Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Town of Mount Area Planning Commission meeting. It is June 30, 2025, 7:30 p.m. We'll call this meeting to order with the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. As we get settled into our agenda, as I always do, I thank those that have taken the time in their evening to come out and join us, especially on a hot evening in in uh the end of June. and also for those that don't make it but they're tuning in on the live stream uh for tonight's session. Again, thank you for being involved in your town business. The next order of business we have is the review and approval of the last meeting minutes of May 19th. So I ask the commissioners, the minutes are before you. And before I take a motion, um I have to commend uh Miss Deb Clinton on the town staff for capturing so well the rather complex discussion that we had at our last meeting in May with regard with regard to the um elevation and the redesign of the exterior materials for the buildings in Southside Plaza Arena or area. And um and so I knew that was a tough back and forth with amendments and motions. And so very well done, Deb. And so with that, um I will take a motion, a second. We'll have some discussion or changes if there are any that a commissioner wishes to make. So at this point, um is there a

motion to approve these minutes? Also move. Commissioner Buts makes the motion to approve the minutes. Is there a second? I'll second. Commissioner Bea makes the second. Uh is there any discussion, amendments, changes, mixing it up? Uh once again, does any commissioner see a need for an edit uh for these minutes? Seeing or hearing no discussion, all those in favor of the motion to approve the minutes of May 19th, please say so by saying I. I. All those opposed, the minutes are Would I abstain from that since I wasn't here? Yes, you would. Y abain. Um, we have uh four um one abstension. I'll leave it at that. The minute the minutes are approved with one abstension. Thank you. And I'll sign those uh Deborah at the end as we always do. Um the next agenda item, as we always do, is we open the floor um for a limited period of time to any in the public who are here today who wish to make a public comment. We always try to caution that um it would be a comment or topic related to something outside the agenda and topics on the agenda because I will strive to allow time at that specific agenda topic for any relevant public comment as as needed. So again, is there any interest in the audience tonight for a public comment? Please show me your hands if you do. Once again, is there any need for public comment? Seeing no need for public comment, I close the public comment section of tonight's agenda and move right into the Carol and Frederick County planner reports. Um the Carol County planner is still uh an absent position uh from Westminster. Um the

town staff is working diligently to get it filled uh for obvious reasons. We really really value the coordination we have with Westminster and the county level with all things within the town particularly with regard to planning. Um however John has secured I believe a brief report that he provided on your um seat tonight. Um and I believe this is probably first read tonight for all of you. So, uh, as a courtesy, I'll just pause while commissioners glance through it. And if there is any topic in here that you wish to mention, raise a question or whatever, John, is it fair that we will raise that question back through you? Uh, yeah, if there's any any questions or comment. And what I can do also is email this out to you guys tomorrow. Uh, because it does have a link to their Carol County master plan. If you notice in the third par third or fourth paragraph um and I will say that I know right now that they have soon to have two or three open positions up there so I don't see us getting a liaison from Carol County uh anytime soon and and a bit of detail on that. This is an advertised position. Correct. Okay. So, they are not going to take a legacy staff member at the county level and fold them in as an additional duty or something? Nope, I don't think so. Okay. Okay. All right. Um, so with the brief time that I've given the commissioners to look it over, do we have any questions to be raised for John to pursue? Again, he is going to provide this email to us. And John, I think it's fair that if they do review it at at their leisure at home, if they have questions, they'll just shoot them back to you. Sure, that's fine. Fantastic. And when you shoot those back uh to John, if I may, just again caution you, uh opens meetings act, don't include any

other commissioners on that. uh we don't want your very reasonable question or your very reasonable comment to constitute an open meeting nag violation by including a quorum of the commissioners here. Okay. So just shoot it back directly to him and um he'll log it in and pursue it as appropriate. Thank you. I would make sure that possibly CCing you Ralph just so you're aware of everybody's position as well. That's fair. Thank you. Okay. Um, and so with that, I do see Miss Moreno from Frederick County here. Vanessa, how are you tonight? Please come. Thank you. Long time no see. All righty. Hello. Hello. Okay. Just pulled a little closer to you if you can. All righty. There we go. Alrighty. So, I don't have too many updates, but just a couple of items to note. Um I know there has been a lot of discussion around the data center development in the county and so just wanted to give a little update on that. Uh so the county council as many of you may know um per introduced legislation uh to establish an overlay district uh that would limit data center development in Frederick County. Um and this is specifically a pro this specifically to the east alco site over by Adamstown and would be around um 1,000 acres. Um let's see. So, the planning commission uh will be reviewing the um proposed map at the July 9th planning commission meeting and um there will be subsequent meetings on the 16th and 23rd to allow for um additional public comment and then once um the planning commission has given their recommendation, it will go for a 60-day review um to the state level and then and then the um county council will also have an additional period to review the

planning commission. recommendation and um adopt the legislation. Um as of now there there are no reasonzonings proposed at this time. I know a lot of people have been concerned about um that and as well as um there has been a moratorium on new data center development as of now um put in place by um county executive Jessica Fitzwater. And lastly, there are some new data center performance standards that were um established earlier this month and I believe further standards will be included in this next legislation. So just a quick little update on that. Um and then lastly, as part of the investing in workers and workplaces um plan, um staff um presented well staff had a workshop with the planning commission on June 18th and uh during that workshop there were there was some talk around um some resonings in the New Market area. Um it's a handful of parcels that would be um reszoned from general commercial and um or oi which is office research um in institutional to light industrial to better support um businesses load locating near u the major interstates and um help to encourage job diversity. Um these zoning changes have not been finalized and uh we will we'll return to the planning commission in early July for another workshop on that. And those are my updates. I'd be happy to take any questions as well. Absolutely. Commissioners, do you have any questions regarding Frederick County, Frederick City, New Market? Can Can I ask one, Ralph? Absolutely. Go ahead. So, what was the zoning going from what to what? Because I didn't quite Oh, yes. I'm sorry. It was um general commercial or and oi two to light industrial just help better support more flexible uses um to businesses trying to relocate to the

area. Does light industrial allow a residential component? It does not. Vanessa, with regard to the overlay and and my knowledge of overlays could add more restrictions onto any development. So when the overlay is applied to the possible data center build, is that data center in its current state going to be grandfathered or will the final legislation in the overlay now impose additional current restrictions on the development of the data center? Oh, that's a great question. So the um applica that developer and applicants who have already submitted their plans for the quantum loophole project, those plans are already working their way through development review. So they are technically grandfathered in, but it would just limit the any additional applicants who would like to um apply within that area. Okay. Or outside the area. And this is the data center that's uh linked to the power line uh reliability effort or no? Uh no, I believe those are two separate projects and I know that's that project is definitely making its way through Carol County and Frederick counties as well and a lot of updates on that front but no no relation. Gotcha. Okay. and on Cherry Hill. Cherry Run. Yes. Cherry Run. Thank you. Any and I don't mean to put you on the spot, but um we're talking over a thousand dwelling units. Correct. That is correct. And I um I believe it was approved back in May, but I know I missed that meeting since I was out of town. Um but yes, that that project has been approved. It did not see as much um public feedback as we anticipated. I know it did have a lot. It was a a bit contentious at times, but when we brought it when staff brought it to the planning commission back in May, it seemed to go by pretty pretty quickly. So, well, you you've been wonderful in keeping us uh linked to that because that is just our neighbor just just to the west. Absolutely. Yeah. A short distance. And I think you've

also informed us that the size of that well I I think it was exactly 1,0 dwelling units in your pipeline chart if I'm not mistaken. Um there's going to be a new elementary school built to accommodate that growth. Right. Um, and so, um, if I may, uh, could I possibly ask that, could you go back to Frederick City and County Department of Planning and ask if there are any from here on any traffic studies, water studies, um, all those things that are necessary for development of that size. Absolutely. And and my and my question is driven more so by that dwelling unit, you know, right size. Um and out of concern of us being right next to them. So if if that's a reasonable question that we be maybe tightly b um bound to whatever studies you have in bringing that development on through its stages. Um, and John, I didn't coordinate with you before asking this. If if that could be done, would it be reasonable that link come through you? Yeah, Vanessa can send it to me and Deborah send it off to you guys. Yeah. And and I say that in in all respect to your offices and also for like Barney because if there are studies related to water, wastewater treatment, etc. That's probably something that you would be want to be keen on also if that's reasonable. Yes. Great. So, absolutely. Yeah, I'd be happy to. I can definitely reach out to our development review planners who are more in charge of like the site plan approval process and you know constant communication with the developer applicant and so forth. So be happy to reach out to them and and just in short just keep us in the loop on that. Absolutely. If you don't mind, Commissioner Buts, there's another

reason uh that we ask this uh and we've been asking it of the Frederick County planning staff. Uh gosh, as far as I'm aware, the last 10, 12, 14 years. Um because the growth that y'all are engendering on that side of Mount Ary has a tremendous impact on us in one way or another. And uh it puts a lot of potential pressure uh from the west on Mount Ary and our our functioning here. So the extent to which you can give us advanced notice. Oh, absolutely. You know, when there's going to be more development and so forth, we can prepare for it. We can look at it. We can have Barney and others take a close look at what the impact of that may be. I'm on it. Got my eyes peeled on those projects coming through the pipeline for you guys. We appreciate it. I try my best. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you, Miss Marino. Thank you. uh our next item on the agenda and uh I'm going to lead off by saying I guess it's uh sign night here I know for for the planning commission not entirely but um a great deal of tonight's agenda has to deal with um with signage uh being applied for and so um while the commission gets settled in on the first agenda item regarding the hair cuttery um I will ask for a representative for that applicant if uh he may come forward and get settled in. Um and before I then pitch to uh John to give us the staff report, uh I'll just give a quick overview. Uh the code by which we will decide upon all sign applications is found within the code book of 112-11. And within that chapter of the code

book, this uh is a commercial property. So specifically 112-11 paragraph F Fox Trot is um the guidelines by which we will examine this application. Um I believe that this is um a Tucson application if I'm not mistaken and um John if you go ahead and give us the details on it. Again, real quick, the um the hair cutter has been in um the town of Mount Air at this location for over three decades. Um and they're going through a rebranding of themselves. If you look, the the haircut sign itself hasn't really changed very much at all except for increasing the circular um trademark sign of HC. Uh so again, you know, looking at the building, uh this is the front elevation. Uh the next the next one would be the side elevation. Wh That's not what I want. Um which of the two signs are coming in for again the side storefront basically is they have 80 feet uh for the side entrance or the side of the building for their storefront and 30 ft for the front. Uh if you look at the application itself, uh the um both signs are in compliance with the uh square footage for both of the frontage, the front and the side. Uh the front comes in at 29 uh should be 29.33 square ft and the side comes in at 29.38 square ft. So again, these are both in compliance with our 112 uh-1 sign ordinance. Again the um the application you can see um has the different sizes for the two different signs u and again

their complete application along with um the owner affidavit and then again their their um sign design and and and fabrication layout. Gotcha. So So sir, thank you for joining us tonight. if I could just ask you to state your name and where you what role you have reference to this application. Sure. Thanks for having me. Gary Brent with MG Permits. I'm the permit expediter uh representing this client Beltway Signs, the installer essentially who is contracted by Hair Cuttery and their national sign company to replace the signs. Gotcha. And um if there's anything uh that you deem important to note that wasn't mentioned in the staff report, here's your opportunity to elaborate or expand upon any aspect of the application. No, I see the clocks started, but no, I think John did a great job. Nothing to add. If you have any questions, certainly, please. Well, thank you, uh, Mr. Brent. Um, so at this point, I then ask for the commissioner's interest or questions, uh, regarding this application. any particular topics. So the side where the sign is on the next one is referred to by the code as secondary frontage. Uh it is also included in the calculation I believe John even though there's no entrance there that whenever we have a cornal commercial building the side sign is referred to as secondary frontage. So just using some terms there. Um any questions again? No interest. Okay. By the code um in 112-11 paragraph Oscar, we are given the commission um three criteria to evaluate the location and design of posted signage safety

including sightelines for motor vehicles. I do not see any issue with regard to sighteline for motor vehicles for the application. Secondly, whether a proposed sign unduly impairs the visibility of lawful signs on neighboring properties. I don't see any issue there. And lastly, whether the proposed location and design are aesthetically and architecturally consistent with neighboring properties, the historic area, if applicable, not applicable here, the zoning district in which it is to be located, the architecture of the improvements located or proposed to be located on the property in the town's design guidelines. Again, on the third criteria for evaluation, I don't see any issue or problems. I will I will state that there is currently these two signs in place currently. Um and I didn't get yours uploaded because I didn't have time this afternoon. Um I apologize, but basically there are two existing signs currently. We're just they're updating their their their current logo to support their new business. And and to that point, thank you John. Um, to that point, is just the circular new logo HC being added or is the entire sign being rebuilt? The entire sign is being replaced, but it is it's a it's a new branding like John mentioned and we're doing a slew of these all over the region and they're just basically so the lettering actually got smaller with the proposed the new signs versus what's existing because by adding the logo, it increased the sign overall sign area causing the letters to have to get somewhat smaller. The sign area though still within the code like John mentioned on the front end on the secondary on the side entrance or the the side elevation the signs are slightly smaller overall height basically is I got you bottom line a little tighter. Yeah because of because the logo was added they had to reduce and it had to shrink the sign somewhat to get it all in there. And I will say

that the application when it first came in didn't meet the guidelines. So I had to reach back out to the sign or to the permanent expeditator and we did some finagling and we were able to get it down. So it met met their requirements. Um last call for commissioner questions or issues. If not then I will make a motion to approve the haircut signs plural application submitted by the Beltway Sign Service Incorporated. Is there a second? I'll second. Uh seconded by Commissioner Hatley. Uh any further discussion? Motion's been made and seconded. Any further discussion or questions? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion made to approve the signs submitted by Beltway Sign Service Incorporated for the haircut say I. I. I. Any oppose? Say nay. The motion to approve the sign application for the haircut cuttery is unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. and just hang tight. The next sign application we have is for the business known as the mattress warehouse to be located or is located at 325 East Ridgeville Boulevard in Mount Area. Again, the applicant beltway sign service and fair to say uh Gary Brent, you're also representing that applicant. Yes, sir. Gary Brent here to represent mattress wear mattress. Fantastic. And as I did before, I won't go over, but we'll apply the code 112-11 in the examination of this commercial business application. John staff report. Sure. Um, again, the um the applicant came in uh there was some communication with them from the first uh presentation of the application we had to work through. Um, excuse me. But I did want to bring up this uh diagram first. We have S1, S2, and S3. S1 is the monument sign,

which is a secondary sign to what Ralph was saying earlier. Um S3 is uh the one that's on the front of the building, and S2 is well, let me make sure that's the right way. Um you're right. Yeah, S2 is the one that's up underneath the um covered walkway, which is also a secondary sign. This red label is two-sided. It'll be on both sides of the the monument sign and is dictated the size is kind of dictated by the monument sign that was approved by the planning commission at that point in time. Um uh S2 is again the one that's underneath of the covered walkway which is also a secondary sign which is doesn't go into calculations. Uh the staff report is incorrect on what is asking for a variance because that won't be necessary. I was hoping to had remodified the site the staff report prior to today's meeting. Uh I did not have enough time to do so. So again, the the front of the building um is currently it's the mattress firm's current location uh that was bought out by then mattress warehouse and again the overall length of their building is 70 74 and a half uh linear feet which gives them the ability to have 74 square feet of signage. Um and their total square footage for the large uh fascia sign is 62 square ft. And basically uh the recommendation is not the the need for a verification or a variation of four square feet because of the two uh secondary signs. The hanging down sign. Correct. and and the monument sign are not calculated into this,

right? So, there's no need for any variation uh to the sign ordinance, okay, or the recommendation. And Mr. Bren, again to you, is there anything you'd like to emphasize or bring out that wasn't captured in the staff report? No, John did a great job as always, but uh I mean, we did work with John or he worked with us, sorry, uh to reduce the signs to to the level where they were allowed one to one. We came in with a sign on the front, the wall sign larger than than what would be allowed. So, we're simply refacing the monument sign there. Like John mentioned, you can't that size is dictated by the existing sign. It's just a panel being slid in and slid out. Um, and the blade sign underneath or the under the under I guess the pedestrian sign that is just vinyl. They're applying vinyl to the existing blank panel. So, there's no nothing there other than adding what's existing. So, that that's all. Okay. So, commissioners, if I can just recap accurately, this application, there's three signs. There's an off- premises or monument sign as we refer to it here at the entrance to that shopping area. There's a sign that's large and on the building facade, and then there's a smaller sign that's in the covered walkway that hangs down from the ceiling as per other businesses along uh that uh covered walkway. Um and I believe we understand that the property owner of course has uh reviewed that hanging down sign and has agreed to it. Yes. Okay. So that is already cleared through the um landlord of that shopping center so to speak. Um so with that are there any questions from the commissioners regarding those three signs? Okay. Um, the property management company was the only question I had. Um, I will open to anyone in the public that has a question about this. I know this is a very

hightraic area. Um, is there any interest in the public for a comment regarding this sign application? Seeing none, no public comment. Uh, and no further commissioner discussion. Um, I will again make the motion to approve the mattress warehouse warehouse sign application for an off- premises sign, a sign on the ceiling of the covered walkway in front of the business and a building facade sign as submitted by Beltway Sign Service Incorporated. Do I hear a second? I will second that. Commissioner Bneck seconds it. Is there any discussion or questions regarding the motion or the application? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion to approve these three signs, please say I. I. I. Any oppose say nay. The sign application for the mattress warehouse three signs is unanimously approved. Thank you. Our third sign application is an AT&T business sign application. Again, the applicant is represented by Beltway Sign Service. And again, we'll apply the code 112-11 paragraph C for commercial signs. Um staff report, John, if you don't mind. Yeah, no worries. Thank you. Again, the um this one's a little similar to the last one. the uh the variation of uh one square foot won't be required because we have some secondary signs as part of this. Currently, this is the size of the uh front of the front of the building. Uh they have 20 foot 6 in uh linear footage frontage of the of the building. Uh, and the request was

for a total sign area of 19.1 square ft. Uh, so that's in compliance with the uh sign ordinance. Uh, again, the um the secondary sign is again up underneath of the Oh, no, that's not it. up underneath the mansered or or covered walkway as well as two-sided similar probably attaching a vinyl coating um to that as well. Uh and then the other signage that is really uh in in course you know it's not what's the word I'm looking for anyway the the advertising of the store hours on the front of the building. My delicate touching on the mouse. Uh we normally don't even uh take this into account. Normally we don't even see this as part of application. Uh but uh AT&T did provide the um labeling on the door as well. Correct. But and so planning uh the staff's recommending planning planning commission grant the approval of all replacement signs requested by the applicant. Gotcha. And again, Mr. Brand, anything you wish to add or elaborate upon on this uh sign application? Uh no, sir. John did a great job. Uh again, as he mentioned, the vinyl on the on the pedestrian that under canopy sign is just vinyl applied to the existing blank face. Okay. Um commissioners, do you have any questions on this application? Okay. Um in the staff report, John, there was also mention of vinyl lettering on the door of the business. Mhm. Is that included in this application or is it strictly the sign on the facade and the hanging down covered walkway sign? Well, again, it is it isn't doesn't go into the calculation. It is part of the sign application, but it isn't considered part of the store hours is not normally

something we would put into um that calculation. It would just be the main sign on the fascia of the building. Gotcha. Um, and commissioners, please, I apologize for leaping ahead of giving you an opportunity on questions, but um, in the code, the commission can delegate to the zoning administrator yourself for, of course, the signed permitting and approval in some circumstances. Mhm. So, I'm focused in in leading off with that statement, John. I'm focused on something as simple as a business wanting to put vinyl lettering, stick on lettering on a door that says we're open these days and hours or this is our logo or this is our phone number. You know what I'm speaking of? Yes. I'm not speaking so much as to a building sign or a or not even the smaller hanging down covered walkway sign. Um, and so commissioners, I I I would just open the thought that when it comes to businesses asking to put vinyl lettering on their entrance doors, is is that something appropriate, we let the zoning administrator work with the business on something of that level? Um, I do, it is in the code that whenever the zoning administrator questions whether it's appropriate for the commission or not to rule on a sign, he will just bring it to us. But in this case, I think we can just cuz you'll you will next issue a permit for the sign. That's correct. And so I think just my opinion, but I'm open to it from the other commissioners for something as simple as door vinyl stick on hours of operation. I I think you can work that yourself at the permitting stage. Well, how about then even the um the marquee out at the end of the road. Do you want to see that as well? Because it's not included in the calculation that we you know the two-sided marquee or even the one that's underneath the mansert or the the covered walkway. Do you want to still

see those as well? Yes. So So the two-sided marquee, that's the thing hanging from the covered walkway, right? Well, I'm saying the monument sign marquee or the Oh, no. That's an off- premises sign that should come before the planning commission. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, um off- premises sign are described as part of the planning commission review. So, I would say yeah, keep that coming. But something as simple as putting vinyl lettering on a door, right? I think you work that out at the permitting process. Yep. But, um I'm I'm trying to draw a line here between significant enough for the commission to review and give you feedback. Sure. and and lesser significance, so to speak. Um, and again, I you know, this is a case- byase basis, I think. But in in an example like this, and I'm not ruling out that all doors with lettering from here on, don't come before us. I'm just saying in a case like this, I'll just leave I would say figuring out that lettering and what it says is okay for you to work at your level, okay? On an entrance door. Um, unless again a commissioner sees that as an issue. I I kind of would like to see it just to make sure that it's standard like we're not seeing any crazy colors or anything like that. I think that font size and all that stuff matters too. So, I personally would like to see it and and and and I'm trying to give everybody both sides of this kind of issue here because we have had businesses that have placed um adhesive decorations on the windows facing the public and have judged those adhesive stick on illustrations as unnecessary for planning commission. review. Whereas from the town's perspective and from my personal

perspective, they were significant window illustrations. Um, and so I'm trying to be even-handed here without naming the business. Uh, so there is a point where you have to be cautious about deferring too much of window adhesive signs um to something outside of the planning commission review. And I'm I'm keen to that. Yeah, Mr. I was I was going to say with that, too, like My concern is if it's something that obstructs the whole door or sure if it's too much decal that you can't see in the door or so, you know, it's a safety issue or if it's starting to advertise certain products or something like that in the we just it's better to have a look at it. I think like that one's very clean. I don't think anybody's going to have an issue with that, but I think if it's a different one, we may have an issue, but it's safe to I think to take a look at it. Makes sense. Makes sense. Gotcha. Um, good dialogue on this. Uh we want to do it right for the town and of course I know the business wants us to do it right too. Um I will say that you know the application came in with this as part of their application. So you know instead of me sort of peacemealing pieces out I'd rather just bring it to you guys and just let you make the decision. There you go. you know, I mean, even though it's in in yeah, whatever the word I'm looking for, it's there. If it's not, it doesn't go into the calculation, but it's still um signage that you can approve. Got it. So, if I may recap, this application is indeed three signs. The sign, the major sign that we saw in the illustration on the facade of the building, AT&T. the sign which is double-sided which will hang down from the ceiling of the covered walkway outside the business and then third the signage that will be the vinyl stick on lettering of the business entrance door. Is that accurate? Yes, sir. All three. That's correct. And if one more time any discussion on those three signs then is there anyone in the

public that wishes a comment on the application for those three signs? Seeing none, no public comment. Then I will entertain a motion regarding this application for those three signs. I will make the motion to approve um the sign for AT&T. Um sorry, I don't have the correct language here. More than one signs, sorry. All three signs um as um proposed. The motion is to approve all three ENT business signs. Uh, is there a second for that motion? Second. Bill, sorry. She jumped ahead of you. Commissioner Hadley will second that motion to approve all three ENTT business signs. Any further discussion before a vote? Seeing no discussion, all those in favor of the motion to approve the three signs for the AT&T business, please say so by saying I. I. I. Any oppose? Say nay. The motion to approve the AT&T signs is unanimously approved. Thank you. Thanks everyone. Happy 4th everybody. Thank you Gary. So, this brings us to the last item on tonight's agenda, which is the introduction and discussion of the water resource element. Um, and I believe it's a water resource element provided to us from Carol County. Um, and although the agenda says for recommendation to the town council, um, if I may, John, um, should I rephrase that to, uh, provide comment

back to Carol County? Carol County Planning Commission. Gotcha. Okay. So, um, just for clarity then, uh, this is a draft water resource element that's a part of the required every three-year water resource element update from every county in the state of Maryland. Um, and so that's what this is about. So, this is a draft part of that water resource element that involves the town of Mount Air statistics with regard to water capacity and wastewater treatment capacity specifically. Um and again this is a draft for our first look and our comments here will go back through John to um to the count Carol County uh for them to make suitable changes edits further. Eventually, a final version, a final draft version of the water and sewer master plan with the water resource element will find its way back to the town council to the town council. It'll be introduced there and then they'll hold a public hearing, right? Um after that. Gotcha. So this is literally first chops on what they are intending to put in their and this in this element this section here that was part of Mount Airy was uh given to Barney the town engineer as well for his review and and acceptance and both myself and Barney are in agreeance on how the um how the how this is presented so far. Gotcha. and and you read my mind because I wanted the public to make sure that this has appropriately so been reviewed by both yourself and particularly the town engineer Barney um in coming up with any edits or changes or suggestions for them to improve it before it goes into final draft and then comes to the

council uh for their approval and acceptance. And so um so I turn now to the commissioners. In your review of this document, do you have any questions, issues, amendments uh that uh either John or Barney could answer? So, I go ahead, Barney, I'd be very interested in hearing your thinking. Bill, can you come closer to the mic? I'd love to hear your assessment uh and your thoughts on what's being proposed and some of us have actually gone on tours with you of the wastewater treatment plant and and other facilities um that you have jurisdiction over and so would love to hear your your assessment uh given the context that you you look at all this and what's being proposed. Sure. Um it everything follows exactly basically follows our numbers. Um we went over this with the county a year ago uh one and two years ago. Um going through the and um not a whole lot has changed. So um these numbers are are right on right on. Okay. Barney. Uh real quick um and I'm referring to page three of I'm on the same page. There you go. You're anticipating this, I think. So, page had one comment. Yes. Yeah. So, page three has the title water supply and there are um county municipalities listed there. Mount areas in the stoplight chart for yellow. Um and it says that we have uh a deficit or additional capacity needed of almost uh 300,000 gallons per day.

specifically 299,052 gallons per day um to meet the growth that they anticipate for the town. Yes. And over to the right, just next to that deficit number, they list the potential actions to increase that capacity or to meet that buildout demand or in another way to say it, to mitigate that shortfall, to to help improve upon that shortfall. And one of the items they list is wastewater treatment plant expansion. And so my question is we're talking about water supply and for the town of Mount area and our 11 wells that's a groundwater supply right. Yes. And there are components of our water supply system and Barney you can certainly elaborate on it. Storage distribution the wells themselves so forth. Um, but I just can't see why the county would say to improve or increase the amount of groundwater we need, we're gonna expand the other end of the whole process. Could could you say that's correct or is that something we ought to go back and say why in the world would we improve the groundwater supply by making the sewer treatment plant bigger right and if you look under the wastewater it says that we have adequate capacity another 20 10,000 gallons plus 10,000 um so we have adequate capacity to meet our demands of the infill property not not any um annexations but infill property, right? So if they were trying to compare that we need the wastewater treatment plant to go with the supply water um you know that that doesn't even make sense. So okay the water wastewater treatment

plant expansion should come off this list I would think. Okay um you know for the water supply to meet demand we need more supply water and and they do it for other municipalities in that same chart. Have you noticed that? Yes. So there must be some rationale if if you don't mind me. Yeah, please. There is a note under water supply that's written vertically. It says um temp plus 10% reflects MD's plus 10 for drought demand as well as capacity available with the largest well out of service which increases the capacity needed. So if they took the largest well out of service, this is what our demands would be. Is that is that correct? So if that saying that largest well wasn't producing water, we would be in a deficit of minus 299,000 gallons. No. So So we already factor in uh the the ex actually 12% that the town requires more more than the state requires a 10% uh for drought demand and taking a well out of service. We have uh our largest well is down at station number uh one and we have four wells where we will only run two. So we actually have redundancy down there. Um, so we don't really lose capacity by taking one well out of service. Okay. By the way, they put that footnote in there for some reason. Yeah. So, I think what we've just concluded is um e either through John or yourself back to the authors at the county level on this. I I believe we all see a need to either explain that potential action wastewater treatment plant expansion bullet or remove it. Is that is that accurate? Okay. All right. John, is that is that fair? Okay. And at this point, as chair, I'm going to invite Mr. Swanson. Yes, sir. If you would like to join us. Uh Mr. Swanson is the chair of the water and sewer

commission. um has done that job for many years uh in service to the town and um and if I may just ask, have you had a chance to look this water resource element over? Uh I have. Yes, I've worked with I'm the Is that on? It's on. Yeah, I'm the representative uh also for the town to the WRCC, which is the group that puts this together. So, uh I've been involved in that end of it. I will I want to clarify one thing. You mentioned that this WRE covers uh water wastewater. It also covers our MS4 permit for storm water management. Okay. So you have to bear in mind that whatever recommendation you make would include all three. Okay. And and so if I may, I'm going to broaden the input on this. Mr. Swanson, do you see any necessary edits or clarity on on this draft that needs to go back through John to the county or or can you explain for instance the topic we just discussed the entry of the wastewater treatment plant expansion? Well, there there are separate sections of that. There's there's the water section, there's the wastewater treatment section and wastewater treatment. That's where they did the calculation that comes up. It says that our extra capacity if you were to build out the whole town is 10,000 gallons a day. uh which the recommendation that maybe expanding the plant which which is a physical barrier in doing that but uh I believe that recommendation is based on the fact that you're cutting it so close in terms of your permit for that that it would be wise to consider somehow how you're going to add additional wastewater capacity. Although I do say because of the topography over there or the area that that's a would be a tough

call. Um and and so that's a great topic and um I'm going to invite a little additional detail from Barney on that because we've talked recently about the expansion of the current wastewater treatment plants capacity. Um because I like you have read the latest county water and sewer master plan which explicitly states that due to geography it's very difficult for us there's no real estate to add more capacity in the current location next to the south branch of the Patapsco right but Barney do you want to elaborate on there's other ways to increase that capacity in the current footprint. Sure. Yeah. So, so we did a uh wastewater treatment capacity study just a couple years ago with RK. Uh the conclusion came out that we can expand to either one point sorry 1.5 or 1.8 so either a 25% or a 50% increase in the capacity with the existing footprint the exist same tanks by changing the process. Okay. there is a new process, a newer process that we can, you know, change it. There's a cost to it. Um, and I think the lease cost was somewhere around 12 14 million dollars to go to 1.5 million gallons or something more than 15 million to go to 1.8 million gallons. So, there is a way to increase capacity there, right? uh without needing extra geography u since we're kind of surrounded by wetlands and and so forth. So so it's technology that's going to give us that ability. Correct. Gotcha. And when we say within the current footprint, that even

includes not needing more tanks in the final stage. Correct. Correct. Yes. Okay. That's fantastic. Okay. Um, again, I open to any commissioners that have any questions. Um, and just in general, we got two of the experts here. Um, any questions at all about water or wastewater treatment? From my personal perspective, when we talk about meeting a shortfall in water supply, not wastewater, in water supply capacity, to me, it's simply two things. We drill more wells or we get a higher allocation. Is that fair? Is that an accurate perspective on just the simple question of how do we get more water into this town? Okay. Gotcha. Okay. Um, so John, I I don't think a motion's needed for this. I think we've had a good discussion. We introduced this topic. I believe we have one either edit slashquest uh with regard to that entry. Um, sorry, Council Member Kelly, you got a question? Uh, two quick questions if I may. Uh just to clarify, so from here this doesn't go to the council. This goes back to the county and then later go right. So back through here to the council. It doesn't come come back through the planning commission. Basically, uh our recommendations or modifications will go back to Carol County Planning Commission. Uh that's presented to them. It's then sent out to once they've received from all the different municipalities, it'll send it back to the state of Maryland or MDE for their 60-day review. Uh when that comes back, they'll do modifications if necessary. That document will come back. It'll be introduced at the town council and then it'll be a public hearing will be set and then they'll vote on that after that public hearing. Okay. Thank you. I just want to make I just want to clarify it's not going to the council from here. No.

Um and then general question, does this body have um as far as comments, revisions? Um is it only on the Mount Airy portion or are there other some of the overview? I mean, is there something else in the document? I guess you could you can make you can make comments on anything, but u comments I my review of it the county portion, not the municipal portion. or eight eight municipal portions uh is is a lot of boilerplate. Um it generally probably doesn't conflict with anything that at least I know of that the uh town is either doing or contemplating doing. So um my suggestion is that uh unless it's significant, I would suggest that you really don't make a lot of comments about the uh what I consider boilerplate. Mhm. Dick, one more quick question and I can't resist because you're on the WRCC. What's the viability of the Gillisfall Reservoir argument as a surface water source surface water source for this town? Actually, is that is that off the map? Actually, it has not come up in any of the years that I've been on that. and uh they do with all the reservoirs and everything else is is uh run through and discuss with the WRCC. It has never come up. Okay. Because it is in the water and sewer master plan, the last one. It speaks to that being a potential source for this town as it may grow and annex and get bigger. I always found that interesting because I thought it was dead. I thought it I find it

interesting, too. Okay, yes, if I may. Um, I guess a question that I have is has the county identified potential additional water sources or the feasibility of increased appropriations? Because if they haven't, stating that there's there are potential solutions when they're really infeasible doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Uh I think if you go through the uh slides there's one of the recommendations in there is that uh we could uh and this is a countywide initiative for discussion at this point but uh partner with other municipalities or with the county to share water resources if necessary and if viable. And of course that would require as far as Mount Ary's concerned uh piping and we certainly are not close enough to uh any municipality or major water source in Carol County. We are close to WSCC. We are close to the pipeline in uh Frederick. U but those discussions and the determination will be solely on the part of the town of Mount Ary not the county. I have another question and maybe Barney. Um, we wouldn't be able to drill any more wells because essentially we're on we're on the Patapsco uh aquifer. Correct. So, um, the east side of town is on the south branch of Papsco. Okay. Um, we did I don't remember exactly what year, but we did uh drill well 11 uh within town. We we drilled two other places in town um after we did the 28 out of Gills Falls and were not very successful and we came up with a good well down at

South Main Street. Um there's nothing to say that we couldn't drill more because I think there's still land available you know above and beyond what you know u what we have what we're pulling water from currently. Um and then like on well nine on the west side we're even though we didn't have enough land to support additional capacity under the Brinkley bill um I forget what year that was like 19 I mean uh 20 2007 or something like that. Um the um under the Brinkley bill allows us to bring in more capacity for a municipality uh utilizing some of the acreage that's outside the municipality. I think you have to take it. So there there are ways of bringing in more water. It could even be a well outside of the town limits um that gets piped into the town. Uh there are options. They are listed in the uh water sewer master plan. Gills Falls Reservoir is one of them. You know, unless we doing a lot of development, you know, it's just something that we're just keeping in there because it could be a viable solution 40 years from now. We we don't know. Uh but there's no reason to take it off the books if if it could be a viable solution in the future. I just that's why it's there. and those those u drilling additional wells and stuff is uh all has to go through the MD review process and the permitting process from them and um so the the question is in in their minds and we don't know how close are we to tapped out in terms of what they're going to give us any additional allocation beyond what you can do through the Brinkley bill. Right. Right. And I I think that I guess just from where I'm sitting, this is a little bit and and it's what it needs to be because

it's boilerplate or whatever, but it's a little bit handwavy about what we would do to increase capacity and you know instead of like an actual study on the feasibility of it and what you know even the options that are listed in the master plan, how viable are any of those options really? Um, I just think that at some point someone should look at that because this is just saying like, "Oh, we're yellow. We're, you know, we'll figure it out." But the reality is it's a lot more complicated than that. And I don't think any of us have heard of a an extremely viable solution in the near term. Give an example. On the Beck property, the developer drilled a well that potentially could be a viable solution until we actually get an appropriation, know what that amount is, and if it meets our our minimum, um that certainly could be. Um but until we need it, um the town currently is not actively looking for water because today we still have a little bit of capacity. Uh but if a large development came in, they would need to provide that. So, it's kind of on their dime to uh to search for that water. Um but if for some reason we come into a deficit again, then then but that's because we're getting close to using up our water uh supply, that's why we asked for additional appropriation on well uh well number nine. Okay. Um you know, we're about two years into it and we're still waiting for MDE to give us a response. In in addition, I said the water and sewer commission has been looking into u long range planning for that type of thing because currently the town does not have long range plan. exactly what you're you're saying and we are in the process of discussing that and most likely we'll be making a recommendation to the town council that uh they

direct the staff to make uh long-term plans on both the water wastewater treatment plant and storm water management. Commissioner Buts, you Barney, I'd like to reference the gosh upwards of two years I think you spent in up in the Harrison Lashier area uh testing up there and so forth. And if if you have any comments in terms of the context of of of what is up there and the extent to which it would behoove us to to pursue um looking at that as a viable option going forward or else that's that's under the purview of Carol County and we don't have a Harrison Lashier access yet. So Harrison last year uh we tested twice actually um and um we came up with basically the equivalent of two of our existing wells. So increasing about 20% of our current capacity. Um so that's again certainly a viable solution. It's all matter what they want to do with the property and whether that's going to come into town if they want to share that with with the town. Yeah. That's so that could be an option. It is correct. And if I can again recap because it's a great question from Commissioner Wallace and that is what are our what are our solutions? You know we we've identified a shortfall. We say we need to do this but let's get a level below that. And I think what we just concluded that in the inventory of possible solutions for increasing the groundwater supply we have potentially five solutions. We have the drill and tested Beck property well

near Watkins Park and then through an annexation we potentially have four drilled wells on the Harrison Lashier property. So in the getting down to what Commissioner Wallace just um encouraged us. I think we have in our quiver five arrows that could potentially be the solution to this shortfall. Would that be an accurate statement? You think, Barney? Yes. And we're already pursuing one of them, which again with Beck after two years, we're waiting for that response. Gotcha. Okay. Is this something you want to add to the report? Oh, for Harrison Lasher. No, this is well nine. Well, nine, but that's an MDE allocation, right? Yes. We're waiting for an increase appropriation, right? I'm I'm I'm I got you. I I'm I'm I'm kind of focused on holes in the ground that there's there's five other holes in the ground that could be leveraged. The sixth hole that we're trying to get the appropriation we already have. I got you. The other ones aren't currently active with a pump house and etc to put it back in our system. And I believe another option without a hole in the ground is actually connecting to Frederick County, which is a fee is a large fee and a lot of piping as as Dick said. Yeah. Okay. And Barney, would that be grants that would help us pay for all that? I don't have an answer to that. All right. We wish. Yeah. Well, listen, um unless there's a uh another good comment, um I I I want to thank everybody, including you, Mr. Swanson, for joining us tonight. Um because quite obviously, it's an understatement to say this is an important topic now and for the future of the town. There's there's not much higher priority than our water supply and the treatment

of it. So, um, again, I think we conclude that we send back that one small edit on the water supply chart questioning the WWTP expansion as a viable solution to increasing water supply capacity. And again, they may explain it and maybe with that explanation a good entry, but um, Commissioner Walls, can we get an update on what's going on with the PA House situation? Yeah. Yeah, like what's the status of remediating it? Um I can give you an update. Yes. Okay. So, um we broke it into two parts. Um we're working on the design. In fact, it's it's about 99% complete. Um we've already submitted drawings to the county uh for um for their review for the site plan. Um and uh that's for stations one and five. Uh we have two other stations, two and three that uh require the design which they've begun but uh they still have a little ways to go and also the connection to the trailer park. That's the second those three things are the second phase. So we're just kind of at the beginning stages of getting those going, but one and five we're we're near complete design and um trying to get um you know approval. So, so that's under review currently through the agencies. Um, in the meantime, we're continuing to monitor and, you know, do testing and stuff like that. My next question, but they're they are they're never exactly the same. You can have this well is high and this well is high, but then the others are fine and then then those two would be fine and the others are high. They it seems a shift, you know, way the groundwater's moving, I guess. Um, but

uh But generally, you know, we have the same wells that keep repeating, you know, high levels, you know, if not every time, every other time. Have we seen any levels higher than what were originally reported when all of this first came up? No. Or no. Um 27 I think was 27 or 28 um um was the highest level on well 7 and that's um I don't think anything succeeded that. Thank you. Before closing this topic, any interest from the public on the water resource element in its draft form? Seeing no interest in public, please come to the mic. Well, the mic mic. So, just a quick question. Is is there anything in this water resources summary or section or whatever that's that's inconsistent in any way with what we state in our master plan? So, for example, I'm I'm looking at uh so this is page one of of a summary associated with the handouts and it says key action items for Mount Ary. And then under drinker water supply, one of them says complete Brinkley bill evaluation for increased appropriation. I I know we're doing that. Did we say that in the master plan? So I don't recall an action item in chapter 4 where water is addressed under natural resources that we have an action item that is specific to the Brinkley Act. Okay. Um, where I'm going with this is I just want to make sure I want to be able to understand the relationship between

this document and our master plan and does one have more sway over the other. And I'd want to make sure that whatever we're saying in here is totally consistent with what we're saying in the master plan. That's that's kind of where I was going with that. You know, I I understand that. Um and and without saying, as you know, there's two different time frames for when we completed the master plan and now that we've gone forward with the drafting and completion of the water resource element at the county level. Um I I would say this uh council member Demoter and that is when the final when the final water resource element and county Carol County water and sewer master plan is finalized um then once we have that final document it would be reasonable for us to take a look at the master plan specifically chapter 4 and just see if there's any disconnects um with regard to the actions in the master plan versus the statements. That would be the best answer I could give you at this point. If that's any other opinion on kind of putting the two together. Well, I I I do agree with looking at these action items and seeing if there's anything that we don't think is feasible. You know what I mean? Like if they're proposing that we, the town, do something that isn't feasible, we might want to talk to them about that before it ends up in the final. Right. Right. Is that what you were getting at? Yeah. So I I would say So let me let me say it this way and Council Member Kelly, I'm kind of looking to you now because you'll be the first eyes on the final version. And so, um, speaking for myself, but certainly possibly other commissioners

would be interested in your sideby-side comparison of the master plan for the town visav whatever that final document is. Um, and I always hate to make work for other people, but um, I'm kind of asking if that would be reasonable task for the council liaison to look at with the planning commission to kind of do that first blush on what it is in that final document and if there's anything crosswise with our action plan or something we need to pick up as an action. I guess I'm being very general here, but I would kind of look perhaps. Is is that reasonable to for you to kind of do that first check on it? Absolutely. Okay. Okay. Yeah. I was just another angle that I was going for here was I I don't want the town to be exposed in any way where if our master plan says one thing and this other document says something a little different in terms of a developer coming in and saying there's more capacity or less capacity or whatever the two need to jive and a absent does one document hold sway over another in terms of our down like does our master plan hold more weight than what the water section in this document holds sway over? What's the relationship between the two in terms of authorities so to speak? Understood. So I would say and and and as we're talking about it here um and Mr. Swanson, forgive me, but I can't remember the new council liaison to the water and sewer commission. Is that that's you? Okay. All right. So that's council member de motor. So I think fair request then would be for both of you to lay eyes on that final document once it clears the WRCC and the county and then comes

before the council. Um I would certainly throw a shoulder into looking at that comparison between the the master plan and that and that final document. Um and and John again and Barney again, I think if we find disconnects and there's something necessary that needs to go back to Westminster, that would be the opportunity for the council to say here's some questions and so forth and we go from there. Is that a reasonable approach to to making sure the two documents jive I guess is kind of the the topic here, right? Okay. Yes. also point out it's already cleared the WRCC and the process here is then to go down and to the all eight municipalities and the county planning commission and um have them take a look at it and basically concur with the entire WRE with specific emphasis on the town of Mount. uh but I would reiterate to say that any changes that are not I would say material or significant I considering that you know this is a a rather large document and I'm not sure that this is because this is not the WR this is just a summary I don't remember whether things like expanding the wastewater treatment plant was in the as the entire document do you remember Barney So we added some language uh about the study um of the that we had done for the capacity. Then the then the wording here is actually the summary is is probably not accurate because if you're if you're talking in the itself which is the document that you're talking about we're talking about um if

it says that that's an accurate statement. If it says expansion of the plant meaning make it the finger the footprint bigger then yes I would say that's that's misleading right so I think before you make your recommendation don't do we have an electronic copy of that did everybody get a copy the itself is that all been distributed to all the planning commission members in it's in their document you're talking about this report here no I'm talking about the actual itself. Do you have that? I don't think so. I think this is um the mount's portion of the is what I'm talking about the documented all those little numbers in there about the we haven't seen the complete master plan. Pardon? Or are you talking about the water and sewer master plan as our charts the numbers are and what? Yeah. What is in there? because that that should jive with the which would be consistent with the master plan, right? And so you have to go back to that document and start from there and say what does that say? And if it says that you're u basically through technologically changing the way the process works now you can achieve more water throughput permitted. uh then that comment should be just changed to for this county to make the change. Yeah. So Dick, I think what you're saying is there's actually two things. We've already mentioned the one on the water supply wastewater treatment plant expansion bullet being questionable. But I think the second comment back is we want to make sure that on the wastewater treatment

capacity portion of the summary, we give you guys the right words as to the studies findings and the the capacity increase is feasible through technology. Um I I'm simply saying that that yes, you're correct. I'm saying that the uh water the wastewater um comprehensive plan if that document should say that through and putting new processes through. In other words, advanced technology will get that expand up to that 1 million five or 1 million6. We're in agreement. Yeah. Right. And and so if that document says that all I'm saying is that and you agree with that as a as a commission that your approval should be then that um those documents all three of them actually the uh comprehensive plan for water and sewer and the summary of WRE this and the master plan all jive and what I think is out of kilter here is the summary itself not okay right okay yeah we can give it one more look because the summary only says expand wastewater treatment plant doesn't say how okay just says expand it all you need to do is actually you just change the wording okay so to to really help Miss Clinton because she's capturing this in the minutes um I'm going to propose that u We capture that we are providing the following back on this topic to Carol County. Number one, we are questioning the entry with regard to the solution on increasing the water supply which is the

WWTP, the wastewater treatment plan expansion. Comment one. Comment two, we need to make sure on the wastewater treatment side, whether it's in the summary or in the actual we, and Barney will have to help us on this, that we provide the right wording regarding how we can expand it using technology and not limited to a geographical footprint. Is that fair? And then the last item I'll say for the commissioners to get a head nod on this and that we will encourage Barney and Mr. Swanson to work further on improving this draft visav uh the town's water supply and so forth. In other words, kind of a statement where we look to them for making it as accurate as possible. Is that fair? those three kind of points made, Deb, if if that's good for you. Any any issue or question or addition to those three points? Okay. I just wanted to say on page eight of this, it does say that um at the conclusion of individual action items do not represent a commitment to um implement these action items. So to me it sounds like weak it what we decide is good for I mean that's that's the way I'm looking at it is that it's not it's not we don't have to hold this what we're do what the county says part of our master plan. Okay that's what I'm reading. I could be wrong. Okay. Um, last call. Any further items on this? And again, my sincere thanks to all those who contributed. Um, Council Member Kelly, Council Member Deoter, of

course, Mr. Swanson, town engineer. Uh, thank you for this. Um, and so now I'm going to close this agenda item and I'm going to move to reports and other business and the council leaison report from council member Kelly, please. Thank you, Dick. Thank you, Dick. Okay, so uh the council met on June 2nd. Uh a few notable items, uh from the mayor and council le liaison reports. Um the mayor, uh at that time had lifted the voluntary water restrictions and we can see that that was uh um almost fortune telling at that time with all the water we've gotten. So um um I was scooped a bit on the PAS update but uh remediation plan is being executed. Um additionally the town uh MDE is asking the town to expand water service to Twin Arch mobile park uh site plan drawings has been submitted to the county as Barney said being reviewed and um uh we have asked for an expedited approval of that. Um mayor also reports that several grants totaling $3.2 $2 million are pending for the renovation of the Flat Iron Building. Uh, additionally, a uh and also a $100,000 grant for the MAPD uh police station. Uh, Councilman Mund noted that the uh streets and roads commission continues to discuss the impact that Southside Plaza will have on uh that section of South Maine. Councilman Evans uh reported that um the EDC will be publishing a business survey uh to the town's businesses. Um and um that will be followed by a roundt on September 9th. So um September 9th I'm um that's on the calendar and I thought some of you would find that interesting. Um town attorney reported that the town's decision to reject Pleasant's

pre-concept plan for the Beck property was firmly upheld. Uh and while there were several ordinances uh ordinance votes on the agenda, most of them were budget amendments for projects that were not fulfilled in fiscal 2025 uh but there was ordinance 2025-3 which with which dealt with reszoning properties according to the master plan that was up for adoption. Um it was uh amend the there was a version um that was voted on that was amended and three sections were stricken. There was the property at Watersville in 27. Uh the northern south main properties and the south main extended properties. Those were all stricken from the ordinance and uh that was uh uh passed in the amended state. That's all I have. Any questions? Any question for council leaison? Thank you so much. Uh zoning administrator report. uh you have it before you uh with the various building permits, use and occupancy permits uh from Mr. Breeden. Any questions? Um any questions on that report to John? John, anything you want to emphasize in this or not on the zoning administrator report, but I did want to mention that we did meet with the Southside Plaza with the elevations. I didn't know if you wanted to talk about that at all. Well, just very quickly to kind of bring the rest of the commissioners up to date and if I may just lead into that, um, as was as I mentioned, as so well captured by Miss Clinton in our last meeting on May 19th, we solved that problem by agreeing to allow a subset of the commission, call it a task force, call it a committee, but a subset of the commission, uh, which was Commissioner Wallace, Commissioner Ali, and myself were going to review their revised elevation s of the buildings comprising that development. Um the

revisions were strongly encouraged to contain more masonry andor brick to be more consistent with the character of the town and to the surrounding business community in that area. Um and so that was our conclusion. We motioned on that. Uh, Commissioner Wallace and Commissioner Mali and myself were poised to see those revisions. Those revisions were delivered to John. Uh, John reviewed them and sent them out to us and the three commissioners had a um conference call where we scrubbed with a pretty good wire brush the revised elevations and we sent our comments back to Mr. breeding for him to then convey to the architect. And uh at that point, John, I'll let you pick up. Yes. So, I have um conveyed those concerns and and and alterations that you did for building A and B uh to the architect. I have not heard anything back from them. Once I do get the revised elevations, I'll be submitting to those to you three people as well to get your final blessing and then I can pass along to them that they can start construction documents. Gotcha. And and again, I kind of an oblique commendation to the rest of the commissioners because in that motion that we agreed to in this path that we chose, we're keeping the business development moving forward, but we're having it move forward within the guidelines that we're stressing for architectural aesthetics and appearance. So, I think we came up with a good way and I commend both commissioners on this committee uh for their for their really good scrub of what came back because there were some issues. I won't detail those, but just be fair to say uh we we created a fairly good list of things

that had to occur to those revisions further before it would meet um our comfort zone, our standard for the comments that we made on May 19th. So, thanks John for bringing that up and that's a good way to apprise the other commissioners where we are. So, balls in their court. Hopefully they send us something back. And one last comment on that. The question was, how do we ratify and make sure that whatever we finally agree to is captured as the official final architectural elevations? John and I have both agreed that the final architectural elevations will have to be done totally in a whole new development site plan package so that we don't have any like oh I thought you said this I only understood this building you you know where I'm getting at. So once we get through their next set of revisions, that will be the endgame that we capture it in that final set of required architectural documents. Um I've even added that I want the architect to sign those. I want to sign those and I think John, you're going to sign those. So again, my emphasis here is on making sure there's no doubt as to what we agree to as far as what those two buildings are going to look like up at the future traffic circle. So we're on it. Okay. Um the next planning commission meeting is on 28th July at the end of July. Same time, same place. Uh it is now 9:50 uh excuse me 8:56 and uh the planning commission meeting for the town of Manary is hereby adjourned. Thank you very much.