gets there the sheep will be inside the fence with the solar panels the whole time i will when we get to the applicant i'll let them talk about that but i mean most of the time commissioner hedrick can confirm this sometimes they rotate them through so they may be there for three or four months at a time then they may be back Because if you keep them there too long, they'll just eat it down to the roots. And then next thing you know, you don't have grass anymore. So typically sheep are rotated through. But yes, I'm believing they would be there most of the time or rotated through on a weekly, monthly, quarterly basis.

But the fence is always there.

The fence is always there and the sheep will be inside the fence. So they can't get out and wander out onto a Damascus road.

Okay.

And we'll have the applicant talk through this, Commissioner Peterman, when they come up.

Just to preface, I am going to ask about what breed of sheep they're having, because I'm curious. Not because it matters, but because I'm curious.

I will let them answer that when we get done. Thank you. Awesome. So, as I mentioned, it's in the 2006 Damascus Master Plan. There's no specific recommendations for this property. There's some general requirements in the Damascus Master Plan about water quality. By the applicant removing some of the gravel area and putting in field grasses for the sheep, obviously that's going to create better water runoff, as well as the Damascus Master Plan as it encourages agricultural practices. As you can see right now, there's not a lot of agriculture there. So by putting sheep, we're increasing the agricultural production in this area.

So Mark, what is the type of the soil there? Why there was no agriculture? The soil was not good for agriculture because usually the type of the soil matters.

I didn't look up the soil type because the state doesn't look at that sort of thing. So I didn't get into that detail of the solar. I mean, of the soil, but I mean, looking at it doesn't look like it's too productive, but I can let the applicant speak on that if you don't mind.

Yeah, yeah, that's fine. I'm just wondering, I understand this is a state, but one of our requirement was that the soil type. I think it was type two, something that is really good soil for ag. I don't know if that matters anymore under the state law.

So the soils in the zoning ordinance, or class one and two soils, are prohibited for solar. However, the state regulations as of last year preempted our zoning ordinance in its entirety, so we cannot regulate the solar installation based on soils. The state preempted us, so we have no control over anything in the zoning ordinance when it comes to this size system. So soils are not regulated by the state, so we can't enforce anything with the soils.

But this place was not being used far beforehand, correct?

Correct.

Okay, thank you. Mm-hmm.

So for transportation, as I mentioned before, there'll be a new driveway fire department access off of Damascus Road over top of the Colonial Gas Line easement. The existing right-of-way is 120 feet, so no additional dedications are needed. The LATR review was performed, and there's no further traffic study needed. So for environmental, the application is meeting Chapter 22A. The shaded goldenrod area is actually the String Valley Buffer and the applicant will not be providing any work or construction in that. They will be staying out of the String Valley Buffer. So staff finds that the mandatory referral meets the state requirements for solar projects, as well as it conforms and is compatible with the 2006 Damascus Master Plan, and also complies with Chapter 22A of the Forest Conservation Law. The applicant has an approved fire department access plan with DPS, as well as an approved stormwater management concept plan with DPS. So staff is recommending approval with recommendations be transmitted to the applicant and to DPS, as well as staff recommends approval with conditions for the final forest conservation plan for the planning board. Thank you for your time. Staff, if you have any questions, as well as the applicant. I do have a question.

We've had other solar projects come before us, and in those other projects, they classified the soil as type one or type two, and so has the state code changed with regards to that? Because the other presentations, I specifically remember classifications of the soil and the reason why the solar panels were placed there, because one classification of soil did not provide for production of agricultural products because of the quality of the soil. But here you're saying it doesn't need to be done.

What has changed? So we've been doing this now for two, three years with the solar projects. The couple earlier projects you saw about two years ago, there was no preemption from the state. So we were regulating it based on the zoning ordinance and the soils. And yes, class one and two soils were prohibited. Class three and above were not prohibited. And that you saw that with a couple mandatory referrals for some larger five megawatt projects. Fast forward to about a year ago, we had a conditional use because the state code hadn't changed yet. It actually What used to happen was anything over two megawatts up to five megawatts went through the state process. July 1st of last year, they dropped it down to anything over one megawatt goes through the state process. With that, everything from over one megawatt up got preempted by the state with the zoning ordinance. Last year in June, You all saw the project over in Barnesville that was a 1.9 megawatt system, so it still fell under the old jurisdiction, the old zoning ordinance and our requirements. And that one had class three and four and maybe five soils. I mean, I did a field visit. There was nothing growing on that property. So that one met the zoning requirements for the conditional use and was on not so good soil. So that one was a conditional use. But as of July 1st last year, we got preempted from anything over one megawatt. So it doesn't matter what our zoning ordinance is, soils wide, setbacks, anything in the zoning ordinance is out the window with anything over one megawatt. So that's why... That's why we don't look at that anymore. I've been told that we just looked it up and it looks like this particular project is class three soils, so even if it went under the old process, it still would not be prohibited soils and it would have been okay per the conditional use requirements if those were in effect.

I have another question. You mentioned setbacks. I'm very familiar with this intersection where 650 New Hampshire Avenue turns into Damascus Road at 108 at the corner store there. I have an aesthetic and setback question. With the solar panels occupying, it looks like, the border of 108, How far will the solar panels be set back from the road there, and will there be any aesthetic buffer to shield the solar panels from people traveling on that road?

Mr. Bartley, Commissioner Bartley, why don't we let the applicant come up, make their presentation, because some of these things may come up during, you know, they may mention during their presentation, and then I'm more than... I'm happy for you to ask all your comments, but maybe some of this will come out during, if you don't mind.

I have a question concerning...

Does the staff member have any idea what I'm asking, or do you defer to the applicant?

So there's an existing bench row and hedgerow along... 108, Damascus Road, that provides a good bit of screening. But I would like to bring the applicant in, if you don't mind, because they have more information.

Please come up, applicant, and your team.

Can I ask a question from Mark in regard to the type soil? I understand that we have been preempted from a state in regard to the type of soil. But does anything stops us to look at the type of the soil and if it is, you know, a good type of soil there, see if we could encourage the applicant. I know that doesn't apply to this. I'm talking about the future. Maybe there could be other places that would provide the same kind of things that they want, but allow the good part one or two stay be available for farming. I understand that we cannot stop them, but we could at least look at it and see if there is a possibility to, you know, move the solar system somewhere that is not a good topsoil. It's just an exercise that we could do just to make sure that we allow the good soil to stay for farming if possible, you know. It's just as a good practice.

Good question.

I don't know if that's something that we could do regardless to look at. I'd like to know. Even though that if we don't have anything, any power over it and preempted by state, but it still is a good thing to see what we are doing and where.

That's a great question. If the applicant can make their presentation and then maybe some of this will come out and if not, we can we will come back and address your question. That's okay.

No, but this doesn't have to do with the applicant. It's not even related to this project. I'm just asking in general for the future.

Okay, one, okay. So, Commissioner Pettaway and this is Jason Sartori. I would say as, you know, with all of these that are above one megawatt, we take them to you as mandatory referrals. Your comments are advisory to the applicant and to the Public Services Commission. And I would imagine going forward, we will be sure to highlight what the soil types are in these types of projects and where they are. And then you are more than welcome as a board to provide comments related to the location or the soil types. and how you'd like to see that handled in the comments that you provide to the applicant and to the PSC. In this case, as you mentioned, it's not applicable, at least in terms of what our zoning code had with regard to type one and type two, so this is type three, but certainly you can.

That's exactly what I was looking for, that I understand this advisory and even that it's not, you know, state preempts us, but nothing stops us at least to understand what we are doing and, you know, if needed, just to make an advisory comment. That's it. Thank you.

Okay.

Yes, please go ahead.

Okay. Good morning, everyone. I'm Stuart Barr with the law firm Lurch, Early, and Brewer, here representing the applicant team. Good to be with you all again. Thank you for the time this morning. And I'm going to first introduce our team and then segue into some of the questions from the board. So with me this morning, we have on our team Bert Wilson, Patrick Welch with Etchison Solar, We have our property owner, Rick Mencia. And then connected virtually, we should have Janine Simon from Gordian. And then our civil engineer is KCI. Aaron Moyer is here this morning. So we have the full team here. Happy to have the discussion and try to answer all the questions that have been raised this morning. Really enthusiastic about this project. We've worked very hard on it to present it to you this morning. Very pleased to try to meet our pressing state and county clean energy goals. So we're very enthusiastic about it. We thank Mr. Beale, Mr. Johnson, and the entire planning department team for all the time and hard work they've put into the project to enable us to present it to you this morning. So I'm going to turn it over first to Bert Wilson for a few remarks and then to Patrick Welch for a couple specific answers on some of the questions. I wrote down, I think we've established the type of soil that's on the property. It's the class three. And just for background, the property is approved for single family house does have a record plot approval and a identified septic field. But our proposal is to convert that to the solar facility and the agrivoltaics as we proposed it. And then there were questions about the type of sheep and the setbacks. And we'll go through all that with our different team members here. So first, Burt Wilson will say a few things, and then we'll have some additional information.

Good morning. Really glad to be here. I'm Burt Wilson. I'm president of Edgerson Solar. Sorry about that. I didn't realize I had to push the button. I'm Burt Wilson. I'm the president of Edgerson Solar. Really glad to be here. We're the project sponsor. I'm also the managing director of EFW Inc., which is Energy, Food, and Water, and also a member of Energy Artisans, lifelong resident of Maryland, and our office, and I live in Ellicott City in the Historic District. We manage, as a company, long-term purchasers of power, and natural gas, power generation, PJM members, we develop our own power generation assets, and we have members that have 20 plus years of experience on average in the energy markets. We were engaged by Alta Gas in 2019 to provide solar projects to meet the merger requirements in both Maryland and DC. So there's two of them in Maryland, Montgomery counties, one in Prince George's County, and we already took care of the ones in DC. So for Montgomery County, we conceived of a project that was as much Montgomery County as we could try to make it. So we have a local landowner. We have Sandy Spring Bank was the financier. They were headquartered in Oldney. They've since been purchased by Atlantic Union, but they are still our bank and very active. And the power buyer is Montgomery County itself, for the Montgomery County buildings. We had Gordian Energy Systems, which is a partner, long-term company in Maryland. They're also Coal Roofing, which is a 100-year-old family-owned business in Baltimore, and they have an energy business to do solar. our bank, and we have Rick, our bank introduced us to Rick Mencia as someone who would like to have a solar project. So we conceived of a solar project the way I just described it. Rick was a willing owner, so our job was to develop it, make sure it's implemented properly, and to manage it over time to make sure it works properly. And Rick's going to be the long-term owner once it goes into service. So Rick's a long-term, lifelong Maryland, or Montgomery County resident. So Rick's been working since 2017 to get solar on his property. We met him later than that. We presented a PPA to Montgomery County. This is a merger requirement from 2018. We were hired in 2019. So we presented a proposal to Montgomery County in 2021. They accepted it, signed it in 2024. We filed for an interconnection agreement with First Energy in July of 2024. Should be complete in the fourth quarter. We purchased panels in May of 24, anticipating this. We also brought them into the country to make sure we could preserve tax benefits. so we could maintain our pricing. We've never changed our pricing from the initial proposal. We also have the racking in place, and we have $3 million spent on it. $6 million project at this point in time. We added agrovoltaics to it. I thought it was a good idea. Our backgrounds really are looking broader than just energy. Try to make full utilization of the land and make it productive and as multi-use as possible. And we hope to have this completed by year end and in service. So thank you very much.

And then as far as some of the specifics, questions about agrivoltaics, Patrick Welch has been the most involved in thinking through that, working with the Office of Agriculture and providing some of the details on that. So Patrick, you heard some of the questions. Do you want to touch on anything?

Yeah, I can really briefly. So good morning. Patrick Welch with Atchison Solar. So regarding the agrivoltaic plan, we've worked with a number of herders in the state and a few in Montgomery County about applications that would be best for the animal welfare on the property, given the space and being under the paneling. If some of you may be aware, goats were originally a very popular animal to have on these properties for their grazing, but I don't think they're particularly good due to their particular propensity to eat anything in front of them and cause issues with the property. So I think sheep are the most viable option in an application like this to limit the cutting that would need to be required on the property. So to the question of breed, we've been suggested that hair breeds would be the best due to their resiliency, low need for vaccinations and other sorts of things on the property. So we're leaning towards that. We don't have a set breed plan yet, but if we have also been suggested a few hybrid breeds to also kind of balance food versus wool.

Yeah, Barbie do are a good option.

Sorry?

Barbie do are a good option for the Barbados sheep, are a good option for heat.

Texas? Yeah, if there is a plan that if they are to be there year-round, that they would be fed and cared for and have cover and be protected in that way. So there's a, we're leaning towards hare breeds, but hybrids might be the option.

So, and then there were questions about setback distances and then the visibility of the project from the road from Commissioner Bartley. So, talking with our civil engineer, let me make sure I have these numbers correct. The proposed distance from edge of pavement of 108 to first panel 100 feet and then distance from Edge of right-of-way to first panel, 50 feet? OK. So we anticipated some of those questions, Commissioner Bartley. We want an excellent project. Mr. Mencia's property owner wants an excellent long-term project. And we thought there might be questions about screening from the right-of-way. And we are interested in providing screening and making sure that from a visibility standpoint, our project looks as good as possible from the right of way. Given the agrivoltaics, we, as was mentioned, are not subject to strict landscape requirements, but we are interested in planting and proposing some screening just that we don't want to be locked into the specifics. But Mr. Mencia and the team are talking about installing some screening there. We didn't want to leave it without anything between the panels and the right-of-way. So hopefully that answers the questions about the setbacks and the visibility.

Can I ask you what? I just did want to add something that I think is notable and probably pertinent to the discussion. we are not flipping this project or selling it to anyone else. This is designed specifically to own and operate, that's what we do. And Rick here will be the owner of it, and we will continue to be involved for the life of the project to ensure that it works properly.

One quick question. I heard that because of you having agrovoltaics, you don't have to meet some setbacks and screening requirements. What would the setbacks and screening requirements be if you weren't exempt from this? Do you have a sense of what they typically would have been, or staff?

If you give me one second, Mr. Chair. So 50 feet, looks like 50 feet from edge of right of way. I believe we comply with that. That's for setbacks. And then there's a from house closest home. Bear with me, Mr. Chair, as I'm refreshing recollection here. 150 to the house. Mm-hmm. And we are, we're beyond 150. We're beyond 150? Yeah, we designed that. So we think we do meet that setback? Yes. Okay. So we actually think we comply, if the siting standards did apply, we believe we do comply with the setbacks. And then it just says, shall provide for a landscaping buffer or vegetative screening. in accordance with paragraph four, and turn to paragraph four. Let's see, buffer or vegetative screening shall be provided along all property lines, locations of the exterior boundary for the solar energy generating station where existing wooded vegetation of 50 feet or more width does not exist, or an alternative location within the boundary for the solar energy generating station if the owner demonstrates that the alternative location would maximize the visual screening. Four-season visual screening placed between fencing and public view, multi-layered, staggered rows, overstory and understory trees and shrubs that are a mixture of evergreen and deciduous vegetation, predominantly native to the region, more than four feet in height at planting, designed to provide screening or buffering within five years of planting. may not be trimmed to stunt upward or outward growth or to otherwise limit the effectiveness of the visual screen, conform to the plant size specifications established by the American Standard for Nursery Stock, and are specified in a landscaping plan prepared by qualified professional landscape architect. And then it talks about installation early in the construction process, preserved to the maximum extent practical.

But big picture, you mean you don't have to do it, but you're saying you're going to do some screening?

We are very interested in providing screening. Those very, very specific requirements, we are certainly gonna take into consideration. And ideally, what we end up proposing would satisfy that. We're just not, we haven't gotten quite to that step of planning that. And it's just a little bit easier for us, Mr. Chair, to propose what Mr. Mencia wants to propose rather than being locked into those specific requirements. So that's why... well, partly why we proposed the agrivoltaics.

Okay. Okay. Those are my questions for tonight. Are there any other questions or comments? First of all, I'm delighted that you're trying agrivoltaics, that you're committing to that. There are several projects that we approved gave recommendations on that were approved through the state with agrivoltaics, but I don't think they've been installed. So it'd be, you know, the more that you can get out there to show it works or, you know, so that, because I'm sure that, you know, it may need tweaking over time, you know, but this is great that you're doing that. And the last is where do you connect to the power grid? Is it within a certain close by of the existing?

Who's able to answer that?

Yeah, so Aaron Moyer, there is a pole nearly right in front of the property. If you see where on the plan it says proposed site access point, it's on that plan about one inch to the right of that. So it's right next to the driveway.

Okay, great. And you mentioned that the county's involved in this in some way. Can you go over again how the county's involved? You said?

For connectivity, you mean? The county is the buyer of the power. Oh, the buyer of the power, okay. And part of the merger commitment was it was supposed to be for county buildings and benefit, and we thought it was more cost effective, and the county agreed to actually do this type of project rather than try to put it on buildings themselves. Okay. We could put it on buildings, but we evaluated different alternatives, and we asked, and they preferred this alternative, which we thought was more cost-effective. Okay, great, great.

Those are my comments, and then as we move to staff, as we move forward on other solar projects, I think it's also what Commissioner Petterm said, just to note during the package, you know, what type of soil. So just so it's just recorded. It has nothing. It's still... You know, we can do nothing about it. You know, the state preempts, but it's just good to know what type of soil it is. Those are my questions or comments, thank you.

I have one or two non-sheep related questions and comments. For one, with this project, I think you just answered one of my questions, which was on community solar credit. I know the state has, but I don't know if this qualifies since you're selling to the county or it doesn't qualify under community solar for credits for housing and low income residents.

No, we actually put this in as a PERPA project. We found the community solar issues are a little restrictive, and honestly, we've done them faster, better, easier with just using straight PERPA.

We use one in my day job, so I was curious if it was qualified on that or not, but that's interesting, I appreciate it. The second question I have on this is, is there potential to expand on this site later on? I get this is a fairly oddly shaped site, you have forest conservation requirements, there's some other things in it. Is there any potential to expand later on or to subdivide the site and to expand in that way, or any potential thoughts along those lines? I like two megawatts. I'd love to have more is my question, basically.

There's a possibility with Rick's neighbor. He was interested, but we have to do the first part first. Yeah, no, step one is one, but I agree with that. Anything else we do would be a phase two or a phase three. The nature of our projects is any of them we've done is not put one in and stop. It's once you have it started, how do you make it better? How do you operate it? And that's part that... We stay as operators, part owners, things like that in projects. We don't sell them for tax equity. We're not using tax equity. So we don't have any of those restraints.

Yeah. I was just wondering, given the site and how it's structured, it is a little bit oddly structured site. I was curious if there was potential, you don't have plans for it, I understand that you're not doing it right now, but there's potential for expansion on site as well, or... once you factor in forest conservation setbacks and everything like that. Just curious.

Short answer, yes. Okay. But it's early in evaluation.

Figure out the sheep breed first, then build more solar. I got you. But I was curious, given the site layout and everything.

To start with, I mean, the PPA we have with the county, which is a very straightforward process, actually. We've worked with them before. We've worked with the county and other things. That had to be extended a year. So the best thing to do is to get the power to the county and then add to it.

All right, great.

Well, thank you. Appreciate that. That's all I have. I have some questions. And so my question with regards to the setback in the appearance and whether or not there would be a buffer, In my travels in that part of the county, in adjacent Howard County, I came across a solar panel array at the intersection of Ten Oaks Road and Brighton Dam Road, and it's an absolute eyesore there. And I'm concerned that, and that's in Howard County, and so I'm just concerned that you know, the bucolic nature of this part of the county remains somewhat, even though you're innovating and using the land for solar panels. What I don't understand is whether or not the current use of the property was specifically for agricultural development, because my aerial satellite view seems to show like a dump yard or a commercial yard, and I was wondering what it was used for prior to this project.

So first of all, here are you on the visual impact. And I think we provided some information and response on that. As far as the existing tenant, we do have an existing tenant. We've actually had a tenant on that property for many years. And as Mr. Beale mentioned, there was a question about our existing tenant. That inquiry was directed to Department of Permanent Services, and we are working with DPS on the status of that tenant, acquiring information in DPS records about the tenant and the use, and working with DPS on a resolution. We do have a tenant there who has existed for many years, and there was a tenant before that one. and there are entries in the DPS system about those prior tenants. So long story short, we're fully cooperating with DPS to resolve, if there is a necessary resolution of our existing tenant, its landscape contractor along those lines, and so we are in the process of determining that.

Is the existing entryway going to be the same entryway or will there be a new entryway from 108?

So we are proposing access from Damascus Road to the north. I think Damascus Road is 108, yeah.

So will it be the same entry point or a new entry point?

So that's a new entry, a new proposed entry point. I don't know if you all see the screen that I see, but It says proposed site access point up at the top of the plan there. So that is from Damascus Road. And we're working with State Highway to receive a permit for that. And that will allow us to install the driveway and then We need to install a cistern and so forth, and that will provide access to the panels.

There's actually an existing break in the hedgerow right there with a couple plastic jersey barriers there, and it's going in that spot, because that's where the gas easement is, because gas has to have 24-7 access through there. So it's going to be that same location.

Is the existing hedgerow going to remain, or are you going to replace it with something similar?

if you remove it so i think the plan is to try to preserve what we can if we need to remove anything to just enable the access or the or the panels or the fence we need to remove those but anything else that we can preserve i think we intend to try to preserve

I think this site, unlike other sites that are agricultural, is a good opportunity for the solar panels. My main concern is the aesthetics of it and how it looks from the road. And unfortunately, I've seen some solar panels that are in close proximity to the road, and it detracts from the overall beauty of the area. And unfortunately, solar panels are not handsome. And so my concern, again, is with the aesthetics and the setbacks. The setback of 100 foot from 108 or Damascus Road, I think, is fair. I've seen other setbacks that weren't as generous as that. But again, my concern is whether or not there will be some type of obstruction of view from the road that will detract from the overall beauty of the area.

So, Commissioner Bartley, we can't make them, but we can suggest. I believe what I heard was they are... Do they plan to put some sort of landscaping buffer? Is that what I heard?

We are certainly interested in proposing screening. Again, working with the property owner to figure out what makes sense. And that's certainly something we are contemplating.

Maybe not to the extent.

We don't have a specific landscape plan to offer you.

Right.

As was discussed, the specific siting requirements are pretty detailed, and we just want to discuss with the property owner a little bit more flexibly what makes sense here. So we're in the process of doing that though.

Right, right. We can't make you, but we can suggest. And let's just do that.

I would like a commitment from them because I think when we're changing the overall look and appeal of the community with a commercial operation, especially one with permanence and of solar panels, I'm just concerned that it detracts from the overall beauty and quality of the area. That's it. And I think that although we cannot, quote unquote, make them do anything, Artie, if they would voluntarily agree to do it, I think that would be a very high source of motivation for me to vote yes. Thanks.

Excuse me, this is Rick Mencia, a property owner. I'm proposing to put, I'm not sure if you guys are familiar with little giants or little green giants that grow up into these big, that's what I'm proposing to put across the whole front of 108 and also down the side of the house that is on the front corner of the property to try to make the whole project just disappear.

Sounds great to me. I don't know what...

So Mr. Mincio, I just want to understand what you're saying. Are you saying you're committed to doing that? I am. Okay. I mean, we can't hold you to it, but I appreciate.

I'm committed to putting little, called little green giants. They're deer resistant. And within like five to seven years, you won't even see the field.

And I assume they don't grow to a height that would obstruct sunlight hitting the panels.

It's on the north side.

On the north side. On the north side. Right. So it's completely unaffected. Right.

I think from a technical standpoint, on the north side, they won't obstruct anything. They won't affect the production. Even along the house line, it wouldn't change much anything.

Hopefully the sheaves don't find new ways of hurting themselves on that, to Commissioner Hedrick's point.

Everything will be on the outside of the fence.

Yeah. This is going to be on Route 108, Damascus Road.

And the very first house that, as you're going towards the corner where the country store is, that very first house will also have... Those bushes slash trees planted along there, so they won't have to see it either.

I would, you know, some of those trees will be directly to the east of the panel. So it's, I just, you know, I don't, factor it into the design, obviously, and, you know, make sure that the morning sunlight can still hit the panels sufficiently and on and on and on. But yeah, I think that sounds like a fine plan. Yeah.

Any other questions, comments, or concerns?

I do have a question. I really appreciate Mr. Mencia's commitment to have the trees planted there. Is there any way we can make that something where we can ensure it gets done and it's not just a proposal here at the hearing?

I mean, this is, you know, the PSC is the final authority for this project, correct? The Maryland PSC, the Public Services Commission. This goes through that process, correct?

Yes. So the PSC could require them to do that. And what you all can do is provide the comments that make sure that that is something that the PSC has on their radar and sees.

Okay.

I would prefer the letter from the planning board to say that the applicant is committed to working on a landscape plan. Not that the applicant is bound to provide specific landscaping. We are committed to working on a landscape plan. But beyond that, we don't want the letter to require anything more specific respectfully.

Why would you want to do something other than what your client said he was committed to doing here today?

We are committed to working on a landscape plan.

My understanding is that your client, Mr. Mencia, wanted it, and so why can't we include it if your client wants it?

He has a current idea, and we're committed to explore that idea, and we prefer that the letter from the planning board acknowledged that but not that we're bound to implement that idea.

I think flexibility makes sense in this case. Yeah, I'm okay with that approach.

But the intent of it is to provide a landscape buffer.

I think you can maybe provide without specifying exactly what needs to be planted, but identify the goals that you want to see achieved in that.

I think that's a good idea, as opposed to specificity of what would be planned, but the goal to have something there to shield its view from Damascus Road or 108. I think that's fair.

So it still is the goal. The board wants a goal of that. The applicant to provide landscape buffer along Route 108.

Damascus Road. Damascus, yeah. That's fine. Okay.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mencia, for your cooperation and willingness to commit to that. Appreciate it.

Okay, so do we have two motions? Can I ask just one other question?

This is separate from everything we've been talking about. So when we've reviewed solar projects in the past that have mostly been community solar, You know there's some sort of estimate around you know roughly how many homes can kind of benefit from or how many homes to be served. With two megawatts or four megawatts, and this is going to county buildings i'm just kind of curious is there a comparable way to think about like you know X percent of county facilities or. Buildings come in all different shapes and sizes, so it's not exactly saying you can serve this many homes. But two megawatts translates to what in terms of county usage, for example? Do we have any sort of idea about that?

Yes, I have some background here. I do happen to know the county uses about 170,000 to 180,000 megawatt hours a year. this project at full operation will make approximately 3,000 megawatt hours a year. So it's in the order of 1.5% to 2% depending on the year. It'll come more at peak times, which is more expensive power, like it was yesterday. So it'll be helpful. It's generally helpful, but it's about in the 1.5% to 2% range. Wow.

Got it. And this is, to your point earlier, more efficient and scalable to do this than go rooftop to rooftop to rooftop, I assume.

It is. I mean, the projects tend to have a much longer life than what people anticipate. 20-year PPA, they'll still be at 85% of their productive installed value if you maintain them well. There's no good reason to take them away unless there's something much better to do. So I would envision that they would stay in place for a very long time. Rooftop issues, you have roofs have to be changed, things are compromised, buildings use changes. So if you're not connected directly to the power grid, you don't have any way to sell your power. And if you can't sell your power, you have an angry bank. So we, this is a much better way. And It can be transitioned into virtual net metering if the county so desires, but they didn't want to at the time, so we said, okay, we'll put it in as a PURPA project, no problem.

Yeah, interesting. Yeah, that's interesting they didn't want to at the time.

And we intentionally also steered away from a larger project because then you'd have to deal with PGM interconnection. Right, right. And that just takes a repeat. Yeah, the queue can be. We've done plenty of them before. We are in the midst of them now. If you want to wait five to seven years, a PGM interconnection will make you take that long.

Yeah. No, I think this is a great model for all the reasons you talked about. The agrivoltaics is just, you know, kind of cherry on top. And hopefully it helps with the maintenance, as you've talked about, with, you know, grass, kind of keeping the grass maintained and kind of low and, And hopefully the sheep do well under the panels, shade from sun during this extreme heat. I'm also just, I'm curious, is there currently a business plan associated with the sheep and how they would be used over time? Would those products be served locally? Would they be fed into some other marketplace?

Yeah, the idea would be local markets to whatever extent possible. We're keeping that the business planet allows for kind of adapting seasonally the type of herd that would be kept there for whatever purpose would need to be. We think economically would make the most sense. And, you know, as markets change and needs change and. maybe we find one breed that tends to work better than another, then we would adapt that way. So there's a, I wouldn't say there's a committed path yet, but there's a committed strategy to how the agrivoltaic plan would pan out.

Yeah, that sounds great. And it's one of the many good things, potential good things about agrivoltaics is that it can feed into kind of a local, the local food economy in different ways, particularly with sheep. That's kind of an obvious case. So thanks. Thanks for bringing this project forward. Good luck with getting it all ready to go. It sounds by the end of the year.

Soon. It's ready to build. It's paid for already, so we just need to put it in place.

Yeah, well, good luck on through the PSC. Yeah, well, when they come to us, what was also pretty impressive, I'm sure, but on the other project we've seen, they may have the same or more, but there's like 4,650 solar panels. That seems like a lot of solar panels. But also, we have two motions. There's one for, do I have one? Motion to approve mandatory referral number MR2026015, where staff is recommending approval of the mandatory referral and transmitting comments to the applicant in the state of Maryland Public Service Commission with also the caveat that the project have a goal of a landscape buffer along Damascus Road.

I'll move to approve the mandatory referral to the PSA with the comments from today. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Ayes have it, five-zero. And then the last is to have a motion for approval of the Forest Conservation Plan where staff is recommending approval with conditions.

Yeah, move to approve the Forest Conservation Plan with conditions. Second.

All in favor? Aye. The ayes have it. Thank you. That was our last item of the day. I wish everyone a happy, safe Fourth of July weekend. Thank you.

Thank you all very much.

Thank you.