Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

item is the pledge of allegiance. Please rise.

I pledge allegiance 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. There's a wonderful crowd here tonight in town hall and so I thank everyone who took time out of this uh rather hot day uh to come out and participate in this evening's agenda and likewise to those that can't be here but are connected to tonight's proceedings via our live stream courtesy of uh the Carol Media Center and thank you to them for that support. The next item on our agenda is the approval of our last minutes on June 30th, 2025. A copy of those minutes is before every commissioner. I'll pause a moment for any commissioner to look over any notes they perhaps made as to the accuracy of the minutes or edits or changes. We will discuss edits or changes once we have a motion and second regarding the minutes. So I am looking now for a motion with regard to approval or disapproval of the minutes. Do I hear one?

I have a motion to approve as written. Commissioner Bneck uh motions to approve. Do I have a second? I'll second. Commissioner But second. I now open the discussion, edits, or amendments to the last June minutes. Hearing none. All those in favor of the motion to approve the June 30 minutes, please say I. I.

Those opposed? Nay. The minutes are approved unanimously. Thank you. And thank you, Miss Clinton. This is the time on our agenda every planning commission meeting where we allow citizen comments. And I always stress that if you do wish to make a comment, there will be a time limitation. And I do ask that you try to keep your comments to items that are not on tonight's agenda. I will strive to afford time as we go through the agenda for public comment within reason. So again, is there any interest in the audience here tonight to make a public comment? A show of hands. Once again, is there any interest for public comment? Seeing none, I close the public comment portion of tonight's agenda. And we move on now to the Carol and Frederick County planner liaison information for us. And John, I'm looking in the audience. I don't see Miss Mareno.

I don't see her either, but she said she was coming. She thought she was coming. Okay. And we do have the Carol County report. We do.

Yeah. Um, so let's begin with Carol County. And again for the public, uh, we lost our county liaison from Carroll County some time ago. They are trying to fill that position and reestablish an in-person liaison with Westminster's business for the county with the town. It's obviously critical u for us to stay linked on all important things between the town and the county. Um, they did provide a readout of significant items. Um, and I'll read for the public's benefit a quick set of information on water and sewer. Second item is text amendments. Third is the county, Carol County master plan update efforts. Uh there's a general section here with regard to who we would want to liaison with at Westminster regarding all annexation information and questions. And then the last item they afforded us uh is their annual report status. Um every municipality has to provide an annual report to the Maryland State Department of Planning. And so that was the last item. Um, I'm going to first turn to John to say, John, is there anything on here that catches your attention in particular that you want to kind of share with the rest of the commissioners and then I'll go to the commissioners for any questions?

No, I will say that um nothing out here um jumps out to me. I do know that they are going through a transitional period up there that Mary Lane, who provided this report, has now retired. Uh, one of their staff has now moved into her position, which has then opened up another liaison. um vacancy. So, they are looking at re possibly um reconfiguring their staff to be able to hopefully support all the different municipalities. Okay. So, um with that, I turn to the commissioners. Are there any questions or items of interest you want to comment on from the Carol County one-page report?

No. Would it be possible to get a copy of the revisions of the um to the adequate public facilities requirements?

You know, that caught um Commissioner Wallace, that caught my eye, too. That's under the text amendments paragraph. Yeah, I have it underlined myself as far as and so I'll read that for the public. The board of county commissioners has sent several zoning text amendments to the planning commission for their review and recommendation. The topics include revisions to the employment campus district. that is a specific zoning district that Carol County has. Um and the second item says in re revisions to their adequate public facilities and the third item is solar development requirements. And so I caught that too. I think it's very interested that we kind of stay in the no on what they view as APFO related changes, amendments, improvements, whatever. Um, and so the APFO from the town code is uh paragraph 25-5 within our town code. So I won't elaborate on it, but that's where the town covers adequate public facility ordinance, APFO, which is a critical portion of the concept plan stage for any development. And tonight we will actually go through an APFO certification if I'm not mistaken. Um, so yeah, uh, John, can we get that particular ask back to Miss Miss Lane?

Yeah, of course, Miss Lane is no longer there, but I will reach out to Claire to find out provide that. Again, the recommendations, I'm not sure when their monthly meetings are, but we can see what they sent back to their county commissioner. Sounds great. Sounds great. Any information be appreciated. Any other commissioner have a particular item of interest or comment on the Carol County? the solar development requirements. Okay. Also same same uh revision with respect to county solar development

requirements and at risk here. I'll make the comment if I'm not mistaken. I believe the county commissioners have placed a moratorum on any further solar development within the county or I think on egg property possibly I think on egg property. Okay. egg preservation property if I'm not mistaken. Okay. And I'm I'm a bit basically I might as well ask for that too because

well that yes that's what she she's interested in. So those two items APFO and solar development requirements and again to the public I'm a bit at risk. I think it is a moratorium on solar panel development solar farms uh as it's commonly known but but uh I won't I won't say that's a 100% statement. Um

well let's see if we can clarify. Oh, sure, sure. Yeah, let's see what that is. It could be the moratorum is until they revise the requirements. So, it's a work in progress with regard to the county code on that particular um item. Any other interest on this? Okay. Um I was stretching as they say in Hollywood hoping that Miss Mareno would come through the door. Um but I don't want to delay us any further because we have a rich agenda tonight. And so um so let's get moving. So the next item on the agenda is introduction and discussion for possible approval of the Rebs Candies signage. Uh this is an application for signage that's located roughly across the street from town hall here at one South Main Street. And before I ask for the staff report and recommendation from Mr. breeding. I ask is there an applicant representative or the applicant him or herself? Miss, if you would please come forward to this table and um while you're getting settled, I will ask that you introduce yourself in just a moment. Um but while you're getting settled, John, could you go ahead and give us a staff report on this application?

Sure, Ralph. Thanks. Um, and if you can, I don't know your name, but if you when you're ready to talk, just press the green button or there's a place down there you can press it'll illuminate the green button.

Yes. Thank you. And then just make sure the microphones in front of you so the viewing public can hear it. So again, yes, this is a new business that's coming into town. Uh, it's Reb's Candy uh from Baltimore. They've been a staple of the Baltimore County, Carol County, and surrounding counties for over a hundred years. They've chosen Mount Airy as their satellite location. Um, again, they're asking for two signs. Uh, the one of course over top of the door and then a um, as they call it, a shingle, which is a two-sided sign with a metal bracket, which is what we allow in the downtown zone or prefer. Uh, again, all the signs are non-illuminated. Uh, and they're hoping to be open by the middle to the end of August.

Fantastic. And the staff is recommending plan commission grant approval of all proposed signs for Rebs Candies. Thank you, John. And miss, if you'll introduce your state your name and um I also ask um if there was anything you wish to add to the staff report regarding your application, feel free to do so.

Um Amy Martin, I'm the retail manager for Reb's Candies. Um yeah, we're just excited. That's what we've got thus far. There is another um view of the shingle. I don't know if you want to show that. Yeah, that just gives you a better idea of of the the bottom side. Okay. All right. And again, the bottom sign or the shingle sign will be two-sided, not illuminated as well. Well, welcome and uh welcome to the town and uh there's nothing better than to indulge in candy. So, um

we hope so. Exactly. Um and so what I would like to do now is turn to the commissioners if you have any questions regarding this signage application. Commissioner Buts, I have one. Are you extending out from the immediate Baltimore area into other communities? If not, what was it that caused you to choose Mount Ary for an expansion?

Um, a large part of it is getting the product here. Um, one of our owners lives here in Mount Ary. Um, so it's very easy to get our stuff up. He leaves the factory in Baltimore and drops it off to us up here. So being able to get the product was just it's it's easier here than anywhere else. Okay. Any other commissioner questions? I have a question. Commissioner Omali. The um the bladed sign, the second sign, uh that hangs over the sidewalk. Correct.

Yeah. From my understanding, uh it'll be on one of the pillars by the front entrance. So it'll either be in this pillar here or that pillar there. Yeah. So, it it might extend a bit, but we have that overhang, so I'm not real sure the dimensions how far. I think it fits under the overhang, but I'm not positive on that. How many feet from the bottom of the sign to the sidewalk?

Well, the f sign is 18 and 3/4. Uh, this is approximately uh I think about 9 ft because this is a 6 foot eight here. So, I think that's about nine feet. So, we're hanging down maybe 25 inches. I'm thinking from the top of the overhang so that I make it seven feet or so above most individuals. And if Sorry, thank you, Commissioner. Yeah, let me just real quick on that and then you're um and that kind of detail would be included when the actual permit is issued. Is that correct? Yeah, you're saying for the sign height from the exact location and height.

Yep. Gotcha. Okay. So, it will be covered in the final permitting. Uh, Commissioner Bneck, how how wide is that um overhang the awning? I didn't measure it, but it's probably about four four and a half feet. Okay. So, it's not going to stick out over that. No, it's going to be within that be underneath it. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Any other commissioner questions? I have a a couple of questions. Um the the tangerine color I believe is part of your company logo. Is that accurate? Yes. Gotcha. Thank you. Um and just to reiterate, there is no requested illumination on either side. No.

Gotcha. And we have already addressed the brick column. Okay. I will say that the applicant did initially come in and wanted to put neon above the up in this exact area because their trademark is their neon sign above their distribution uh facility. Uh and of course we don't allow neon sign in the downtown zone. Um but they will have an illuminated Reb's candy sign maybe not to the same magnitude as the one they have in Baltimore inside the building which should be allowed as long as it's not in the front window. No.

Gotcha. And uh lastly, the part of the town code for the public's information that we use to assess any signage application is 112-11 in review of one stab 111-11. With respect to this application, there's nothing that's prohibited in 112-11 pertaining to this design. So it it clears that review of the town code. Also, um one last call. Is there any commissioner questions? Is there any public interest in a comment relative to this sign application? Seeing none, uh, Commissioner Buts, one more.

I've got one. What will be your operating schedule? Will will you be open to the public

hourly? Right now for August when we do open in August we are going to do 7 days a week um to get a feel for what what the town is how you know how it works timing um I have done research on the other stores in town you know with all their timings right now we're looking probably a 10 to six um type hourly we're thinking about um extending on the food trucks and the um farmers market days. Um but we're we're trying to stick to that 10 to 6. We're not sure if we're going to open on Sundays, but we're going to try it out to see what happens. Um so we're we're just learning at this point.

Gotcha. You mentioned August. I have to say, wouldn't it be wonderful if on the Mount Airy Mile, they just come right down the road? And I'm I think that was their target. I'm sorry goal. I don't think we're going to make it. It wasn't one time ago. I'm getting into your fence line. I'm sorry. No, no, that's okay. Believe me, I want I do want to piggy back on her um hours. So, they do close for two weeks in July, the first two weeks of July. The the main factory and the main store. Okay. Whether we will do that up here, we are going to discuss after our first season to figure out. I I don't know that that will be feasible up here. That's okay. Um so, it's okay if you're open still.

Yeah. another another learning curve just try to figure out but that's probably not going to happen here. Okay, gotcha. One last call. Commissioner, any questions? If not, then I will make a motion to approve the proposed two signs for Reb's Candies located at one South Main Street. Do I hear a second? I'll second. Commissioner um Hatley, excuse me. Uh seconds. Uh is there any further discussion or amendments to the motion I just made? Hearing no discussion or amendments. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed say nay. The signage application is approved unanimously. Welcome to Mount Ary. Thank you. We're looking forward to it.

Thank you, Amy.

Thank you. The next item on our agenda is an introduction of the annexation resolution number 2025-47 that has been referred to this planning commission from the town council at their last town council meeting. Per the town code, uh any access annexation petition uh first clears through the town council and the town council then refers it to this body for our assessment and recommendation back to the town council. The town code gives us 120 days to provide that recommendation starting today, this date, which is the first meeting after the town council referral. So, we have four months and if we find the need, we can also apply to the town council for an extension of that 120 days. Tonight's agenda, I wish to do two things with regard to this discussion. I'd like for John to introduce it and give us essentially a staff report on the petition for the annexation, identifying the property, identifying the meets and bounds, where it's located, etc. And then I'd like to shift into the second part of this particular agenda item and is how are we we commissioners going to reasonably apply the right and the prudent criteria to arrive at a a recommendation to give to the town council. So with that two-step of this agenda, I then first ask, is there an applicant or a representative up the applicant for this property here tonight? If you gentlemen would like to come up here and get situated, um I will ask as I have before for John to give us the

staff report and then we'll switch back to you for your introduction if you if you wish. Okay, John. Yeah. And again, thank you Ralph. U again at this current time there is no staff report because again it's just for introduction. Okay. No discussion. The staff report will be part of August agendas.

Correct. Um again the packet of the annexation resolution 25 202547 um has all the information related to the property uh annexation agreements etc. It does have a um and I can bring that up um a layout of the property. It is a 50 acre parcel along Woodsville Road. um they're working for um trying to come in through the into the town being annexed in for water and sewer and our approval. Again, the um the hopes are to get annexed under the lowdensity residential which would be R1 R2 or R1 as it comes in. Uh and again as the U and again in your packet you have an 11 by17 uh showing that parcel layout but that'll also be part of the staff report in August. Again I would defer to the applicant if they want to add anything additional. Um and I don't have anything to put up on the monitor.

We can take that. Yeah, we can take Rebs down and put this up again. I don't have anything to put up right now. You can take that down and we can raise the lights, I guess. Okay, you can turn We'll leave that up because then my other my other projects are after that. So, we can turn the lights up, but No. Um, so gentlemen, welcome tonight. If I could ask that you introduce yourselves and if you could clarify exactly what portion of this Earl, can you turn the lights on? What portion of this position do you represent? The owner or the business and land use aspect of it? Just clarify that for us. My name is Brian McKenna. and on Tim Park

and we're the ones trying to purchase and we own the company that is trying to purchase the land to build on it. If that clarifies that. And and just for the public's awareness, so um is this annexation a necessary condition of the settlement on the land sale? Is that where we are with respect to Yes. Okay. Okay. So your offer for the land as a purchaser is conditioned on whether this annexation is approved. Correct. Is that accurate? Okay, good. And you represent um not only the buyer but also the enterprise that intends to provide the sports complex land use on that R1 proposed district. Is that accurate? Correct. Yes.

Okay. Well, thank you. And and again, welcome to Mount Ary. Um so, this property is located on the north side of Watersville Road. Um, how many acres do we have on that? Approximately 50.9 I think is what it's correct. Okay. And can you tell us what the current zoning within the county is for that land? R40 R40 R40 44,000 that it is. Okay. Yeah.

Okay. And your petition for this annexation proposes that the town district that's going to be used if it is annexed is R1. And can you tell me in your review of the town code, does R1 allow the business that you're proposing on that plot? As far as we know, to our knowledge, yes. Okay. And John, verify that. That's correct. That's correct. Okay. Um, so very good. Um, uh, before I move on to the criteria that I'd like for us all to use among the commissioners here, I then would just turn to the commissioners. Do you have any questions of these two representatives? Commissioner Buts,

what are you adjacent to or across the road from? So we better understand the the layout and the proximity to something else that's been there a while. We're right across from the Noddingham community, like basically directly across from one of their main entrances. That would be the best way I would probably describe. Right. Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Okay. Any other commissioner questions to these uh two representatives uh of the seller of the buyer, excuse me. If not, what I'd like to do is uh John, can you put up on the screen the PDF or No. Yes.

Okay. Um, so again going back and echoing my words that I want to be sure that when this commission does reach a recommendation that if any town council member were to ask and how did you get to that recommendation? Um, we have some documentation and some substance behind how we measured this petition and and arrived at our recommendation. Um, I am not going to propose that this become the town annexation worksheet. I am not there yet. But I am saying it's just a way for the next at least 30 days until our August meeting when this will be on the agenda again. Correct, John? That's correct.

That it's food for thought, if I could use that that phrase, for things to look at. And I also intreat the town attorney, Mr. McCarron uh to go through this with us to make sure that if there is some of these criteria that I'm proposing for annexation assessment unreasonable, improper, um in the worst illegal, uh then of course I invite you to kind of chirp in and tell us uh strike that or change that etc. So what I did and um I'm referring to this handout that's at everyone's position. What I first did, part A of this sheet was that we see on the screen is I just echoed anywhere and everywhere the town code references an annexation effort. Okay? And so what I do is just basically bring straight out of the code for ready reference uh what it says regarding annexation. And so I won't go over these words, but basically you see 44, chapter 44. And if you scroll up, there is also annexation addressed within 112-3. And if you'll stop right there, everybody can see in the public also that 112-3B is exactly what I mentioned a moment ago about the town council refers this petition to the planning commission for us to give them a recommendation. Um, if you go to the next page, I believe that begins part B. And again, I'm really soft on this to basically say these are some things that I kind of think would be reasonable ideas to think about with regard to annexation. Um, and maybe number one is unnecessary because asking if it has been properly followed in the procedure to submit it, we wouldn't be here unless that had

occurred. Would that be accurate, Tom? Correct. So, that's a uh some something that's initially done by myself uh in consultation with town staff, right?

Um and we're not only making sure that the petition is in proper order, but we're also making sure that it meets the minimum requirements under state code to be eligible for annexation in the first place. It must be contiguous. It must not create an enclave does not already exist. By way of example, this is pretty simple, but in other more complicated annexations, we're making sure that enough owners of the property in the area to be annexed have signed the petition, enough uh registered voters. Obviously not complicated here is a bare piece of land and with one owner basically but in some annexations we take quite a bit of time looking at that uh where it's a little more complicated on the issue on the issue of con contiguity. Uh there is a road that separates at least a part of the property if I'm not mistaken. However, uh, one of the things that I have to certify and did certify to the town council is that Maryland law does permit one to go across the road in order even if there's an intervening road that's still contiguous in most circumstances. I won't bore you with the details about that, but uh so one of the first things that I have to do is certify all of that to the town council and the the uh mayor and the town council president will sign a verification form which will be in the file which essentially says it meets the the minimum requirements. Doesn't mean you have to annex it. Just simply says it's it's a property that is eligible to be annexed. So, so let's strike question one. It's already asked and answered and verified that a petition at this stage would have followed and met all the requirements within the town code. So, there's no need to put any energy into asking ourselves that question. The second

question is, is the proposed annexation included in the town's current master plan for 2023 to 2033? And if it is in the current master plan, what's the town's rationale for including that property within the municipal growth area or the town boundary growth? So I think this is a fundamental question because annexation of course should be addressed in the master plan. So um and and I believe the answer we could all pencil in is yes. Um and I would reserve the second part of that question for our discussion in August. Okay. The third question is, have there been any previous annexation efforts of the property? And if so, what is that history? Um, I do not recall this property ever being attempted in an annexation petition prior to this. So, the answer on this is no. In addition uh number four um in addition to the required information and attachments provided in the annexation petition, is there any further information desired by the planning commission? So again, I'm going to reserve this for each commissioner to request when we get back together in August. As you look through the petition, you may ask, geez, because it's on Watersville Road, do we have a traffic study or can we get one, etc., etc. I give some examples of possible quote further information according to the town code can be asked by us to kind of help us in our recommendation or making our recommendation. Number five is zoning criterion and proposed land use. Um the current county zoning is R40 and um John I will bring or you will bring to the August discussion what is the allowed land uses within R40. I will

provide that in August. This part B is what is the petitioner's proposed town zoning and land use? We can say R1. So Ralph, I just want to clarify. You're saying you want to know what all the uses are in R40 as well um in the county. Um under under the current county R40, what was the current owner's intended land use for it? I I believe it was primarily residential. Is that Well, I mean R40 is residential. I mean, the use currently is farmland. Okay. So, it it doesn't I don't think there's any was any plans that were submitted through Carol County for development on this property. Okay.

That's I'm just trying to understand what you're asking. Yeah. I'm just saying what what was um absent any annexation effort, what is the county's view as to what's allowed on that R40 district. Okay. Not what the current land use is or how it's seen that way. You want to know what what's the allowed uses in R40 from from the county's perspective. Yeah, that's it. And then uh B was R1. And um the land use I believe under R1 that would fit into this. I think the code for R1 says sports um I don't know it off the top. It doesn't say complex. It's like sports facility or

sports facilities. I think it does. Okay. We'll clarify that in August also. And then C is the proposed land use allowed within the proposed zoning. The answer is yes. D is are there existing structures on the property which are nonconforming to the proposed town zoning and land use? So I believe there is one structure. Is there a structure on there? No, there's no structure. There's two adjacent parcels as you look at it. It's not just a rectangle or square. Okay. That there's two parcels that are separate from this 50 acre parcel. Okay. So, this is in a uh there are no structures on the

I think there's a well right when there was a tested well possibly but it's not a structure.

Uh flipping the page uh part D is what are the adjacent town and county property zonings and land uses. And so I have a northeast southwest just simple and again we're not going to fill in those blanks here but we will have that information when we deliberate in depth. Um, and it kind of goes, I believe, to Commissioner But's question a moment ago is what's across from it, what's over here next to it. We got a we got an answer with regard to the residential subdivision called Noddingham, which I believe would be to the south of it. Um so anyway, so if that's a reasonable piece of our criteria just to know who are the neighbors of this parcel, um we will we will fill that in before

and that will be all notified by a mailer that will go out to let them know that this is coming in front of uh the planning commission for proposed annexation. Um f um I'm taking liberty with because as we've often treated uh uh subdivision plans and any development plan within this town, we inevitably get to where we hit upon the wording in the code that says is the development in harmony in harmony with the surrounding town residents. And so that's the genesis of question F there. Um and then G, um if the commissioner's consensus is that the proposed land use and subjective harmony aren't ideal, then what petition changes would be desired by the CL planning commission in order to provide a positive recommendation? Uh again, we can we can examine that question as we get into our deliberation and our own personal views on the petition. And then part C is simply just documenting, you know, what each commissioner feels against or for uh the petition so that we can get to kind of the brass tax on a vote on a recommendation at some at some later meeting. Um I'm not here to say at this point that that will occur in August. Um, we have 120 days to carefully go over this as as you would expect us to, I'm sure. Um, but again, I'll end with this simply being um just some yard sticks for you to start laying against the petition commissioners, and you can certainly add to it, subtract from it. Um, but I was just trying to get some of the juices flowing on the job that's ahead of us to to assess this partition. Is that fair? Okay. We're not going to motion or vote on this because again, I'm just offering it as a guide.

It's not in stone and it doesn't endeavor at this point to become the town annexation worksheet. Maybe at a later time. We'll see. We'll see how we go through this annexation. I'd like to add one thing to that, Ralph. Sure. uh that you know we do need to make sure that when we do make a recommendation that those recommendations can either be accepted or denied or those conditions of the annexation u u could be altered by the town council because ultimately they're the ones that make the final decision. Absolutely. Just as we had some of the reasonzonings that came in, right? Yeah. Recommendation was this. Well, they chose not to go with our recommendation. So, uh, again, so just want to let everybody know and the public know and the applicant know just because

and you understand they may say yes but council might say yes. That's that totally a good point. Uh Tom, do you have any last advice with regard to the job ahead of us?

You know, just uh the two observations I'll make is that uh with respect to annexations, municipalities are at the height of their authority. Typically, you have the ability to impose conditions that might not otherwise be proper at the site plan or subdivision plan review uh process stage. Uh there are limits. Uh so it's not no holds barred, but um um certainly the town has some authority. Um just in my experience, planning commissions will its most essential role is to determine is it consistent with the master plan and the zoning called for in the master plan should the property be annexed. Um uh and uh about the appropriateness of the proposed zoning within the petition or application for annexation. It's also the case that planning commissions will often take a look at impacts or potential impacts. They may not by way of example require as formal studies that may come to you at the time of um a site plan or development plan review. Uh but a lot of times they'll look at and say, "Okay, is this annexation going to present particular impacts that maybe are not in existent today?" uh or would not exist necessarily in certain cases uh should the property remain county zoned and within the purview of the county and things of that sort. Uh so planning commission sometimes again I'm not saying here look at okay what off-site improvements uh should there be in connection with the annexation uh or or what's really not at issue here uh one property might be a low water user so maybe that's not your concern but it's potentially a high traffic

impact so maybe that's your concern. uh those kind of things are often reviewed and very typically a part of recommendations conditions to annexation to the town council. John is correct. Town council ultimately determines that's a good condition. We'll put it into the annexation agreement and propose it or it's maybe maybe not uh as big a concern or maybe you know what that can wait till site plan uh development plan review uh at a later time which obviously must occur. annexation does not give one the right to develop the property. You've got to go further. So anyway, those are just the general observations from what I've seen and you know the several annexations I've been involved in, not just here but in other towns.

No, that that um Tom that's very very helpful to kind of bound our reasonable questioning. And so by way of example, I think what I heard and let me know if I'm tracking um an inappropriate question would be to ask where is the entrance going to be for this sports complex? That's a site plan question. But the concern may be traffic and the appropriate question then would be is there possible traffic studies that we could look at for Watersville Road? often they don't demand formal traffic studies at this stage with some indication.

And can you pull that microphone a little closer Tom because again I can barely hear you so I can only expect the general public can't. So again they don't uh in my experience planning commissions town councils don't typically demand the formal by way of example traffic study that they will at some later at the development review stage but they might require something less formal. Uh by way of example, if you're concerned of a particular access point, you may well say, "Okay, we we recommend that the uh in the annexation agreement, the access points or the candidates for access points be here, here, and here, but not there

because we are very concerned about something. Uh again, I'm not saying this applies here, but just by way of example, would it would it be within reason for this commission to ask uh water related uh information? And you know, Barney, alongside you there, I'm kind of looking for uh our code requires every new development to bring their own water. Correct. So um or a demonstration that it can't and therefore needs uh to take from existing town

got sources. So, so in the category of further information beyond what's submitted for the petition, uh some interest in the capacity and the capability of provisioning groundwater or groundwater supply in general would be a reasonable area for further information. Is that accurate? Absolutely.

Okay, gotcha. Um, would there be a need at all in your mind at this stage for us to be concerned about any possible ESA phase one study results or clarity with regard to subsurface toxicity or contaminants that may or may not exist. That that is not typically in my experience something that a planning commission will demand. uh but uh hypothetically in a given situation if there was something specific of concern some history of use or some Sure. But um

Gotcha. Well uh I don't want to keep going down this what if what if but I think you've given us good um kind of bounds as I mentioned earlier in order to get underway. Um so with that um I then ask if there's any public comment regarding this and I would ask that the public comment be aimed if possible on kind of the proposed criteria at least some of the proposed criteria uh that we're going to measure our assessment for this petition. Is is there any interest focused on the criteria here? Okay. Um, regarding public comment at the formal town council level, would there be a hearing?

Yes, there there has to be a public hearing. Um, and uh that will what happens after the the planning commission will give its recommendation. Then this moves back to the town council. There'll be an annexation plan that will be prepared by town staff for the town council's consideration. will not surprisingly incorporate probably well most definitely uh any of the recommendations from this body. The planning I'm sorry the town council will then review that make a determination and approve the annexation plan. That is not approval of the annexation. It is just approval of the piece that goes out to the state and the county uh planning departments for comment. the same time the town council will set a hearing probably 70 days out. Why that? Because in in our contract uh with uh at least Carol requires 60 days comment period

for annexations. So um the annexation plan will go out. We will get comments back from the county and the state and then you're ready to have your public hearing at which time the uh public will have an opportunity to address uh the annexation. Fantastic. Um you all now clearly understand why we're well served by this attorney. So u so sincere thanks for that. Good. Got that right. Um, at this point I ask if the representatives of the buyer have any questions for this commission or the town attorney or the town planner before you depart.

You're good. You understand? I think we're good. Yes. Okay. And there's a clear understanding as to what lies ahead for this commission with respect to the town council. And I think the town attorney just uh delineated all that really well. Okay. Well, thank you. Um I am going to close this agenda item on the annexation petition. Thank you very much for coming today.

Thank you. The next item on our agenda is the introduction and discussion of the possible approval of the concept plan for what is known as the Buffalo Ridge subdivision on the border with Buffalo Road. And prior to us getting a staff report and recommendation, um, if we could have the representative for the applicant Mr. Thompson, welcome tonight. Uh, John, if you'll go ahead and give us a quick staff report.

Sure. Um, so this this was a annexation that came to us, I guess it was about two years ago or so. Um, and it was approved from the from the town council uh with the intention to have a residential subdivision. Again, the um the parcel is um I don't have the acorage there, but um again, the um subdivision is along Buffalo Road. Uh it's a unique property in a way that it's sort of a little piece of mount area that wasn't or piece of the community that wasn't annexed in or was wasn't part of the town and now um is basically backed up against the edge of the uh existing I think it's Summit Ridge or this Summit Ridge um park that's right here.

Yeah. Uh and again we have the Frederick County Carroll County line sort of coming down the middle of Buffalo Road and then cutting across this parcel here.

Um again it is a a eight lot concept um subdivision. Uh and then this is sort of a clustered subdivision. We don't have clustered in our code but it sort of sort of is triggered when open space is sort of maximized and development is reduced. uh or the the size of the lots are are reduced to allow for more open space. Uh and again the um this is existing u it's R2 residential is how it came in through the um application. It is in the water and sewer um u water and sewer plans as S1 and W1. again the um at one point this property uh was presented with a possibility of a um sports complex going there at one point and I think this was before myself and Deborah started working here so Barney would know but it might have been 10 or 12 years ago they came in front of uh I guess the town council at that point for annexation and it wasn't taken in but uh so right now the uh owner has gotten approval to be annexed has submitted this uh Buffalo Ridge subdivision and that's what's in front of you in front of you now for concept approval. Uh again looking at the um staff reports if you have any questions for me or the applicant um I can answer those items. Uh staff is recommending uh approval of the concept site plan. Um uh there are a couple things in the uh conditions of approval. Uh the granting of course the waiver uh for the

deficiency of open space which is part of this application as well. Um and we do have the open space waiver worksheet. I wasn't sure when we were going to be doing that if we were doing that. I thought we were going to do that before the plan or we're going to do it in the middle of the plan. I'm not sure. So I'll I'll address that. Okay. Yeah. And so again, we are recommending uh approval of the concept site plan. Gotcha. Thanks, John. Um Mr. Thomas Thompson, excuse me. Uh for the record, if you could just introduce yourself and if you wish to add any information to what was uh just given.

I'll hold off my comments on u the items till you get to your APFO items. But uh thank you, Ron Thompson, Banmar Associates here for Fro Developers. Uh it is as John mentioned about an 8.3 acre parcel would like to it's eight lots. We've developed it in a conformance with chapter 9823 which is essentially the open space ordinance is a clustering ordinance. Basically it tells you you may reduce the lot sizes to increase the amount of undeveloped or open space on any parcel which is what we've done. In fact, uh although we just make it because there's several environmental features on the property, uh about 45 46% of the property is undeveloped is either open space or environmental space.

So that's the purpose of and we'll talk about it in a few minutes. But, uh, in responding to town comments, we've made considerable improvements to, uh, Buffalo Road, Prospect Road,

Buffalo Road, excuse me, Buffalo Road, as well as looping the waterline. Um, that really wasn't necessary for the project, but it helps the town complete more of a uh, complete waterline picture within the town. And and if I may, a bit out of order, but since it was touched upon as far as improvements to Buffalo Road for the public here, could you just kind of give a quick summary of what that means? Uh for this plan, there's a sharp curve in the uh alignment of the roadway and we've smoothed it out to meet current roadway standards. Okay.

Right now, the center line between the center line of the road is the division between Carol and Frederick County. with uh Frederick County being to the west side of the roadway, right? And Carol County to the east side, which is what the subdivision is in.

Gotcha. And since we're on the topic of roads and streets adjacent to this um application, can you also just touch upon the walkability and the sidewalk installation? We are taking uh a sidewalk uh beyond the border of the uh subdivision to continue it down to connect into the sidewalk at summer street summer sweet lane and the we're connecting the sidewalk to the sidewalk where you have the uh park so that there's a complete walkability along now

the subdivisions. So, in Joe Sixpack terms, I can walk out of Summit Ridge to Buffalo Road and walk all the way all the way past the entrance to this and all the way to the current park near correct Somerset Lane. Okay, gotcha. And not that'll be offsite improvements. And that's kind of to the north of the map up here. You can kind of see it's kind of I can't get between that because it wants to shift to the next page. Whatever you got. Yeah. Yeah. No. Um, no, I thank you for that and it was a bit out of order, but I

but I along with lots of others in this town really want to try to emphasize walkability and so the sidewalk is an important uh question. Um, I'm getting ahead of myself here. Uh, the next is for any commissioner questions on this petition regarding the plan at all. Do any commissioners have Commissioner Wallace? Ron, can you help um explain? So, people can drive pretty fast around that curve. So, is that is what you're doing going to potentially slow traffic, speed traffic up. Is it going to make it easier for them to go around that curve or It will make it safer for them to go around the curve.

Okay. I cannot say it will slow them down at all, but it meets the speed criteria now for that roadway. Okay. I will say to your point to your question, there will be a concrete curb there that'll be a minimum of 8 in tall. Uh and then there'll be a grass strip and then a sidewalk. Okay.

So again, it it will allow for better visibility of oncoming traffic. It'll allow you to negotiate that corner much easier. Right now, it's a very sharp turn and and it's off camber, so it kind of wants to toss you in the other lane. This will hopefully eliminate that and create it more of a gradual. Will people still do 50 or 60 mile air on the road? Probably. Um but again, the safety for the citizens will be that 8 in curb, the grass strip along with the 5-ft sidewalk.

Okay. And then um I know it's for later in the process, so no need to answer tonight, but I'm just sort of wondering what is going to happen um to get into the neighborhood. Is there going to be like a kind of the same type of thing that's going into Sterling Glenn where they have like a little turn lane? There is no turn lane because it's only eight lots. So it's it's hardly any one car in the peak period or something. So, and the other thing because we're making the change in the roadway improvements now, the visibility of that intersection is greatly improved. Commissioner Bet.

Um, so the majority I would say it looks like the majority of this land is wetlands. Is that correct? And that's why you're only developing or putting in eight homes based on I mean that's a sizable wetland. I wouldn't say the majority is but uh probably half of the undeveloped land is uh stream buffer wetland. You can see I think if I'm reading correctly we had 2.61 61 acres total parcel A

and we have 2.17 acres of open space for the town which is non uh environmental land

and the open space is going to be above the two parcel the two homes right there. Okay, that's where cuz everything else looks like depending on slope and wetlands that it's undevelopable. It's still being it's still being dedicated to the town, but it doesn't go to their open space requirements. But yeah, so majority of the and again their density is really based on what Ron's trying to say is to meet their open space requirements. It's the density could be twice as many homes under R2, but because of the um lack of usable open space, uh that's why they're limited to eight lots because initially I think the applicant came in with nine lots, but when they started working in the numbers, uh it got uh reduced down to eight eight lots. Okay,

I think that's it. Okay. Any other commissioner questions? If I could just touch on that. The the open space from what I understand, Steve closer to the mic. What is that open space intended to be? Is that just grass? Is that an already wooded area? And is it just above the wetlands there? You'll see that part of it is forest conservation. Okay. where we're planting uh trees in it, which is a desired part of open space. And then as you get closer to the road, uh that's just grass area.

Okay. So, the majority of it's going to be forest area and then right by the roadway is just is going to be like a play area. I' I'd say grass area if you if you think play area because we are adjacent to the Summit Ridge Park. That's really where kids are going to go. That's where my kids used to go when I drive them into town for baseball and stuff. And and how how much area would be the grass area compared to the I guess the forested area do you have?

I did not measure that, but it's probably about an acre. uh 2 maybe acre and a quarter is grass area versus tree planting. A lot of the tree planting is actually in the environmental area because that's county requires that for forest conservation.

Uh I have a few question Mr. Thompson. First off, um, and maybe John also, h, how do we arrive at the proposed court name, and I hope I'm pronouncing it right, A L L Y O N Alon, or might be a grandchild of Mr. Fry, but I it's the name I was given and checked with Carol County and it was available. Okay. Okay. How do you pronounce it? Let me ask that. Do you uh or how does the owner pronounce it? I I think it's Alion. Is it Alion? Okay. All right.

I just find it interesting um how we come up with something. Well, it gets more difficult quite frankly when you try to find available street names. Oh, I have no doubt. Um particularly when you have to deal with fire protection and 911. has it been used? Just a whole host of things go into it. So, John Breeden Court is out. Um I'm uh that didn't make my list. Sorry.

Um a question with regard to um the variances that are asked for in this application. The front setback and the rear yard setbacks are both submitted as variances. Um, you're asking that we take the front yard setback of 30 ft down to 20. And you're also asking that the commission approve a year a rear yard setback variance. Normally it would be 40, but you're also asking that that setback be reduced to 20. Am I accurate? I I I Oh, that's too close. Sorry. I believe that it's not really a variance because in 9823 uh paragraph uh H [Applause] uh it says except for developments with a residential component in the downtown you can reduce the lot width size basically as a cluster development it can be reduced to 25% % of what's allowed. So, we're within what's allowed here. And that's not really a variance because the the paragraph does not say subject to planning commission approval. It's just something you're allowed to do to create additional undeveloped land or open space.

Okay. Okay, for the public's interest, I'm reading from the code except for developments with a residential component located in the down downtown zone, which obviously this is not. In accordance with the requirements set forth in this code applicable there too, lot width, rear, front, and sideyard setbacks may be reduced to 25% of the requirements in the base zoning. And it would be for the base zoning for R2. Correct. Correct.

Subject to the following rules. Rule one, lot size may be reduced to 25% of base density but no smaller than 1/8 of an acre. Do we meet that rule? We do.

Number two, conservation zone lots. I'll stop there because we are not conservation zoned. Number three, R1 zone lots. I'll stop there. We are not an R1 zone lot. Um, so if I may lean on the town attorney, um, is this indeed within the application or is it within the taxonomy of a variance? So I would call this uh what the case law calls it a subdivision variation not to be confused with a zoning variance. Uh there are certain things that are mandated um under the planning chapter of the code uh and give flexibility to the planning commission to vary. Um and there are certain items that uh for which the planning commission is not given that authority but are nevertheless requirements in the zoning chapter that authorize the board of appeals to vary

correct measurements dimensions and things like that that uh are variances. So, um, it's, you know, they're kind of gets a little confusing with the the wording, but, uh, I would say that this is what's called a subdivision variation and what the case law would call it and where the planning commission is authorized by ordinance. So the town council and mayor have authorized this uh to vary those requirements in these circumstances and to accept the applicant's reduction of the normally required setbacks

by virtue of the the reductions in lot sizes. Correct. Okay. Which is a part of the clustering concept. And and to clarify and I think I know the answer but just um there will be or there is no need for a var a zoning variance to now proceed to the board of appeals with regard to this application. No, I would say that this is not a variance uh that the board of appeal only the board of appeals is authorized to okay to um to approve by virtue right the chapter 98 section that you've just read. Gotcha. Mr. Thompson, you had another

I I just wanted to point out just for clarification for everyone, when you look at the front side, rear setbacks. 30 foot is the R2. We're at 20. We could have gone to 7 1/2 ft, right, per the code, but again, we've set that for a driveway so that a car can be parked in the driveway as opposed to over the sidewalk. Correct. I s I our side yard is the same as the R2 zoning and the rear is 50% instead of could have gone down to 10 ft but it's 50% 20

between the dwelling units we're the same as our two requires correct right and in looking at the map and just a personal comment here when I look at the reduction in the rear yard setbacks I don't see an adjacent residence that could be impacted by that. That's actually, I believe, some forest conservation area or wooded area separating the ball fields from the development.

Right. Right. And and again, um I'm kind of trying to put on the shoes of Joe Sixpack living in a house adjacent to this, saying, "Oh my gosh, that's going to mean proximity. That's going to you those implications don't arise when I look at the plan." Um corre correct. Okay. At least for me, I I'm not making a blanket statement for the commission. Commissioner Buts, you had a comment. I thought once upon a time there was a dock full of property All right. At originally owned, can you pull your mic closer? Adjacent. Is your mic on and pull closer to your mouth? Thank you. Is there still a Doc Full owned property? Nope.

There is not. This was owned by Doc Full. Okay. This is Full family brought this in through annexation. Okay. And then with Mr. full really pulling back fortunately dying at the end of last year. Um they got rid of all of their property in development. Mr. Fry bought this. Can I add one thing? I'm sorry, but no, go ahead. Come back to me before you're done.

Just a couple quick things while it's fresh on my mind. Um in the staff report it states that for this application um you have submitted a variance request with respect to for stand delineation FSD and that you have submitted that variance request to the Carol County Bureau of Resource Management which is expected to be approved at the county level. So if we could just focus on that particular request done with the county on forest stand delineation what what's your understanding of the status on that? We have concept plan approval concept approval of forest conservation. Okay.

So uh whether I believe it may all be on this property and we're not doing any off-site purchasing. Okay. So the that the language of variance no you can't get by in Carol County. Okay. You can't get a variance for forest conservation. Okay? At least in my I don't know 20ome years that's non-existent. So just for the record, the forest stand delineation concept plan has been submitted and approved at Carol County. Correct. Two elements forest stand delineation and then the forest conservation plan. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. for

sorry but the forest and delineation by the letter I had last that was where they submitted a request for Carol County Bureau of Resource Management who was expected to approve that at the county level. That was the letter that I got from John Bowman that there was an engineer submitted a variance request for the forest and delineation. Is that not true? The variance request that was submitted is for dealing with storm water management and therefore which is going to be is recommended for approval. But we went through uh with Carol County that the storm water management are submerged gravel wetlands. They're being placed in the stream buffer because they recharge the groundwater. And because they're in the stream buffer, you can't get until they approve. Chris Hine has to approve that, which is John may recall that I had to hurry up and get the variance into them, the variance application in. So full forest conservation plan approval is contingent on the approval of the variance of the gravel wetlands in the water resource area. The person in charge of water resource has recommended approval along with storm water management that that be approved. So, and I have received uh verbal communication in that way as well as well through Carol County that that will be approved. It's just a formality. It's

nothing that's going to raise a bunch of red flags. And again, that's where again his letter stated the forest and delineation. That's why the staff report reads this way. But I think because that variation is that discharge in the wetlands and it's also part of the forest and delineation that's why there's a variance that's required but again should be uh bas basically a boilerplate approval from Carol County. Sorry. When will we know for sure? Did they give you any dates? They just said it's basically done.

Yeah. And when I spoke to John Bowman last week, uh, when I was drafting up the final, uh, the the concept staff report, I asked that specific question. He didn't have a date, but he did tell me that, um, he was 100% sure that it was going to be granted. Okay. And that's why I made it a condition of approval so that ultimately if it came to final say plan approval uh if this does get approved tonight that it wouldn't move forward if that variation wasn't approved at Carol County and Ram would have to redesign the plan which means it would probably come back to you as a concept plan or the final plan would be modified and I'd make sure that you guys are aware of the modification the concept plan.

So am I hearing two things are pending? It's the var it's the variance and the variance decision also decides the force delineation plan. Is that accurate? I believe that forest conservation storm water management are are approved subject to approval of the the variance of constructing in the stream buffer. Okay. And when you do that, then you have to modify in a plat eventually the limits of the stream buffer which would be outside of the storm water management facilities.

Okay. Um and I totally understand the conditional approval for us to have that forest delineation plan document of approval. uh because in 9841 it says that the four stand delineation must be submitted and approved at the time a concept plan is submitted to the planning commission and so I'm just trying to get down to a yes or no do we have submitted it I understand that it's linked to a var so the for forest conservation plan is approved subject to the variance being approved D. Okay.

Because they all sit within the same department, storm water management, forest conservation, landscape, water resource grading. So therefore, they all want to have Chris Hine to sign the okay the variance. So, so I think it's entirely appropriate that if a motion is made to approve the concept plan, then that would clearly be a condition to have that document locked in. Yes.

As a part of the as part of the package. Okay. Um my next question is and to John perhaps will we see this development or subdivision plan one more time in a final plan submission? Yes. Yes. Okay. Okay. So, commissioners, we will see this once again. See the preliminary subdivision plan.

Understood. Um, street name delineation. Um, let me bring to your attention, Mr. Thompson, one of the documents that you submitted per 25-5 C. Um, this has to do with the town code requiring the financial um, wholeness of the enterprise. Um, it's the later that it's a letter that we have dated July 7, 2025. Do you have a copy of that? Yes, sir. Um, if you go down to roughly the middle, it says, "The following describes the proposed Green Tree Village MXU."

My my uh typo heirs that should say Buffalo Ridge subdivision. I I I would think my my client behind me coming up on Green Tree will reprimand. Yeah, I I saw a big smile over here on this side. Um

that you're already working for that one. Um um so um commissioners, would it be fair that um we understand that this required document for financial stability um be accepted with the understanding that it is understood to be Buffalo Ridge subdivision or we could make it a condition of a possible motion that it be resubmitted to state. I I would want to resubmit it with the correct name. Correct. So that it goes into the file correctly. Very good. Okay. We don't catch much, but we Well, you caught more than me.

We We were wondering about that. Um and I do see um I see the other required 25 uh-4 uh documents regarding environment. And um I think I've exhausted the questions. Um, one one last question and only in putting on an engineers's hat. When I look at your plan diagrams, the drop from Buffalo Road to the apex of the culac, Mr. Thompson, um, is that is that as steep as it depicts in the diagrams? Um, will

we have some fill to bring in to make these lots? Okay. because you're showing a 6% grade going from Buffalo down into that cult. Um, and you're going to be moving a lot of dirt around. There we have it. We'll have to bring in a lot of dirt. We can't move it on the site. Gotcha. It will have to be brought in. Okay. So, the dotted line there is what currently exists in the topography and the solid line is what you hope to achieve as compacted road surface. Is that accurate? Correct. Okay.

And I just want to piggyback on that. So, so for people that are looking at this chart, uh, understand that we were going five feet vertically, but we're going 50 feet, uh, right lengthwise. So, it's deceiving on how how steep it really is. It is steep, though. Yeah. Yeah. No, I I acknowledge two different scales vertically and horizontally. It's just unfortunate that it looks like you got a a heck of a sledding hill there in the wintertime. Um, but I do see and I wanted to address you have a lot of field dirt action there um to to make that road less hilly I guess is a way to state that.

And that'll be brought in at 3 in lifts rate I think and then they compact that. I it it depends. I have talked to Geotech. It may be 12 in but it can't be it has to be uh meet ASHTTO 95% ASHTTO standard compaction. So there would be a geotech on site measuring that compaction. And Barney, we don't have any specific standards for the town that we require, do we? We would divert back to this Ashton. Yeah, I mean I think our standards are going to follow what what their requirements are.

Okay. Um, a point was raised by the town planner, Mr. reading as to the open space waiver worksheet which is a code required exercise for this planning commission. Um we have done this before in the past when concept plans reached this stage before the planning commission in the past and set by that precedence we have always taken on the APFO certification which according to 25-5 is required at this stage with a concept plan submission and because the seven APFO areas includes open space and recreation we have always decided to do the open space waiver worksheet first in order to grant that. As we now fold it in with the other six critical or municipal facilities that have to be um assessed as adequate, approaching ade adequate or um or inadequate. Um and I did that real fast, but it's under 25-5. So unless there's um uh dissent among the commissioners, what I submit we do right now is quickly go through the open space worksheet. And if um if there is no disscent, let's go ahead and pull that out of our packet tonight. And John, if you'll just walk us through the first page before we get into the required um um questions.

Sure. Um so again the the baseline information uh provided by town staff is basically the Buffalo Ridge subdivision Buffalo Ridge uh file number P24-000020 the zoning district of R2 the current acreage which is 8.336 uh how many dwellings uh units is in this are in this project which is eight um how many new residents are proposed at 2.75 per dwelling is 22 two. Um what is the 3 acre times x amount of um new residents for this project? And that would be a 2.099 acre requirement for open space. Again, the applicant is providing 2.1710 acres.

Again, how much offered above or exceeds the 90 90 9823 requirements is 072 acres. uh t current open space requirements are based on uh yeah it says 10,54 which that seems to that's including again that's including the dentistry Dennis subdivision green tree plus this buffalo ridge would put us at that over 10,000 mark. Yeah.

Uh again and the the acres required there would be 301.612 acres. Uh and the current open space acres that are uh the town has in uh town owned is 231.14 acres and we're deficient by 71.47. Again, the applicant is providing their fair share of u to offset the eight lots for this subdivision. Understood. And and before I turn to Commissioner Wallace, uh Barney, I know you maintain the town the town spreadsheet with regard to open space. All these numbers jive with your spreadsheet. Yes.

Fantastic. Commissioner Wallace. Um question about number five. Is that supposed to be two or is it supposed to be 66? Because if you prorrate three acres for every 100 people and this is 22 people I believe it's 66 and I think that's what Ron had in his report as well. The the I think there's been it's 2.16 or 2 uh required is 2.099 acres. I think you had 66 in your Yeah, it says your required open space of 66 acres for the Yep. going along with my typo on Green Tree Horses Buffalo Ridge.

Is that what that is? Uh it that paragraph on my letter should be we're providing 2.17 acres and it exceeds the open space by 007 acres. So you're referring to the letter dated July 725-5G Bolex 2. The amendment that we will need to see is on the next to last paragraph, Mr. Thompson. Correct. And in second line, instead of 2.12, you will resubmit with what number? 2.17.

And instead of same line 66 acres, you will resubmit with 0.07 acres. and uh Commissioner Gam 0.7 0.072 according to the worksheet. Yeah. Okay. Um Commissioner Wallace, is that No, I think it's basically uh I think my uh calculation was incorrect. So number five should be 066. You're saying

666 along with six. Um it's not 2.09 09 acres, 999 acres because it's three acres per 100 people and if it's two acres that means we have 70 70 some people and we only have 22 people ultimately or something like that. So it should be so line item should be 66 645 and six. So my my calculations are incorrect. I apologize. Does does any of the subsequent calculations change at all? That's number eight,

which is the how much does what they're offering exceed the requirement. So it's about 1.5 instead of 072

there are unfortunately fortunately I guess there are two different calculations that are required uh your open space is correct at 66 but we also have to meet 35% % open space um for the development, right? So I think just maybe updating the worksheet because the worksheet is really only asking like the calculation in the parents. It's not a big deal, but

so the math for number eight should be 2.171 minus 66. Is that No. What Ron is saying is that there's the three acres for every 100, but there's also the what's required in that zone, which is 35% open space. Mhm. So, we only have on this worksheet the the 3 acre per every 100 requirement. We should have what's required in the zone like I think it's is it the greater of I don't know. It's the greater of either the three acres per 100. Is that how it works? Or the 35% or There's what's required of the zone.

There's what's required in the zone 9823 if I'm not mistaken. Uh is the section and then there's the three per 100 is what qualifies one a a development plan for a waiver of the APFO which otherwise would halt development of the property. So in comparing the two, what you were saying is they should have one. Yeah. Yeah. So, so it's critical that we update this front page before we go and answer the questions. Well, I think Well, no. I think that

what John wrote is correct. But if you're doing the math based on what's in number five, it would be wrong. But it's just a technicality. They're fine on what they're they're providing more than what is required. Correct. And that's the point correct at the end of the day. All I was trying to get at is an exact agreement on what that overage is. Right. Right. What that and is that you're saying the two acres is what's required based upon the density. Yeah. Okay. I'm confused. So bottom line, how much more than their required open space are they going to deed to the town? Correct.

So what is that number? And I think that's then um 1.51 acres under chapter 252-5. We're providing uh 1.51. Pardon? 1.51. Yeah. Okay. John, are you tracking with that? I'm trying to. Yes. Um issue. Okay. It doesn't I'm saying the template needs to be reworked. I gota Okay. Which means green tree is going to be a skew as well.

That I'm feeling the pain already. Um Okay. Um so is the answer to line question number eight? Is it have we arrived at a number for that? We're saying 1.51. If you take we're providing 2.17 acres minus 66 would be 1.51 acres. That's where I started. So additional 1.51 acres under 25-5. Correct. Okay. So I believe number eight is 1.51. Question if I may,

Barney. um the 9823 requirement, the 30.35 factor, what what number does that come up to for number six? I don't have the worksheet in front of me, but because because number eight says of the 9823 requirement, it would be of the 9823 requirement. 9823 requires 2.099 acres. So that's correct on the worksheet and we're providing 2.17. Right. So number eight should be the 2.17 minus the 2.099. Correct. Right. So the which gives us the 0

72.072. That's what I'm trying. Thank you Barney because I think five like you're saying has to be changed with the ratio but my numbers were right. Um again and what they're providing would be actually in excess of 072 is correct. Correct. I I think it's just number five that needs to be corrected right to the point 66 or a little more information and determining it. Okay. I think the bottom line is every commissioner and talent uh John um they are over their required amount. That's correct.

Okay. um the amount of that overage or exceeding their requirement is what we're discussing right now, but everybody agrees they are over their required amount. Great. And and the number is what my worksheet shows, which is 0072.

Okay. All right. For the purposes of getting through this worksheet and on to the APFO certification, I am going to have us go with 0072. Okay. So, let's now turn. Is there any other comment on the baseline questions on the first page? If not, let's go to the second page. Commissioners, question one, straight out of the code. The extent to which the open space in the proposed development exceeds the minimum requirements for the development as set forth in 98. Is our answer there. 072. Well, number seven is 2.1710. If it's saying C base,

no, this is this is the extent to which the open space exceeds. Okay. Yeah, that would be the the 072. 072. Okay, maybe we need to take another look at the number eight then and not number seven.

I I agree with you, Commissioner W. Okay. Um, we do agree that it exceeds the requirement. Number two, the magnitude of the town's parks and open space deficit at the time that the waiver is under consideration and whether the proposed development, Buffalo Ridge, will increase or decrease the deficit. So again, we have on our baseline and verified by the town engineer the magnitude of the open space deficit at this time I believe is stated as 71.47 acres. Correct?

So we can write in 71.47 acres. And the second part of that question is whether the proposed Buffalo Ridge development will increase or decrease that deficit. I believe since they have exceeded it, it will decrease the deficit by the amount that is on the question above it. So we can write 71.47 acres is the deficit and it will decrease that deficit. Question three is whether the proposed development optimizes the proposed open space in consideration of the amount nature parentheses i.e. whether the proposed open space is green space and/or offers passive or active recreation. And we may consider in this answer whether the proposed development optimizes the open space that's proposed there with regard to its dimensions, quality, location, suitability to the proposed development, whether the proposed open space satisfies a critical town need or proposes a shortage. Any amenities proposed on the open space such as playgrounds, etc. accessibility of the open space within the proposed development and any adverse ad impacts on neighboring property. So again going back to the question whether the proposed development optimizes the open space and we can consider I believe this particular proposed open space Mr. Thompson is passive open space.

Pass passive passive. It's not active. There is not the intent of a ball field, baseball field, soccer. Right? So this is passive open space and we are asked under this question to discern whether it is an optimum use of that open space that's proposed given its dimensions given all the other criteria that's listed that I won't go over again. What is the commissioner's feeling with regard to that question? A yes on this passive space being the optimal use of it. Any comments?

I'd say no. I have some concerns with it. Commissioner Ali says no. Any other commissioner feelings with regard to question three? I agree. Um, Commissioner Bneck says no. Any other commissioner feelings? H are we referring to whether the open space like are you I guess what I want to know is the concern is it because it's not usable.

Well I think my concern well it's twofold. It's um as Mr. Thompson said half of it's going to be forest which is fine but the other half is going to be grass. Um and you said you know if kids are going to play over there they're going to walk over to the park. So what are we using that open space for? If you said kids aren't allowed to play over there. I didn't say they're not allowed to play. I'm not building a playground. I understand. Or anything. If kids want to go over there, throw the ball, they can do that. Um, if the town keeps it mowed because the town will own it, it can be used for picnics or whatever they want to do there.

So, another thing we talked about before with open space is, you know, is it usable even if it's passive and it's grass? Well, I have a concern about safety as well since we're talking about how fast cars drive on that road right there. And you're putting grass where the open space kids can play there, adults can hang out or picnic. They're right near the field or they're right near that road where there's fast cars moving. Um we have a fence.

They're going to they're going to get hit by the car. Ball's going to go there because it's a path of least resistance. Yes, there's a park right nearby, but kids aren't going to walk past the the fields, past the other things. It's not as simple as that. And it's just the location we talked about before optimizing locations in development. Is it all the way in the back? Is it all the way in the side? Is it actually usable and accessible? So, I just don't think the way it's set up there, it's accessible for citizens to park, to access, or the residents in that area. So, that's my concern and the safety aspects. Okay. Um, Commissioner Handley had a question for the town attorney.

I I just did because um, if that's going to be open space for the town, if we set a condition of fencing, who's responsible for paying for it, I guess, or implementing it. Asking what now? Who? Can you bring your mic closer to your mouth? Because of that, the traffic concern that's just going to be flat open space. If we set a requirement for fencing, who's responsible, the town or the builder? If it's open space for us or for it's like town because it's it doesn't seem like that's a safe place and you know, can we set some kind of I I don't know off the top of my head.

Okay. Um I you know u it's ultimately going to be the town's open space. I guess they you know, the town could take the position that they do it they put up some sort of fencing or something after it becomes dedicated open space. Would you be within your rights to require some sort of fencing be put up? You know, again, I'm kind of going off the top of my head here, right? You know, if there were major safety concern, I I suppose you could.

My only concern with that is that again, we're trying to create a safer curve as well. if we put up fencing or or plantings up there, now you're impeding the ability just to see an oncoming car or to see if somebody's walking on the sidewalk, which would slow people down potentially. Um, the the other thing I would suggest to the commission is open space has to be there's nothing wrong with it being passive open space. What you're doing is preserving a certain amount of land without a house on it. The alternative to this is I could line the roadway with eight driveways

and then put everything in the back. That's not what you want for the town either. So by having this preserving the environmental the wetland fe everything out there uh the little bit of a stream that comes through there uh the grass area passive but it's preserving nature and that has a value equal to building a playground. Commissioner Bett

so with your um comment Mr. Thompson, you wouldn't be able to because it's wetlands and the slope. So, you wouldn't be able to put houses back in the back. Oh, I could I could line I could line Buffalo uh road with houses

a little bit, but not dramatically. Also, with the comment of putting a fence, fence is not going to stop a car. So regardless um of what we put there, unless it's those ballards that are concrete that would stop a vehicle, you're still not going to get somebody to stop that vehicle if there's kids up there. My other question is how what is the slope from the road up to that open space? Yeah, the slope in there is probably 10% in there or less.

What's the height? I don't know. Percentage. I just need height. Am I right, Steve, about the I mean, a car is not going to I mean, a fence is not going to stop a car. It's not going to unless you have those concrete ballards that you can put out there. That's the only thing that's going to potentially stop a vehicle. We're we're fairly close to the roadway in that area for we're not down deep. The deep part is where we're building and bringing in all the flow. So, is it a down slope or an ups slope? It's a down slope from it f it it from the road. It slopes away from the roadway to the wetland.

Okay. Gotcha. And that's that's why I was particular about the phraseiology I used, Mr. Thompson, because I intreated the idea that this was passive recreation, but from all accounts, I'm hearing a description that is more like green space. Um, do do the commissioners follow me? And so I turn to the town engineer. Uh, Barney, what do you regard this particular proposed parcel deed to the town? Would this be a candidate for any passive or active recreation or is it more aptly described as just strictly green space?

Well, green space is part of our um open space ordinance. It's encouraged to be at least 50% green space. Uh I don't think it says that every property has to have 50% green and 50% active. So, it's really what you want it to be. Um okay the way staff at least engineering looked at it is uh and I know um um Commissioner Ali mentioned that it's kind of far but uh we did create walkability they did extend sidewalks to the park at Summit Ridge um you know because it is next to ball fields a playground you know amenities that are there

we looked at this as a good location to maybe share those amenities and not necessarily have to have active recreation on this property. So, let me let me narrow my question then on your experience. The applicant has said he describes this as passive recreation area. In your mind, in your experience, given the contours and the slopes, would this ever be active recreation? Would there ever be a pitch on it for soccer or a baseball field or those sorts of things? No, not active. And I I would take green space. I mean, I kind of use that interchangeably with passive, okay, creation, but but I don't see a ball field going there. Could a playground go there? Sure.

Okay. Um, and so I'm I'm eager to get past this question uh so that we can get on to the APFO certification. It's been really good. Um, I'm sorry. Was there another question on this side? So, I lost my train of thought now. I'm just sorry.

Oh, I do know. So in the winter time or anytime it's slick potentially a car could run off the side of the road if kids are playing there. That's it would be more open space a a green space per se of water con like a water runoff shed area versus an open space where we mow and take care of. Um so you see where I'm going. Well, well, so any any property deed to the town becomes the town's responsibility to maintain, which may include

Yeah, but I was going to say to Kim's uh point, we might not be mowing this. It might be natural, so it doesn't inhibit, it doesn't it's still open space and it still meets to goes to our calculations, but ultimately, you know, this might stay natural. Uh because again and again those the the citizens in that area might make their own walking path. A gentleman might take a mower back there and make a a path to get back to the forest conservation easement. Go ahead. I was just going to offer that if you wanted to discourage play there, you could never mow and just leave it a meadow, which is probably better for wildlife, etc. Anyway, and there are a lot of deer there. Mhm.

Um, and then I would also offer that that little neighborhood is so close and because there's a sidewalk being provided to the ball fields and the pavilion and the park right next door, I don't know why anyone would want to go into an unknown meadow to play and they have sizable yards um around their house. So, I don't I don't really see it as a problem to leave it as just green passive space without a fence. Yeah. Right. I don't think you need to really do anything to it. There's park space right next door with a playground. Understood. A new playground.

Any any other opinions or analysis of this particular question given the criteria that we have in the code? If not, because it's been a rich discussion on this particular question, and if I may, I'm just going to ask for a roll call down on that question. The question is a yes or no answer relative to whether the proposed development optimizes the proposed open space in consideration of those bulletized criteria below it. So to clarify, a yes would say it meets that and no would mean the waiver cannot be granted. So again, I'm going to roll call from my right. Commissioner Ali,

no. Commissioner Bea, yes. Commissioner Hatley, yes. I will go last. Commissioner Buts. Yes. Commissioner Bay. I'm undecided to be honest with you because I would say yes. It's for open space as long as it's not mode. Are you mean like keep it wild? Like you guys keep it wild. That's why I said yes. Yes. He was talking just keep it wild.

Yes. If it's wild then yes. If it's mowed then no. I'm sure public works doesn't want to have to mow more. So I'm going to say that it's not going to get keep it wild in our recommendation. Can we make that a condition? I think that's Commissioner Walls. Yes. Okay. She doesn't vote. Um this isn't a motion. This is a roll call. Uh she's still an alternate. Yeah, she's still an alternate. Really? I'd love for her to vote. Okay. All right. And commission. Yes.

I think I think we have her opin commissioner gent votes yes. So with that, we have one descending vote with regard to that. And again, turning to the attorney and Robert's rules of voters on this particular question. I used a roll call vote to reach a majority opinion of yes, it met that criteria. Is that now allowing the waiver to move forward? as to that factor. Yeah.

Okay. All right. Uh moving to number four. Any other factors that the planning commission deems relevant in consideration of a waiver specific to a proposed development? I think a factor that has been stated that the desires are that it remained as while, but that would be determined by DPW. Is that accurate condition? I would say yes. And again, I don't think they want to have more stuff to mow. So, okay. if you can copy that because you're going to keep Yep. the document you and Miss Clinton there. So I can write it down but of course um the condition that it remain wild or in in a nature state whatever the right words are.

Natural state

natural state sorry last question. The planning commission may impose any conditions on granting any waiver. I think we did add a factor in the discussion we just had. Are there any other factors that we wish to impose? Hearing none. None is the answer on that. So I believe John, if we've done this thoroughly, we have a waiver of the open space documented through the worksheet by code. And now, if I may, we'll now move to the certification of the APFO. And I believe your staff has provided us the other six areas. for consideration for our certification. And I'll just read quickly um number one, the adequate public facility ordinance regarding water. The um recommendation and um assessment from the town staff is that the water is adequate. The proposed project has been approved for the eight lots for water service and according to the town engineer, current elevated water storage is adequate for these additional eight dwelling units. Barney, can I get a Roger? That's accurate.

That is correct. Okay. Water is accurate. Uh, excuse excuse me. Adequate. It's a long night. Um, quickly, any discussion by the commissioners on water hearing? None. The next one is APFO sewer deemed as adequate. The current qual quantity of wastewater treatment availability is adequate for these eight dwelling units. Sewer collection system will be reviewed at time of the preliminary plan with the design of added collection system which is piping but is presumed to be adequate at this time. Barney, any comments? You've deemed that adequate. That's correct.

Good. Okay. school. Uh any questions commissioners on sewer wastewater treatment? Third item is schools adequate. Based on the proposed development of eight non-age restricted residential units on this parcel, the following schools will be on the Carol County side of Mount Ary. The board of education decided that any potential redistricting in the southern area schools will not be considered until the Maryland blueprint law has been implemented by the school system. And so for the schools, each school, the Mount Area Elementary, Pars Ridge Elementary School is deemed adequate to handle these eight dwelling units for the period FY26 through fiscal year 31. For the Mount Airy Middle School, it is deemed as adequate for FY31 and it approaches inadequate at that school, the middle school, for the period FY26 through FY30. And the high school that would serve this proposed development is the South Carol High School and it too is deemed adequate for fiscal years 26 through fiscal years 31. Did I copy that right, John?

That's correct. Okay. And I'm familiar with these um school capacity assessments from our experience working with the county on the master plan. And these reflect actually what we have in the master plan for those. Gotcha. Okay. Any questions from the commissioners with regard to the schools? Hearing none, we'll move to roads and traffic signals. It is also deemed adequate. The traffic generated by this subdivision does not require a traffic impact study. The new street in the portion of Buffalo Road along this development will be deed to the town and must be built to town standards. Again, Barney, if I could ask you, is there any further comment on that? No. Everything looks good.

Deemed adequate. Fire and rescue services are deemed adequate. The Mount Airy Volunteer Fire Company has provided comments on this plan's design and layout and public safety considerations. The certification of adequacy is based on the fact that all residential dwellings must have fire sprinkler systems. And I would add, did the fire chief in their assessment of this culde-sac agree that the turning radius of his apparatus was going to be able to maneuver within that radius? Uh they did not mention any um okay issues with that. So they they did uh certify as being adequate.

They did certify. So they would look at that I would imagine. Yes, they have in the past.

Yes. So, okay. Um, police services is also deemed adequate. Again, working between John and the Mount Air Police Department. The police department provided a letter to John that it is adequate to handle the additional eight dwelling units. The last item is parks and open space. Uh, we just went over that which requires an open space waiver per code and I won't. So we have approved that waiver. Therefore we have approved as the APFO the parks and open space criteria. Um John weigh in. Is there anything else on this certification?

Nope. Um I just making sure we provide public comment. Gotcha. So for the public we have gone through what is a bit of rigor prior to us considering a motion on approval or disapproval of a submitted concept plan for a subdivision. Because at the concept play plan stage, we have to do those seven areas, one of which is open space, which the council requires us to go through that worksheet that we went through and then go through the remaining six to prove that it is either adequate or approaching inadequate. So we have done all that I believe. Is it true that we have certified the APFO and we have also given an open space waiver?

Yes. Okay. At this point, um, I ask if there's anyone in the audience here who wish to make a comment relative to the Buffalo Ridge subdivision application. If I could see a hand go up, Mr. Deoter. And there's a gentleman in the back. Um, I think I saw Mr. Motor's hand go. Um, there's a young lady here in the front. So, Mr. motor will be first, the gentleman in the back second, and then the um lady here in my front. Um I'm going to ask that you identify with your name and also um do we have the timer working? Yeah, the controller. Here it is. It's tucked behind

battery in it. So, it should work. Never give a Okay, if uh just a moment. Uh Mr. Deoner. Um, I'm just press the three. I think that changes the time. I I think this is I cannot see the clock. I thought that was called the demoter clock. The clock. I'm going to use my watch. Thank you. I I've only done this. Is there Is there Is there a trap door? Three minutes. Three minutes. Uh, and I'll give you a couple extra seconds because

so Stephen the motor um, a statement was made by the the planning department um, regarding the improvements to the to the roadway and smoothing that out. And I think Mr. Breeding said, quote, "Will people still go 50 to 60 miles hour there? Probably." So, I guess my question is,

is that based on data? Is that just a personal opinion? And I bring it up because my suggestion is perhaps you should reach out to the streets and roads commission and ask them about these roadway improvements and specifically ask the MAPD representative. He he's the traffic safety expert for the police department. and just run these quote unquote improvements by him to see if indeed you're going to get the in expected improvements that that you're intending here. Okay.

So, that that's one suggestion. And then a quick comment um your open space waiver process, it's just an observation. I I believe you're setting the bar a little bit low for yourselves. I look at the spreadsheet and uh I look at the value added of this open space. You're gaining 0072 acres above your deficit. The quality to me of the open space is poor. The location is poor. You're not getting any critical town needs or amenities addressed. And so I just I just see see that process a little differently than what you arrived at. And I kind of echo the thoughts of Commissioner Amali on that. So if I is the trap door opening or am I done?

We got you. Two points. Thank you. The gentleman in the back um your name first, sir. And again um a limit of three minutes if I may ask. My name is Lee McBride. It'll be short. Um, number one, I just wanted to bring up hopefully to save you guys from having to do this again. Um, the 25-5 C where it had the green tree in there. That's also on D also. So, you want to make sure you change that one, too. I I caught it. Okay. Good catch. Um, thank you. And then the second one is uh for the schools um where you did your assessment. Did that include include green tree already or not?

Um again we don't make those uh certifications that's done by Carol County School Board. Correct. Uh they I think had that um numbers in their in their calculations. So you think they had green tree in there? Yep. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Um, Miss, hi.

Hello. My name is Jessica. I'm a resident um just around the corner on Candace Drive. I had a comment followed by a question. Um I'm I've noticed here uh you have 8 acres of land with eight houses. Um whereas on Green Tree, we have six acres of land and 60 houses. And I guess my question is, why aren't you maximizing this space? Why are we overflowing Green Tree with way too many homes in my personal opinion? Whereas down here, you you're giving me these people beautiful homes and nice luscious yards, which is what we asked for for Green Tree. So why aren't you maximizing this space the same way you are Green Tree? I

I'll answer that question. So ultimately, it's the zoning that's beneath the property. This is zoned R2 residential. Mhm. That parcel up there is zoned community commercial which means it could have a commercial application there. I'm talking commercial. Please let me finish. Uh so basically they came in for a special exception went through the process. They were able to get a residential density calculation based on the acreage and that's why that's how many homes you have because of the base zoning and the special exception they received through the tailor. Okay. So, you're saying that this R2 you couldn't possibly fit any more on here? They could have put more on there. Why didn't they? Because they can't meet the open space requirements,

which Green Tree is with the 60 homes. Okay. And if Ron feels like he needs to say something, he can. But and the annexation also limited the amount of homes. I believe it was nine. It was nine total that was allowed on that parcel. But they did couldn't have nine because they can't meet the open space requirements. Got it. I know that there's five uh open space acres that are not touching for Green Tree. I'm I'm aware of that. I've just The amount of people going onto 6 acres compared to the amount of people going on to eight is 12 acres disproportionate 12 acres up there. Well, total of 18, but with I'm subtracting the six acres. So, 12 the six acres of wilderness. So, okay. Uh 60 homes on 12 acres is is a lot. Okay. Thank you for explaining

just amendment. Um, is there any other public comment or question? Um, according to Robert's rules order, we are allowed Oh my gosh. We are allowed to have the applicant respond to any of the comments made and so you have three minutes, Mr. Thompson, if you wish. I'm not going to take three minutes because I got another project coming up here. But I know quite simply, Buffalo Road is posted for 25 miles per hour. We design the standard is plus 10. So, it's got a design speed of 35 miles per hour.

Understood. Um, before I ask for a motion, I want to make sure that I have recorded all the comments made for any conditionalbased motion and what I have captured and I ask for the commissioner and John to add or correct what I have here. Uh, I believe we have agreed that with reference to the required letters, Mr. Thompson, that you're going to submit a corrected 25-5G2 letter. That's the open space calculations. Um, a corrected 25-5 C because it has the comment about referencing green tea and 25-5D. Likewise, it also references green tree. Um, I believe there was another condition here that um, no, that's a town decision with with regard to the deed property. Um, bear with me.

Well, I guess it'd be the condition of leaving it natural or wild. Oh. Um, well, that would be up to the town. I think once it's deeded, I think it's not a condition. Okay. Imposed on him. Yep. I mean, is that that'd be correct? Um, the one that I was searching for was our earlier discussion with regard to a real solid document that shows approval of the forest delineation plan.

Okay. Um and so a condition along those lines would be conditioned on the town's conditioned on the applicant having an approved forest delineation plan. What was the variance with regard to quite quite frankly, you can condition this on on having your complete approvals for the preliminary subdivision plan because with the county from the county because we won't be able to come back without the variance given and all. Yeah. And and that's condition number two basically in my recommendation. I think you've captured

all town and county comments should be addressed. Yeah. For final plan approval. So if they don't receive the waiver, they're going to have to modify the site plan. And again, um reflecting on the other condition that you had offered to us about the reduction of the front and rear setbacks, I believe our earlier discussion said we don't have to make that a condition that they have within 9823 the ability to submit plans that reduce those setbacks for approval of set plans. We'll approve that. Gotcha. But it doesn't have to be mentioned specifically as a condition. No,

right. I track with that

and I put that in there to make sure that we brought attention to the reduction in those se well intended. I'm just trying to discern whether we need to waste a condition on that specific area. I don't believe we do if we approve the plan. The other matters that we have uh outlined here, which I have four, um I believe are with calling out specifically. Um so we've had a pretty good rigor on this. I think we've put a pretty good wire brush to it. Um I think it's been a fair wire brush and very extensive. I think we've discovered some things that maybe we have some homework to do with regard to say the open space worksheet. So it's been all good, folks. Um so I think unless there's one

commissioner Ali um it said under landscaping buffering um there's a suggestion for the next submission provide more diverse selection of major landscape trees. Ah good catch. Yes. Um John that was included in your staff report. I'm I'm I'm glad you caught that um because I think you gave us a copy of the landscape mana man manual to address that issue. Yeah, I did that for reference and also Okay. to make sure we were

Could can you just speak to that particular staff report element on the wavering of certain landscaping items? And this was uh from the um from the landscaping reviewer from Carol County. My god, I'm pulling a a Ralph from Carol County. Uh was was suggesting that a more um

more diverse

am I diver? Yeah, my more my gosh. more diverse of major tree major landscaping trees in addition the flowering dogwood trees shown are not a required element. So let me go to the landscape plan and we can let Ron speak to that. So there does look like not a lot of trees that are being proposed on this. Uh, so currently we're I'm only seeing six trees here currently. Um, make sure I'm on the right plan. That's utility plan. So, keep on going, Joan. Keep going. There you keep going.

There you go. Thank you. Um, again, so they are putting some trees along uh Buffalo Road. Um, and I'm not really sure exactly uh and again I was deferring I would defer to uh Ron to see what his proposed changes would be uh related to the major landscaping trees. Again, I know we don't want a lot of trees that have large root balls that potentially uh damage infrastructure, be it water lines, sewer lines, sidewalks, etc. Um, again, so let me see if I can find our schedule here. It talks to

I I think our landscape architect uh when she did the design based upon comments from Carol County mixed u sugar maples and America horn bean trees along the street uh the new subdivision street. Uh then we have the larger trees, the American horn beam along Buffalo Road and the flowering dogwood are kind of within the lots. Okay. Rear yard type of tree. They're not street trees. Understood.

So I'm not sure how much more diversity because we're also under the requirement that I got to put a Y in that last column there and that it restricts me. Did they give you feedback on how many more different ones they wanted or just because it looks like you're just I mean you're really mixing. I'd have to go back and take a look at that's an old comment quite frankly because I know Lori updated that plan which is what's there. So So these uh landscaping topics were comments submitted by Carol County. That's correct. Okay. So if we include the condition that all town and county comments should be addressed before the final plan submission, it would encompass even these landscaping issues. Correct.

That's correct. Okay. So we don't need to call out landscaping as a specific condition, but it is something that has to be addressed when we get to the final plan. And so we'll be interested in what those landscaping changes are when you come back before us. Is that fair? That's fair. If there are any. We have to have an approval letter. Yeah. And this might be a revised plan that they weren't commenting on when I received that letter. Yeah. Okay. Commissioner Walls, how close to the road are those trees on Buffalo? I'm only I mean, and again, this might be for future consideration, but the streets and roads comment that Steve brought up. I just, you know, if you got a tree on a curve and right back to my point of

visibility, right? Well, or they just run into it as they go. They're actually set back because they're in the property behind the sidewalk. So, probably 15 to 20 feet back from the edge of the road. Okay. Again, maybe this, you know, police officer or whomever can judge whether that would be hazardous for some reason, but just thought.

Okay. Um, we're round in third here. Okay. All right. Um, do I hear a motion, given all this very good discussion in education, do I hear a motion from any commissioner? If not, I make a motion to approve the concept plan for the Buffalo Ridge subdivision with the following conditions. There's a resubmission of a corrected 25-5G parentheses 2 letter. There's a submission of a corrected 25-5 C letter. There's a submission of a corrected 25-5D letter. And fourth, all town and county comments should be addressed before the final plan submission. Do I need to read those four again or are we good? Uh Deborah and John, are we okay?

Good. All right. Um that is the motion I make. I need a second for us to go into any further discussion. Is there a second on the motion to approve under those conditions? I'll second. Commissioner Bneck seconds. I now open to discussion or edits or amendments to the motion of any sort. Once again hearing none, the motion is on the floor with the four conditions for concept plan approval for Buffalo Ridge subdivision. All those in favor of the motion with the conditions signify by saying I. I.

Those opposed, nay. The concept plan is approved unanimously. This agenda item is closed. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. And of course, John, we'll need to document the waiver and the APFO certification as a part of this U package. Yeah. When I get the revised letters, we'll make sure that it's all correct. And I got I gotcha. Um last item on the agenda. We're approaching um

we're approaching 10 p.m. So, uh I will move quickly here. It's the introduction discussion for possible approval of the Green Tree Village subdivision. Uh this is specifically the preliminary plan approval for Green Tree Village development. And if I may elaborate for clarity before we begin a staff report um and introduction of additional representatives. Um I believe this is specific to the residential portion of the parcel. That's correct. Y

this does not consider commissioners what is referred to as the commercial portion or more aptly put the nonresidential portion. It does though look at the property as a whole and that the subdivision of the property because this is a subdivision of this 18 acre parcel. this being the residential portion, the non-residential portion will be part of that subdivision and will be an amended or we'll have a subdivision plan that will come in front of you later. Correct. Uh once this gets approved,

so I'm going to ask about that later about next steps and what the commission will see further uh after this evening's discussion on the preliminary plan. Um, John, let me uh before I ask introductions here, could you go ahead and give us a staff report on where we are on this plan?

Yes. So, this plan has been front of in front of you many times. Uh, and currently the um currently has the 61 lot subdivision. again the 60 residential lots and which are comprised of 39 town houses, 16 villas and five single family homes. The five five single family homes will be facing Main Street uh even though they'll have rear access with inside the community. The one non-residential lot uh site plan will follow. Uh the preliminary plan approval is for the subdivision of the Green Tree parcel in entirety with uh the residential and non-residential lots. Again, this is uh on the corner of North Main and Candace Drive. It's a residential existing and community commercial zoning currently. Not sure if that's correct, but residential existing. Uh it is uh provided with the water and sewer um approval uh as the existing and final planning. Again this uh in you know a little bit of back history. This parcel uh did have a planning commission approval for 149 single non-residential parcel. No. Oh no. Yeah. I'm sorry. 42 42 142 units. uh it was age restricted when it had received approval from planning commission in the past and it had a non-residential parer parcel in the same size that is shown currently uh had received approval from planning commission in the past that that lapsed again ultimately uh we're in front of you today to asking for the final approval of the

preliminary plan uh again u based on the conditions uh on page six uh which is basically with the five single family homes matching must match the existing neighborhood and all face main street uh of course the waiver for the um landscape requirements okay four landscape landscape planning requirements uh I'm not Sorry about the last one. Anyway, go ahead. Uh um yeah, so basically we're in front of you for final plan approval for the preliminary plan. Again, this will move on to improvement plans that'll be reviewed and approved as long as it's is complimentary of what was approved here. It wouldn't have to come back to you for any further approvals.

Okay. Um anything further, John? That's it. Okay. And if I may throw in and you verify accurate or inaccurate, um because this is MXUCC, the preconcept plan stage at the outset was approved for this development by the town council at that time. That's correct.

Okay. Um, and then from the town council's pre-concept plan approval that then fell into the hands of the planning commission to go through key items such as pattern book for the the residential portion. We have completed the open space waiver worksheet and we have completed the concept plan requirement for APFO certification. Correct. So we are past those. we are in the preliminary plan,

right? I did provide some of that information in the staff report just forformational to make sure that we're still adequate. Typically, uh when that comes back for a preliminary plan, we look at those APFO requirements again just to reertify them to make they're still in compliance. So, so for the purposes of the plug uh public, the rigor that we just applied to Blue Ridge has already been applied to Green Tree, Buffalo Ridge, but yes, I'm sorry, Buffalo Ridge. Too much coffee. Thank you. Thank you. Um, and so, um, so that's where we are. So I asked, uh, we have an additional person at the table. If you could introduce yourself, Frank Podipan, I'm with, uh, GT Properties.

Great. Frank, welcome. Um, do either you or Mr. Thompson wish to add to the statement from the town planner? I'll just briefly summarize because time's getting away from us. Following the steps, concept plan. The preliminary subdivision plan follows. The concept plan only adds more details. We get into pipe profiles. More details. Storm water management. We've done storm water management for the entire site including the commercial property. Although we're not doing the design of the commercial property, right? We have to have as an entirety of the subdivision. Correct.

Storm water management requirements. Same with state highway. we've met uh we're in the final throws of state highway plan approval correct

for uh improvements. So uh the only thing and we've rigorously negotiated debated uh with BG&E uh our crossing there which I think John's provided you with an exhibit of what it will be uh courtesy of the power line dis discussions going on in Maryland. All these corridors now are becoming locked down in terms of allowing improvements through them because they want to preserve them for future capacity improvements should they be required. So that's led to our uh I think was attached in here that exhibit of how we're now making the connection of our utilities and trail and also uh we'll that final approval from BG that trail connection from Scotch Heather up to the site. uh our next steps quite frankly after this preliminary plan approval uh once it's approved by the planning commission then it comes in to be signed by the chair and the town engineer that locks down what we do in the improvement plan and quite frankly the improvement plan is just additional detail my sewer house connection elevations uh working out a few of the more engineering complexity issues for it and this also locks down the plaque that is reviewed by town staff and eventually signed by the mayor and town engineer for it. This this essentially is your last stop review of it from the planning commission perspective.

So we followed along previous approvals to get to this point. Okay. And I want to piggyback on one thing real quick. So again up on the up on the monitor is actually the revised plan that doesn't show in your full packet but was included in your sheets. Um initially if you remember correctly uh the stormwater management facility was sort of located over here and houses were down here in a previous plan. Uh and there was an access route here and this used to go off at a diagonal.

Um BG came back through uh on the last submission that Ron had submitted. there was some parking here and I questioned it. Uh they then brought it to the top of the the pile and again through what Ron was just talking about extensive communications with them and then with staff myself and Barney and his team we have resolved uh hopefully the new path through this development. So, anything that's inside this corridor, which is this parallel line here, uh has to be constructed of gravel. Here's the detail for that gravel and how it's being installed. They needed to be perpendicular with inside that um corridor and and run parallel on the outer edge of that to eliminate excess of I think exposure to the water, not the water lines but the electrical um you know electrical lines and keep also access for any trucks for their um servicing of the lines uh off of any kind of paved surfaces. That's their new uh ruling. Again, they are then anywhere outside the corridor providing uh paved uh walkways with um bridges etc to connect up to um Scotch Heather and then also extending up to uh already existing paths as you can see on other plans.

That's about it. So pretty cool. There'll be a plaque for the town staff to review. There'll also be a um deed of access easement that will be prepared to go with with it that will be separate for the town in BGE to execute giving the rights of that because it's not on property. Okay. Um are there any commissioner questions with regard to the submitted plans? Commissioner Wallace. So, you had to get rid of eight guest parking spots. Okay. So, where are those being made up in the plan?

They're just going to be along the street in discussion with the town. They felt that it was town staff that it was not essential that they be there. People are going to bike. They're going to bike from their homes to use the path. I'm not talking about to use the path. I'm talking about for the people that live in the neighborhood. I counted the new like according to the cars that are on the chart in the plan. It looks like you're figuring for maybe 30 something cars could park along the street in the neighborhood at any one time I suppose. Right. And how what is the length of those driveways?

They are um slightly more than 20 feet so that you can get two cars but you're not and so people are going to park on the street. There's also twocar garage, right? But people are still on the street. Yeah, I live in a single family home. They park off the street. Um I'm just concerned that we're, you know, one of one of the original concerns that we had was that there was not enough guest parking, you know, for contractors, guests, whomever in that neighborhood in that kind of tight space. And um so I think that it's just has the fire department reviewed uh now understanding that primarily people are going to be parking along the streets.

Yeah. I mean they gave an adequate uh approval for this just recently. So they didn't they didn't mention anything about issues with uh parking. I think their biggest issue was uh was the culdeac making sure that that was adequate. Um, and I'm trying to think what

do they understand that people are going to park on the street? Is that something that was disclosed to them because you would need to make sure that you have passing lanes if a fire truck is trying to get through or there's a fire that if people are parking on the street, are they going to be able to access the homes appropriately? If you have cars parking on the street, the answer would be guest parking. The answer is yes because the town has the ability to install no parking signs once they take ownership of the roadway.

But then where are you accounting for for guest parking? Then if the town is going to take over the roads and put no parking then where are you account sheet 29 shows additional street parking based on uh staff comments. Thank you. Right. That see this was part of the issue is like you're you see all those cars parked around the little mailbox uh island there and then there's just like a few that could park along that one corner and a

you know four four cars parked up in the culde-sac. Um I just and then like a bunch parked along the where the park is which is closer to the villas farther from the town homes. I don't know. It just doesn't that's insane.

Well, it doesn't make sense to me. And also I'm thinking of like not to conflate things but current access to the rails to trails um west area like you have to go into someone else's neighborhood down into like a little culde-sac area to park for access. So it's the same type of situation if anybody outside of the town wanted to access town open space other than walking in from a neighborhood they wouldn't have anywhere to really park to get to it from here. And then just so I understand are so you're saying that there will be a gravel path to the green tree provided open space and then a paved path into Summit Ridge.

Correct. The only the only part that will be gravel will be on BGE rightway. Everything else will be paved but it will be a connection to the green tree provided open space. Correct. And how how what is the distance of the gravel? Like how long is the gravel path to the open space? Well, again, it's just inside the rightway. Who maintains that gravel? The town. That'll be the town. Yeah. So, if you look here, this is the this this is the pathway. Like say you'll basically coming off of that access area.

Can you zoom in? Is there a way for you to zoom in there? again. So, you can see that we don't actually have deed access up into this community through these two parcels. Uh, but does give you access to back into this forest conservation area and all this natural um wildlife basically. Uh and then there's a pedestrian path that'll al also cross into this existing uh paved pathway that connects the two communities currently that's in place. Uh and then to the south uh you'll have the one that'll run parallel to this. This plan doesn't show the connection, but there is a connection to Scotch Heather as the BG plan shows.

Okay. Well, I go back to the parking. I think it's an issue. I I agree especially on the main entrance red sunset court that if there is a fire in the rear of those town houses then fire department is going to have to overreach those cars to get into the rear of those town houses to put a fire out.

I hear what you're asking me but I didn't I don't do the adequacies for the fire department if they're saying it's adequate. I think it's there's not adequate parking um here regardless. Um this is one of my things that I've requested to ensure that we had adequate parking and street parking here is it's not I don't I think there's a liability there. The other question I had is about the entrance and exit area. So, with the lot next door, is that going to be um still passable like a cut through to Candace or is that going to be blocked?

That's uh undetermined currently if this non-residential parcel will actually have access to Candace Drive. That's undetermined at this point in time. And remember, that's the police department. So, potentially nobody could park there because it's the police department. Park where? You're talking about in this parcel here. Yes. When it was commercial.

When it was commercial, they were talking about the guest being able to park or overflow parking in that commercial space with the U police department going there. That's not going to be feasible. Any other commissioner questions? I have a few. Um at the very high level uh Mr. Podan and and Mr. Thompson is the plan we're looking at now the major difference from the previous plan we looked at at the concept plan stage is a result of the dialogue you had with the utility companies over the easement changes. Is that accurate?

Correct. Okay. that and some modifications to the storm water management. Okay. So, so what we're seeing here that's different from the previous plan is your new treatment of the trails as a result of the utility easement discussions and their acceptance of how that trail will cross the power corridor and then continue. Correct.

Correct. Okay. And I'm also saying that because of that significant change, none of the other aspects of the cla of the plan changed. The street layout, correct? The street layout remained the same. Okay. As approved in the concept plan and the parcel layout, correct? Okay. So my question reflects back on a previous comment is that then why are we seeing less parking in this plan?

I think you complained that I had too much parking in front of maybe some lots that wouldn't be okay. The only change in the parking is that I had uh we were showing a parking lot for and it was for the trail for people to drive and then use it. That was on BG property and that disappeared and that okay wasn't on our property. We we had made an assumption that we could utilize that and they came back and said no.

Okay. So that was a discussion where your plan has encroached on the utility easement. That's a no-go. You had to withdraw that. Okay. And so that that caused a redrawing of the roads in there. No. Okay. It just eliminated the parking and eliminated six parking spots. I'm with you. Okay. No.

Um I'm just trying to get us all on the same sheet as to what's different now than what we saw earlier. And I think I've established that. So, you had to eliminate that parking because of the easement issues with the utility company. Okay. Um, there's also a comment, changing topics here. There's also a comment from the town staff about the lack of a phototric plan. Yeah, but that'll be part of the improvement plan. Uh, okay. Submission. Well, we don't do you don't do a phototric plan for streets. Okay. We and we have street lights shown about 150 ft alternating throughout. You would have for the commercial site, you would have a phototric plan.

That's that's what I was trying to clarify. Okay. Um a question for the town attorney if I may, Tom. Um, understanding the town's interest in this for the non-residential portion, are there any decisions we're making tonight on this preliminary plan that will affect, impact, or otherwise influence the town's interest in the nonresidential or commercial portion of this Green Tree Village subdivision? No, I mean it it will subdivide out and define the meets and bounds of the nonresidential lot.

Uh ultimately when the final is approved and recorded, that's what creates the lots. Okay. One of which is the commercial lot. Obviously that buy, you know, we got to we can only build within that. But u um but other than that, no. uh has been said before um for that part of it there'll be a separate site plan review by the planning commission relative to the police station.

Okay. So you read my mind and that is and I know we're getting off topic because you're focused on the plan for the residential portion. I'm shifting slightly just for the benefit of the commission. Next steps with regard to the whole village on the commercial or non-residential side. I think we will see a site plan relative to what gets constructed or proposed to be constructed on that part of the overall subdivision. Correct.

Okay. Okay. And there's more discussions there, but I'm not going to treat them now. Um, APFO, yada yada, etc. portions of the normal process, but I'm getting outside of the bounds of this agenda item. Um, one more stab at the commercial side addressing the parking residential side.

I'm sorry, non-residential side. Okay, I I got to quit making them synonymous. Um, is it possible, and again, I guess you could say anything's possible. Is it possible by that site plan would have parking available for the general public in order to visit guests within the residential portion andor experience the trails that are designed here. Don't know. I don't know. That's that's that's not a legal guy's stuff. I understand. Um so that would be a wait and see to to to see the details of that site plan. Is that accurate? Yeah. Yes. Okay. Correct.

Okay. Um, and I'm tying this back now to where I began that we had we had to eliminate some guest parking that we thought was wise in the initial plan, but that elimination was brought about by the utility encroachment of those parking spaces that had to be removed. Okay. Do we have a document on this plan that the utility companies have documented that they approve this plan? You guys get a final the town had the final uh negotiations with BGNA. Okay. So, there was changes after we negotiated our deal with BGNA that town staff negotiated with BGA and I have not seen a final on that. I've been communicated with by staff.

Okay. That that that was acceptable to BG&A. Yeah. And I have not received correspondence back from them yet, but my verbal was without what we discussed. Okay. Is what Ron showed is exactly what we discussed. And I don't see there being a problem, but I can reach out to them tomorrow. I've not received an email, have you, Barney, from him? No. Verifying the acceptance of that, but from our verbal discussion, it seemed to be acceptable. Correct. Okay. Seems to be verbal, but not documented. Correct. Okay. We're waiting on that. Um, and by all designs from your plan, there should not be an encroachment within the surveyed utility easement area by your best guess. and engineering.

Correct. We have a little grading, but they've approved that. So, we have I'm sorry, a little bit of slope grading, but they've approved it. Okay. But again, verbal is that we we had a plan that they approved. We have an email for the part that we submitted that they approved.

Okay. So, what they approved initially uh was lacking this other connection for a pedestrian path coming off of um this access drive and down to Scotch Heather. Uh town staff part of the original uh agreement was to have that connection to Scotch Heather in a walking path. So, Barney and I spoke with the BG coordinator along with the um the rightaway dude. I forget his name off the top of my head. Anthony, thank you. Yes, I think he used at the real real estate sales, but anyway. Uh, so there's a pedestrian path that'll be coming off of the access drive. This is vehicular. This is pedestrian. This will be gravel until we get to the edge of the corridor. And then once we're off the corridor, this will be a paved to meet town standards. And then there'll be a pedestrian bridge here connecting up to the culdeac on Scotch Heather. Okay,

which is what the other plan showed. Okay. Um, let me finish the thought and I I will catch you in just a moment. Um, so clearly the delta from the last plans that we approved at the concept plan stage are a different trail system, right? And two, the loss of guest parking. Those two elements are the key two differences from the plan we last approved. Is that is that fair with that? That's that's correct. Okay.

The the plan that you last approved, as John previously mentioned, had the storm water management facility there, but a review between the county and the town said it's too it's not the best location, which is why it's at that. Understood. Okay. Um, but the road layout all stayed the same. Correct. Right. The changes to the the load, the width, the road, the radiuses and everything. It's just again remind me eight guest parking spaces or how many? Six. Six. Six guest parking spaces. Okay. Um if

I I believe it was it might have been I don't Okay. I think I think the initial plan was eight. The revised uh plan when we moved the storm management here was down to six that was inside the corridor. All right. Okay. While I ponder, let me Commissioner Wallace, you had a comment. A couple things. One, did we lose anything by putting the storm water management down where it is now? Did we lose anything in terms of space other space or just homes there and you pushed the homes up there? We did not. We actually had town homes in that location. Okay.

And a shorter little bit shorter roadway culde-sac. But

okay. And I think this just bears uh I think this just needs to be said. you know, when you look at the uh MXUCC in 112-39, um now that we don't have commercial in there, I think one would question whether this really meets the intent of mixed use CC. Um and also mixeduse CC talks about, you know, pedestrian and ve vehicular circulation. It talks about re, you know, in improving walkability and not having to drive as far to get to whatever would be in that commercial space. It talks about creating a mixture of office, retail, recreational, and residential uses along with restaurants, eeries, and cafes. Um, so I just wanted to point that out that this whole property has changed, but I understand where we are in the process, but I think it needs to be said.

No, no, that's fair. And you're reminding me of a conversation we had I think in the earlier stages of this is the difficulty of us looking at this whole cloth which had to include all the ingredients you just identified from our code right and yet we were looking at it in pieces and so that was our challenge in the when I say in pieces residential and non-residential two pieces and so yeah and if I can elaborate with what commissioner Wallace is saying and the challenge before us here. Our task, our mission is to look at this whole cloth, but we're only looking at one piece, not knowing what the other piece is going to be. Back to the conversation I was having about the non-residential portion. Um, do I capture that? Yeah. I mean, it's like this looks good, but it does kind of have by the code require that other part to all be in harmony using the words from the code. Um, but then you get to the bottom line. Is that reason enough absent the non-residential portion plan? Is that reason enough not having that to disapprove any further effort on the residential portion? That's that's the problem. And I mean, I guess what I'm saying is since we're this far down the road, the least you can do is provide adequate parking to use the parks that are there. I mean,

one, I I hear what you're saying, and I think when we get into that non-residential element, I don't think the the proposal may we have to include some additional uh parking of somehow that gains access to this community that's on its own separate parking lot of some sort that's segregated from the other use that's going there as a component. I'm sorry. Um, as a component of the non-residential site. I'm just saying that's a suggestion. I I don't know if that's achievable, but I think it's something that we should strive for possibly. And that's again where I led off with the town attorney about our decisions here. Can we impact that other yet to be seen effort?

It's better to know about it in the front and try to at least design around that. Not to say it's achievable, but it's at least a goal. Oh, and I would go further if if a if a motion is made to approve this preliminary plan with conditions that establish details of the non you see where I'm going. In other words, it's awkward as is as as as can be here. I would defer to our town attorney. Well, I know he had his hand up earlier and I don't think we can. No, maybe not.

You know, I don't think we can approve this plan with setting conditions for the non-residential portion. I would think not. No, Mr. Chair. Just just a minute. I think Commissioner I'll get to you, Commissioner Ali.

Town's designing that I Right. I I understand and I feel very awkward saying we're going to impose design criteria on the town and and I'm being upfront here. I mean, this is this is kind of where we are. Uh we've identified um what's regarded by at least two commissioners as a a parking deficiency and we're trying to get through that. Maybe there's a solution with regard to what John just offered in that perhaps how that unfolds on the non-residential part could could fix it. Going back to what we first saw with the original design,

right? Because you want to avoid, you know, people parking on Maine or parking on Candace and all that. We've got to find a solution here.

Um, Commissioner Ali. Yeah, the Commissioner Wallace just kind of mentioned something I was sitting here thinking as well is, you know, we're looking at this as it's a mixeduse development. Okay, we're looking at this, but we're not approving the whole site. We're only approving one plan and apparently there's another plan. How can we approve it in phases like that if it's a mixeduse development? The whole point of a mixeduse development is you're supposed to approve resident and non-resident I thought at the same time

and it coordinates not necessarily uh that Twin Arch Industrial was subdivided and then as each individual lot came in this body approved individual site plans for those because you can't in that event know the exact use of what what's what each lot's going to have one that happens over a period of time. Were they mixeduse developments? They weren't a mixeduse development, but again, and I'm just going by what the code says, okay?

Uh the code doesn't speak in terms of residential and commercial. That's been used a lot, but that's not what the code says. It says residential non-residential one use non-residential of which which is specifically identified in the code as permitted is a government use a government building.

So yeah, I get what you're saying. Uh but I think that what's in the code, you know, we might want to wish it different, but that's what the code says. If you're looking at the code and then you look at also what we have written for mixeduse developments and what's actually zoned there. The whole I think point of mixed use development is to have it put together as one even if it's not having separate or re reszoning it. Well, but remember there are two different types of plans here. Again, this this is a subdivision plan.

What this does for the most part is is identify the contours of the lots. they legally creates the lots if you will plus the storm water management and the you know all the other accutrants and parking being being one of them. Um we don't require site plans for residential subdivisions. Uh we we don't have a site plan for every single lot, right? We do for the industrial lot or the non-commercial I'm sorry non-residential lot. So, it's necessary whether this was going to be a government building or some other building, even a commercial building, that you would take the site plan at a separate time because at the time that you're reviewing the subdivision plan, nobody knows what the precise use is going to be. might be a gas station, might have been a strip mall, might have been something else. But nobody knows what that use is specifically until such time as somebody comes forward and says, "Yes, I will build my gas station there or my and at that time a site plan comes before you relative to that particular lot within the subdivision."

That's with Well, that's with subdivisions. But does that how it works with other mixeduse developments throughout Maryland though or don't they get put forward as one? Sure. I I think that the commercial side is always sort of you you carve out where it's going to be. Tom, I think the challenge that we're having is we've there's clearly a problem with parking. There's no identified solution with the existing subdivision laid out as it is shown. And if you look if you were to look at it holistically, you could potentially have a solution, but it's not. So, so if we have to work within the constraints of that, then we would just say, well, there's not adequate parking.

Sure. But remember, the site plan's coming before you, right? So, you might not condition it today, but you may impose conditions later on on the specific site plan. want to also think about if we think about the mountary crossings, right? Are we going to be seeing if it were to go through to this stage, you know, are we going to be looking at each commercial portion of that site plan as one giant plan? I mean, it's it's unfathomable to think that all the commercial elements are going to be ironed out uh during that plan.

So, so to recap, uh we can do this in two different parts. residential and non-residential. The approving subdivision of the lots for the residential and the commercial. What gets built on the commercial is going to be the subject of a later site plan approval process that this body will get to review and condition and approve or not approve. Okay?

So we can impose conditions later. So at that time a discussion on parking specific to this deficiency could reasonably be addressed. Okay. Um to the limits of planning and things like that. Understood. It's not really

if you have a police station the you know particulars about you know I don't know what the you know setbacks and all that need to be and you know how close civilians can park to it and all. I don't know what that is. And so I don't again like I think we're sort of you can't we don't know if it's feasible is the point, right? We don't know if it's feasible to you to have parking in that other in the com commercial non-resident, right? Yeah.

Yeah. Um let me ask a question here because you know we're bound by the code here and I believe I know the answer but let me ask John and perhaps Tom. Is there any specific code entry requiring specifically guest parking relative to a residential subdivision? I would defer to engineering, but I don't think there's any specific requirement enumerated by acreage like you have to have x amount of acreage, you need to have 10 parking additional parking spaces, an additional one space per 10 dwelling units. I I don't believe there's any language like that. I think so. But

um Okay. Frank has some comment possibly. Can you use the microphone, please? Continuity of of the whole project, the commercial or the non-residential and the residential goes back to the pattern book. We put a lot of time into the pattern book that ties everything together. And as the owner that's selling the non-commercial to the town, I do have some limitations and oversight on what goes there. I could step in and say to the town, you need to do what's in the pattern book. That was what is approved. If you want to make a change to it, they need to come to this body. So I mean that's that pattern book was approved. Sure.

And that layout and concept was approved in that pattern book. So we we could have that discussion, but I could say that's what is approved. I can't have my hands tied because you want to make a change to it. So you need to do what's in the pattern book. Okay. Um I have one last comment, Commissioner Bick and then u I'll stop.

Um after So I just wanted to make it clear all along this body has said that we needed more parking. It has never said that we had too much. Um, and I know that was a battle that I consistently because I live in a townhouse community that in made sure that we were very vocal about that and I will tell you 100% that we all said we needed parking, guest parking. Does your townhouse community have garages and double wide uh driveways for each house? Nope. Okay. Well, that's part of the, you know, there's four parking spots per townhouse or villa product.

Technically, I have that, but it's not enough. I live in a townhouse community with 250 town homes. We do not have enough parking on one of my streets are literally so tight that we don't have enough.

Okay. Um, again, a really rich discussion here. Um, one quick question to the town attorney. Uh, again, um, any motion tonight is with respect to the preliminary plan for the Green Tree Village subdivision or specifically the preliminary plan for the residential subdivision of the Green Tree Village. No, it's for the whole It's for all of it. Okay. But as a subdivision plan, it's not okay yet. What where again

police station, right? Again, identifying the boundaries of the parcels in the non-resident and residential signs. Okay. All right. And that's just language that I wanted to be clear on if we hear a motion on this. Okay. That's all that's all that was. Um, I now will entertain anyone in the public that wish to make a quick comment. Is there a hand in the air on anyone? There's a gentleman in the front. You have three minutes. Could you identify your your name first, sir?

Hi, my name is Steve Slesberger. Um, I just had a question because generally the town doesn't allow culde-sacs and I know that this has obviously been approved at some point. It looks like it's showing parking on this culde-sac here, but when the culde-sac is approved, I believe they have to have a landscape center. And if in fact that comes in later at one of the other plans or one of the other discussions, then you're really not going to have that parking where those it looks like four cars are are being uh shown. So, when you're discussing the parking, I'm just And then again, same thing on the um mailbox side. I'm just throwing that out as something that may be considered or and ask is that supposed to be a landscape culde-sac?

That's my question. Barney. Sure. Um so, public works does not want those landscape um uh center areas. Correct. Uh they're more of a pain um when it comes to snow plowing and and that sort of thing. Correct. So, we've we've asked um Mr. Thompson to eliminate those uh but also keep the same required size of the court where half of our courts are are 10 foot smaller than than they're required to by code. So, we keep keeping the larger court but eliminating the island. So, it so it will be one of the larger courts that you'll see through throughout town.

Yeah. But followup is it it is code and does that have to be brought to a certain body and approved to remove that since it is town code? So any amendments or changes to the town code as a legislative action that has to be introduced into the town council. Uh we certainly from this discussion can kind of put that in the ear of any council member like our liaison um to consider taking that forward into some amendment to the town code. Um but that's the process. Uh Steve, good question. But we're not a legislative body, you know, uh but we could certainly refer a recommendation on code changes.

Okay. I just didn't know. Well, like I say, we're talking about parking and it looks like they're using that as part of the parking for visitors and things like that. And by doing, if you follow the code, that restricts your parking even more. Yeah. So, and and at the risk of throwing in with the good advice and and um statements from Barney, the town engineer, I also recall that island center cults also pose challenges for large apparatus uh such as firet trucks, ladder trucks, whatever um to maneuver. If there is parking around that island, then it's almost like you can't do it. If you if it it it lowers the radius of the turning for I agree 100% long wheelbase

vehicles as as a former firefighter I 100%. Yeah. But again now was the fire department made aware that the circle was either going to be landscaped or not when they did their consideration. I I can't speak to that. I know that um the town planner works directly with the chief and his representative to analyze the plans before we get to the APFO certification for the area called fire and EMS. Some suggestions. No, I like the engagement above and beyond. That's that's good. Good comments. Um okay. Um any other interest? Um young lady in the front and you state your name

again. I'm Jessica Haven. I live uh on Candace Drive, right across from where this project is going to take place. Um and we're um coming to terms with the project, of course, and and the fact that we live across the street. Uh I just had a few quick questions. First, there are a lot of uh there's a lot of wildlife that live on the acre acreage right now. And while we're, you know, we're sad for them to lose their homes, what I'm more concerned about actually is that there is a lot of ground dwelling animals there. Will there be a plan in place to catch these creatures before they come out into the rest of our um neighborhood? U meaning the foxes, the groundhogs, and there's so many field mice um in this area. Is there some kind of uh pest mitigation and plan before you blast or bulldoze?

So, so you're directing the question to me. Okay. Yes, sir. And so, um it I I think I have your question. Um did you have any other comment or question? Yes. Well, actually just about the construction that will where the construction will park uh where the uh construction crews will park during the u process. Okay.

On Candace Drive. I just I just wanted to find out. I see that there's a lot of signage that will be right in front of our home and just wanted to find out if the the construction um would be the the trucks would be left in uh along Candace Drive in front of our homes uh overnight and uh you know, just so we know if our kids could be biking up and down there or not. Okay. Um, and so between you and me, um, and I'll ask for at the end of the comments for the applicant to weigh in. U, but right now for you and me, um, to my knowledge within the code, there is no requirement in any development plan for there to be any animal um, control, relocation, not relocation. Just just Yeah, I guess

the sort of thing that you are understandably concerned about. Yeah. um and um and it is not a required element of this plan. Okay. Or I should say any plan uh that I that I know of within the code. Okay. Uh secondly, as far as construction equipment, when permitting is finally granted and they begin things such as grading and work crews show up, uh I think it reasonable that because Candace is a county road, correct?

That's right. that that those crews could very well be expected to park along Candace and uh in my familiarity with Candace as the power lines cross over Candace fairly wide there I believe um I'm not going to guess how many lanes but I think maybe you could put four cars a breast at that point with a it's a wide road it's a very wide but there's no sidewalks so so so kids bike up and down there you know what I mean so but but I believe it fair say that uh if the crews when construction begins and those activities begin uh that if there are any violations of county road parking, okay,

that I'm sure the Mount Air Police Department in coordination with the Carol County Sheriff would address them, educate them, change it. That sort of that sort of approach I think would be reasonable. Okay. Um, and you know, you being across the street, if you could keep an eye on that when that does occur, an ear on it, and an ear on it, too, then I think that'd be marvelous. Is that fair? That's perfectly fair. And yeah, so we'll just we'll just I guess hopefully everything will go according uh to the law. And if if it's before 7 a.m. and we're hearing beep beep beep and and all kinds of construction outside of our house, we'll will involve there are restrictions on when we're Yes. 7 a.m., right? And I also want to make sure that that we don't hear that. Yes. Thank you.

Thank you so much. And as I said with Steve, thanks for being engaged. I mean, this is this is really a good thing. So, there was a gentleman in the back. If you could quickly identify yourself again for me. Um, I'm Lee McBride. I'm kind of with her. I live on Candace Drive. Um I just I didn't see it before on the plans, but there is a retaining wall behind the um behind the town houses next to Candace. And I'm looking at the plans. I can't read them well enough. But how big is that retaining wall going to be? It's about three foot. About three feet all the way. Basically all the way down.

No, just a little bit of the way. It's along the back of which which one are you talking about? I'm talking about the one Well, probably closer up to the Right. There's some grading there. To eliminate the grading, we put about a 3-ft wall in there. Okay. So, 3 ft. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. The the only other larger embankment wall, I believe, is over on the border with the Baptist church. Is that accurate? Yeah, correct. And wraps around.

Yeah. Yeah. Any other public comment quickly? Seeing none, I close the public on this. Um, and I offer Mr. Podan and Mr. Thompson any added remarks to the three public comments as a rebuttal or otherwise. No, no interest. Fine. We've had a rich discussion on this. What we have before us is a preliminary plan for Green Tree, the entire preliminary plan for both residential and nonal portions. Um a major issue arose with regard to the guest parking. It was explained as a consequence of utility easement negotiations that eliminated them. And then the other significant change from previous plans is the details with regard to the walking trails um has already shown and discussed. At this point, I will entertain a motion with respect to the approval or disapproval of the preliminary plan for the Green Tree subdivision. Trying to figure out how to formulate the motion. I remind the commissioners that if no motion is made or if a motion is made and not seconded then the matter dies.

Okay. Okay. Okay. I'll make a motion. Um forgive me. It's 10:35. Um, uh, that we go ahead and, sorry, hang on one second. I'll make a motion that we go ahead and pre approve the PL the preliminary plan um, with the conditions. The five single family houses must match the existing neighborhood and all must face Main Street. Um, we also have the condition of um wave the full requirements of the mount area landscape planting requirements. Um, do you want to read the whole thing?

Sure. 98.A uh 48B. Um, and then we also have the additional comments of the county will provide Oh, do I need to read that part? No. Okay. But I'm also wondering if because of the difficulty of the situation, we have flexibility in the future to address other problems. I'll just leave that part off then for now. Okay. Um I can't amend that.

I I can't offer an amendment until it's seconded. Correct. Yeah, I'll second. Okay, the motion has been made um and uh by Commissioner Hadley and seconded by Commissioner Bea. Uh it is now open for discussion or amendments of the motion. Any suggested changes to the motion has to go to the motion for her to accept and reissue and then get seconded again with the amendment that she made. Um, so I think probably a good start would be if it's possible to Could you restate the motion that's on the floor?

Okay. All right. Um, the motion is that we approve the preliminary plan for Green Tree Village subdivision with the following conditions. The five single family houses must match the existing neighborhood and all must face Main Street. wave the full requirements for the mount area landscape planning requirements 98. A48B.

Okay. Um I I would like to uh respectfully submit a additional condition which is we have the documented utility easement review and approval uh that we had discussed earlier because it's all verbal now as I understand it. Um and so then that's a condition uh that I would like to add. I'll accept uh the motion is accepted that additional condition. Um and I won't read the con the complete motion with that condition back. But with that addition accepted by her. Is there a second for that? I'll second.

It's seconded again by Commissioner Bea. Any further discussion on the amended motion? Commissioner Wallace. Is an alternate allowed to make a recommendation. Um I think so. You just can't vote. Yeah. Yeah. So um I would also say that there needs to be adequate parking included in the plan within the plan that we see now. Yes. Okay. Before it goes forward. Okay. Um, so Commissioner Wallace has offered another amendment to the motion and it's to the motion for her to accept or not. I'll accept.

She accepts that the preliminary plan now, if I can paraphrase, now be adjusted to restore the eight guest parking places. Is that is it is it six or is it eight? It was eight in the pattern book that was approved. Thank you. Okay. Um do it.

So just a moment, please. Um we have a motion and I'm trying to clarify it. Um we we've been this route before. Um so work with me, Commissioner Hadley. We have a motion to approve the preliminary plan for Green Tree Village subdivision. We have the condition to wave the landscaping requirements in 98- A

A we have the amendment that I offered to include documented utility easement review and approval. And we have the additional condition to restore the eight guest parking spaces. Did I leave off any conditions or is that it? But there was a wave the landscaping. Oh, I already read that. Yeah. Okay. All right. Um, Miss Clinton, are you are you tracking with me?

Look at Look at She's so good when we um Okay. Um, and I believe Commissioner Bea seconded this. So, we have a motion on the floor with those conditions. Mr. Chair, he did not he did not approve parking. Uh he did not second the partner Wallace's I did not second that. Okay my my bad. Thank you. Uh so that added condition of restoring the eight parking spaces. The motion has accepted that amendment is that additional condition now in the total motion. Seconded. Can I second that? Sure.

I'll second. It's it's late. Um so that additional condition from Commissioner Wallace has now been accepted by the motion. It has been u seconded by Commissioner BAC. One more time. Do we have any further discussion or amendments on the motion with the conditions already stated? Okay. I can can I offer something? Um, [Music] is it an amendment or

Well, the the staff recommendation said preliminary plan approval to allow the 61 lot subdivision and previously approved pattern book for the residential portion of this Green Tree Village subdivision with the following conditions. That was not listed. We've already approved the pattern book and we've already approved the plan initially and now we're here with another plan that because of BG& we lost parking spaces. Un understood and and he can't put them back. The plan is the plan. He can put them back later maybe with the government building that is or I'm sorry non-residential portion of it. Put him back somewhere else. So I believe you're okay.

You can't you can't propose re unreasonable conditions commission. So So there is a motion on the floor with a condition stated. Town attorney, do you see any issue with where we are right now? I think you have a motion ready to be voted on. Okay. Um, all those in favor of the motion with the conditions that were added by the motion. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed to the motion say nay. Nay. One. Nay. Commissioner Bea. The motion passes with approval under conditions.

I Yes. I yeah, this closes this agenda item. Thank you, Mr. Thompson and Mr. Potan. Uh we are at item nine, reports and other business. Uh for the council liaison report, Councilman Sean Kelly has attached a written report from the last council meeting. Um, I ask that the commissioners take a look at that and um, to get through this evening, I ask that you take a look at that. Um, and if you have any questions on that, you can direct them directly to Mr. Kelly. And John, you now have the zoning administrator report.

Yes. If you have any questions, um, let me let me know. Okay. Also, you have that in writing from Mr. uh from the zoning administrator, town planner. If you have any questions, then please direct them to John. And the next planning commission meeting date is August 25th at 7:30 here in town hall. I have 10:45 today and this meeting is adjourned. [Music]