Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Commission meeting for the month of August. The date is August 25, 2025. I am calling this meeting to order. And our first order of business is the pledge of allegiance. Please.

I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Amen. As I always try to do, I want to welcome those who took time from their evening to come and join us here in town hall tonight. We have a really good turnout and I sincerely speak for all the commissioners that we always enjoy the public participating in our uh agendas for the planning commission uh for the town. I also want to thank those who could not make it and who are participating via live stream tonight courtesy of the Carol Media Center. Thank you to the Carol Media Center for that. The first order of business is or the next order of business is the approval of our minutes from the past planning commission meeting. All commissioners have the July minutes in front of them. I will pause as I always do to collect your thoughts, review any markups you may have made.

Ralph, I have something. I have a couple. Make sure you close and I'll take a motion and once a motion is made then we can have discussion with regard to the motion whether the motion is approved or disapproved. Um, so with that, is there a motion with regard to the minutes of the July 28 Planning Commission meeting, either to approve or disapprove those minutes? I'll make a motion. Okay, I'm I'm going to go to my right. Commissioner Bea, uh, motions to approve. Is there a second? I'll second.

There's a second from Commissioner Wallace. It's open for discussion, edits, or amendments to those. Do I hear any? I have a couple of edits, if I may offer under the Green Tree Village subdivision. Um, just a couple of things. One is the first paragraph kind of towards the end. It talks about a review and understanding of street parking and access to rails to trails. And I think we were discussing access to the open space, not rails to trails. Um, and then in the last sentence, it there's just a little typo there on for guest parking. Um, the typo, um, uh, where it says it's supposed to say guest parking, it says quest.

Um, so I think that edit has Miss Clinton, that edit has already been made. So, so, uh, I'm sorry, in the copy I have, but it's noted. And so, that last sentence in the first paragraph will now read the removed guest parking. Thank you. and to and the line above it access to the open space. Is that accurate? Yes. Okay. Um, Commissioner Bea made the motion. Do you accept the amendments to that? One more. Oh, one more. There's three.

At the very bottom of the page, uh, next to number four, uh, where it says Heather Wallace recommended a further condition. If we can change that from adequate parking is needed to restore the eight guest parking spaces and we just say restore eight guest parking spaces. That's that's what the motion was that was approved. So playing that back after number four strike adequate parking is needed to begin the sentence with capital R restore the eight guest parking spaces. Period.

Yes. strike in the approved pattern. Period. Pick up next sentence, Martina Hatley, etc., etc. I don't think we need to with I don't think we need to strike in the approved pattern book. Okay. So, it ends with eight guest parking parking spaces in the approved pattern book. Okay. My bad. Miss Clinton, did you catch all those three? You did. Okay. So, uh, do we have any other commissioner recommendations for edits or amendments to these minutes? Three have been offered by Commissioner Wallace. The motioner was Commissioner Bea. Do you accept those?

I accept. The The motion has now been amended per the discussion. Is there a second for the amended motion? I'll second. Commissioner Bick uh seconds the edited motion. All those in favor of the new motion with the three edits offered by Commissioner Wallace, please say I. I. I. Those opposed.

The motion is passed with those edits. Thank you. And Miss Clinton, I'll I'll do the signature page and then you'll edit as we've discussed. Is that fair? Great. Super. The next item on the agenda, as we always try to do for public input, is to offer a period of time for public comments, um I will uh ask for a show of hands for those interested to approach the microphone to your left uh with a time limit determined by the number of folks that we may have of interest. I would also ask that if you could please limit any comments you wish to make to items not on the agenda and I am perceiving there may be an attendance tonight interested in the annexation and if that's the case then I will open that agenda item toward the end of that discussion specific to any concerns you have with regard to the annexation. Um, and and I promise that. So again, what I'm trying to do at the at the beginning of our meeting tonight are any items not on the agenda that you wish to bring to the town's attention, to the planning commission's attention, or to our council representative, Council Member Kelly. Is there anyone interested in that kind of topic? I'd like to see a show of hands. Once I have one gentleman in the back, very good, sir. if you would then come to the mic again.

I didn't want to call you as I was interested.

Oh, okay. But possibly interested at a later time on what? I got you. That's clear. Okay. Again, anything not on the agenda. Anyone interested in making a public comment? Seeing none, I'm closing the public comment portion at the beginning of this meeting. And again, we'll go into it later on the agenda items. The next item on the agenda is the Frederick and Carol County liaison reports to us. Uh we'll begin with the Carol County liaison report, which for the public information, we've been without this liaison for some time now. Uh Carol County in Westminster is actively recruiting for that planner position on the Carol County staff. And this is a bit further, our liaison are important to the town because as you know, we sit on both counties and a lot is going on in both counties that could possibly impact the town. And so these liaison bring those relevant topics, relevant actions at the county level to our awareness, work with the town planning director and work with us so that we can kind of get ahead of anything or tip off again through our council liaison anything that needs to be raised to the council's attention. So without the Carol County liaison here, I'm going to turn to John and say, "John, is there anything relevant that you know of from their staff?"

Uh, no. So, I didn't receive any correspondence from Carol County uh again during my department planning department update. I'll bring some of that information that was requested in the last meeting uh sort of forward, but currently no no um liaison from Carol County yet and no report from them. Gotcha.

Yeah. And and so if I could add a little more to John's uh report right now is at the last meeting in July uh we did get a report from Westminster and they touched upon some topics that interested us. Solar energy uh initiatives um code changes within the county code persuant to some state bills and legislation that came out of Annapolis. And so those are the things that John is referring to and we've dedicated a time toward the end for him to recap all of that information that we asked for. So if that's fair, we'll see that information uh later this evening. So moving now to the Frederick County planner. I see Miss Moreno back in the back. Uh Vanessa, please come forward and again welcome. Anything relevant that we should know about Frederick County actions?

Let's see. Okay,

nice to see you all. It's been quite some time. So, not too big of an update for this month. We're currently working on our three plans. We're working on the housing element, uh, investing in workers and workplaces, which is an economic development plan, and the green infrastructure plan. So, we've been workshopping this with our planning commission. And so, those are in the works. Um, let's see. of uh the CDI overlay bill. Uh the data center bill is currently um at the state for 60-day review and we're expecting that to take the entire 60 days. So we will see that back um at the um county council in October uh for additional public comment and so we've also been receiving a lot of public comment via email on the data centers and that bill in general. But then in terms of development review, uh there are no site plan submitts or anything um in the Mount Airy radar that I've been made aware of. So,

is there anything specific with the new market efforts and the over 1,000 dwelling units that now have gotten the green light for which development specifically? Was it Cherry Run? Thank you. Um I at this moment uh the developers of Cherry Run, they are going through a water and sewer um plan amendment. And so that will be heading to planning commission on September 17th to reclassify their water and sewer I believe to S3W3 which just you know kind of just sets the development up for connection to public water and sewer. And that's all I have on my radar for our cherry run at this moment. And again, that date before the planning commission is

uh September 17th. Thank you. Any commissioner questions for the Frederick County Leon? I have a question, John. What time what time are those meetings and what building are they in? They begin at 9:30 um at Win at Winchester Hall uh right on East Church Street. And these tend to be towards later in the afternoon since there are a few other items in the morning that the planning commission likes to address first. Yeah. Fantastic. And that's about it. Thank you so much for that. Yeah, absolutely.

The next item on the next item on the agenda is the annexation resolution 2025-47. And that resolution puts to the planning commission from the town council the task that we now have to assess the petition for annexation submitted by the petitioners, which are the owner and a prospective buyer of the parcel that is known and referred to often as the Warfield property located on the north side of West Watersville Road outside the boundary of the town. clearly outside because this is an annexation petition. Uh we have discussed this petition once already in the July meeting and we have determined that at the beginning of our task, it's important that we all up here have criteria by which to measure that petition and render a defendable recommendation to the town council. We have a timeline to do this of 120 days per the code and the code reference on everything that we try to that we will abide by is code chapter number 44 within the town code. So, we've been trying to itemize everything regarding annexations and focusing on the criteria that we then hopefully will start applying in the next planning commission meeting in September. the packet that I believe everybody could have gotten a copy on out there. It's draft version two, August 25, today's date, and it's entitled Planning Commission Considerations and Criteria for assessing a proposed annexation and its proposed zoning and land use.

So, Ralph, we do have version three that I put out there as well. Oh, okay. So, it's in your packet to your left.

I got the old version. Gotcha. Version three. Gotcha. Uh so if I can just very briefly touch upon this packet to give you all confidence in the public that we want to be absolutely righteous on making this recommendation with some clear known criteria to assess or put a yard stick against this petition and all of it complying with the town code. Uh there are going to be in tonight's discussion on this some questions I'm going to put before our town council. Uh Tom over here to your left. Uh so bear with me. Just very briefly, this packet here captures the Maryland land use article at the very outset. So everybody knows what does the LUA, the land use article dictate with respect to municipalities such as ours wanting to annex in any property outside the town boundary. And so I provided that awareness and that transparency with regard to the Maryland law. I included also Maryland Department of Planning guidance. I was in contact with the MDP folks in Annapolis and they provided that guidance and references also. So I've included that. There is also county guidance from the county code with regard to them releasing any property into another municipality such as we have here with us gaining county property possibly gaining county property into the town boundary. And then on page 11 of the latest version of this, with all that in front, we begin listing those things which I again hope to start next month in getting these commissioners to give a yay or nay or an opinion with respect to each of those questions. And so we're trying to be comprehensive and we're trying to pull the right

rulers out to measure this petition and render a proper discussion. I'm going to now entertain four uh three questions specifically to Tom if I may in going through this and then I'll open up for commissioner discussions and then at the end of that I'll open up public comment with regard to setting the criteria and doing this as I've described. So my three questions Tom with regard to this. If we look at the code for R1 which is the proposed zoning submitted in the petition the R1 code has a bit of confusion from Ralph Gent's perspective. The R1 code states that there is an allowable use that's permitted described as 112-23. Paragraph B. Uses permitted in the R1 district. No building or structure may be erected or used or no land may be used or occupied except for one or more of the following principal uses. Number one, single family dwellings. Number two, parks, playgrounds, golf courses, public and private recreational uses, and cemeteries. I won't go down three, four, and five. It's not relevant to my question. But then in paragraph C, just below it, as we always do in the zoning district verbiage in our code, we have special exceptions to R1 district. The board of appeals may authorize the following principal uses as special exceptions in accordance with the provisions of article 81 112-62. I won't go down all of those special exception possibilities, but number 10 says private parks and

recreational facilities. So, it's duplicative as an allowable or permitted use in paragraph bravo, but it's a special exception use for recreational facilities. And again, all of this is based upon the verbal exchange we had in July with representatives of the interested buyer that the proposed use is going to be something along a privatelyowned for-profit sports complex. Is that accurate from you all's understanding? And again, that's not written in the petition stated explicitly. So I'm asking this question based upon that exchange in July. So back to the question. Is it an allowable/permitted use or is it an special exception use?

Um two comments on that one. It's not clear to me. Uh I I agree there's there's not just ambiguity to Ralph Gent uh okay the code about that. Um, one of the things we probably need to do, about 20 years ago, there was a proposed annexation on Buffalo Road for a private recreational facility of some sort. If I recall correctly, we may well have resolved that issue and thus may set precedent as to uh the difference between the two um categories there. Um, and I'd have to go back and look at that. Um, okay. Secondly, uh I would say though it's certainly it could be relevant to your inquiry, but just from a legal perspective, it doesn't really matter just in terms of the legality of the annexation, whether the property or the petition qualifies under the law for annexation. uh because uh whatever use may be put to it and whether it's a special exception or a use of right uh of course comes later at a time after presumably site plan is is approved and there's application for a zoning certificate or if it's a special exception uh application for a special exception of course initially comes here for recommendation and then goes to the board of appeals for ultimately ultimate consideration andor approval. So um again I'm not suggesting it's not a relevant inquiry from what you're doing. I'm just saying from purely legal perspective technically doesn't matter. The last point I'll make is um in any annexation you sort of have this combination of a request for a zoning uh you know u designation once annexed if annexed into the town. Of course, what

comes with that is a whole set of uses um that may or may not be the specific use per se that is proposed. Um, now that's not to say that the use proposed isn't ultimately going to be the use that's proposed, but um, I think there are some significant questions about, for instance, whether you can say, "Okay, we're going to zone at R1, but in the annexation agreement, you are restricted to using this property only for this recreational use." We'll go into great detail, but there's a very long opinion called the Ryland's opinion that probably prohibits that. So in consideration of an annexation, not just this one, when an R2 or R1 is proposed, you have to consider the fact that potentially once annexed, there could be an an application to site plan or development plan um a different use, albeit one that's permitted.

Correct. And that potential, not to say it will occur here, but that potential change of the zoning once annexed from R1 to something else is of course a proposal based upon a site plan or a more definitive detailed land use on that property comes later. So the annexation would have to occur first and then of course as once in the town as with any development the de any proposed development thereafter would have to you know go through the site plan or subdivision plan as the case understood review process.

Gotcha. Any any before I go to question two any commissioner have a comment on the answer from council? Can you just clarify? So you're saying that although the annexation request is for R1 now that they could once annex they could request something.

No what I'm saying is is they let's say they request R1 and they get R1. Okay. They might well in the annexation process have proposed a very particular use within R1. But once it's R1 any use in theory of right or by special exception if approved by the board of appeals is open to them. That's not again that's not to say I've never seen an annexation where they proposed specific use get annexed and then they switch and say well we're going to you know build something else. I've never seen that.

So Tom you were um saying something about um if we approve the annexation we can't put restriction on what's what goes in there. So if they're saying that they want ball fields then we're saying it's going to be ball fields only. I I do not believe that would be lawful. So again, to recap, as long as the code doesn't show the intended use, a sports complex, recreational field description, as long as that's not a prohibited use within R1, we can move forward in our assessment and recommendation.

True. Gotcha. Okay. Uh question two. Um, chapter 44-5 under the annexation procedure does give the planning commission in its role to provide an assessment and recommendation back to the town council. It provides them the ability to ask quote for further information unquote and gives the examples of topographic information, traffic studies, etc. And um let me put out any fires with regard to topographic information. I have no interest in how the ground is rolling and and shaped as as an old army guy. That's that's not interesting to me. Uh but um traffic studies or etc. Let me raise the question as to traffic studies relevant to our assessment and our criteria. And I'm in a quandry, Tom, because a traffic study imposed on the applicant or I should say the petitioner would have to reveal some detailed or understanding or fidelity with regard to the participation on the property, the participation based upon the fields that could be built, the buildings, the sports complex writ large. If you follow what I'm saying,

if it's one field, it's X participants. If it's four fields, it's bigger, right? And all of that then of of course translates to cars and cars then translates to the traffic study. So without that more detailed land use information, i.e. a preliminary site plan or the like, but the code does allow us to ask for a traffic study.

Is it is it reasonable to ask absent all that other applicant information? It's reasonable to ask in as much as you are rendering a recommendation and what this code provision requires and probably even without the code provision you could require you're entitled to request information. The penalty for not providing such would be you're not getting a favorable recommendation from us. Uh so typically what happens in these circumstances is a planning commission would do one of two things. Look, in order for us to make a determination as to what a recommendation is going to be, what conditions, lawful conditions, we might ask that the town council impose, we need a might not be a formal as formal a traffic study as might occur at a development review stage, but you know, some something that addresses, you know, what what's the traffic going to be at peak use, uh, etc. Mhm.

Um I've also seen planning commissions not do that themselves but rather suggest as a condition of the town council that prior to the uh approval of any of any such annexation that the town council require uh and review uh a similar study. So I've seen it done both ways. Makes sense. And of course, if we impose such a request, we would impose that through the director of planning to the petitioner. Sure. Okay. And secondly, because we have a 120day suspense to provide this recommendation to the council, that communications from the planning director to the petitioner could impose a suspense.

Ask that again. Could could impose a timeline because we have a deadline. Yeah, you've got 120 days, I think, from the July meeting. Correct. It runs from your first meeting, regular meeting post uh referral to you. But yeah, absolutely. And again, if I do the math quickly, that'll probably take us to our deadline at the November planning commission meeting if I'm not mistaken. And the code provides that you can also request of the town council an additional up to 120 days should you need it.

Gotcha. Okay. Um and we would all want to work on that over the Christmas. Yeah. Gotcha. Um, so asked and answered, any questions with regard to that council advice on the further information beyond the traffic study? Before I go into the third question, beyond the traffic study, is there any interest in other further information that we would need to run by council? Commissioner Wallace, is it possible to ask for from the town um staff a a costbenefit analysis for the annexation? Sure. Okay. Um can be determined.

Yes. But but I have seen that. In fact, I've seen uh requests of petitioners uh to uh illustrate that in some manner. And again to kind of beat that same horse again uh with regard to the traffic study, such a costbenefit analysis would impose upon the petitioner some delivery of information more specific than in the petition with regard to how that land will be used so that that cost and benefit and that plus and minus can be done. Correct.

Correct. As to the task of a costbenefit analysis, I would imagine and I'm looking for John, your opinion, this would be a task that would come from the town staff. Um, it would not be a task I would think given to the petitioner. The petitioner would be given a request for information to enable that analysis, but I'm thinking of who's going to do it if it is requested as further information. Would that be a town staff? Yeah, I think that'd be a town staff. It would be myself, possibly the new town administrator and engineering getting getting together pulling asking what information we need to to figure out what those cost analysis are.

And again, we haven't arrived at that being a firm request as yet, but um I think you just said it would be something you could do. you your your expertise would allow you to do it and you could develop the information requirements to the petitioner in order to do it. I didn't say me specifically, but I mean town. Oh, I mean the town the town staff and again we do have a third party consultant we can reach out to that does traffic impact studies for us as well. Okay. I think and that cost is then conveyed on to the applicant. Correct. ultimately, but it's a third party independent, which is probably what engineering would say, but I can't speak for engineering.

So, good point. Let me swing back to the traffic study. There is code verbiage in here where the town needs additional consultation services to render decisions with regard to site plans, concept plans, etc. they can lean on that expertise paid for by the applicant or the petitioner. Correct. Correct.

Okay. All right. Uh any other further information uh worthy of discussion? Uh I've talked about traffic studies. Commissioner Wallace has talked about the costbenefit analysis of the annexation in the proposed land use. Any other further information beyond the petition information? Okay, the third question and I believe it was answered and this is the last question I have. The third question and I believe I heard you answer it in an explanation earlier and that is once we make a recommendation, can we make a conditional recommendation that includes assumptions of the land use based on verbal exchange based upon knowledge that we have been given in public meetings. The recommendation whatever it is for or against can have those assumptions stated and it can also have conditions stated. Is that accurate?

Well, you're recommending that the town council impose conditions uh as a part of the annexation and which would ultimately go into an annexation agreement. But, uh, yes, that's typically done. I typically see planning commissions will say yes, we recommend the town council approve the annexation because we believe it in the best interest of the town, but request that or recommend to the town council that they impose condition A, B, and C uh to be wrapped into an annexation agreement.

Gotcha. And I did that deliberately so the commissioners know that when we get through this criteria and we reach some consensus that we're willing to pass to the council, it can have conditions included in it just as we do often with site plan approvals or disapprovals and and so on. Uh so that concludes my three areas of interest with regard to council here. Um are there any other questions regarding the criteria these topics already discussed? Um, I will then zip us forward to page. I have one question, John. Go ahead.

The the the cost differences between either it being a a um sports complex or residential, I'm not sure what the two different Go ahead if you heard. I think it should be for any use that's possible under the five uses that are on there. Well, I think the I think the obvious it could be focused on a sports complex, recreational and leaving it the way it is or with residential. I'm not sure what.

So, so I would say phrase if if we all agree and I'm going to cover this to make sure we are the the request would be for information for a costbenefit analysis related to the proposed private recreational uses. Okay. for just the private. Okay. Yes. Okay. So, so typically uh it is specific to the specific use that's under consideration at the annexation phase.

Typically, uh the request will be directed to the uh through staff to the petitioner to put together a costbenefit analysis subject of course to being scrutinized and reviewed uh by town staff and ultimately this this body. And so that's typically how it's done. And uh there would might well be differences. So if you had a proposed development of R1,

they might include for instance uh I don't know hypothetically 50 tap fees. Well, that's not going to be applicable to a recreational uh use, but it would be applicable uh in theory to a residential development R1 or R2 or whatever it is. So, so let's revisit the point I just heard and that is it's typical to impose the costbenefit analysis onto the petitioner. Yes. When it's done, I've that's typically how it's done for review by the town staff and of course this commission because it's a piece of further information and ultimately the town council

and the town council. Um so retracting the earlier discussion about is the staff going to do this? is the staff got the competency etc. It now appears that if we make this further information request it would be imposed upon the petitioner to provide it. I'm just saying that's how I've seen it done. Gotcha. Okay. Okay. Question. Sure. So if is it I mean so if you look at the code I mean barring the the potential overlap between the private and public wreck uses and facilities R1 the primary use for R1 is residential right

well yeah I would say that's its main if you look at the purpose section right so is it possible to ask for both to look at R1 with residential and the potential sports field use because You said that once it's annexed in its R1, it could be used for residential or it could be used for a sports complex. Yeah, I mean, you certainly request it. Um, and I don't know how that would shake out. I one suspects that an R1 residential probably would show greater benefit financially to the town, right?

But you can request it. Okay. Interesting. Okay. I'm reminded of my euphemism. We're putting a wire brush to this. Um, and as as we always do, it's not it's not exceptional. Neither in this case tonight. Um, if I can ask everyone on the commission here to turn to page 13. Uh, I continue with the criteria that's proposed. Um, is the land use allowed? Yes, we just discussed. Are there existing structures that are non-conforming? There are no existing structures. What are the current adjacent town and/or county property zonings and land uses? Uh we've been provided an additional plat map of the property showing 21 adjacent private land owners that are on the periphery of the of the parcel. Correct, John? That's correct.

And with that regard, I believe per code, you have sent a letter to each of those adjacent property owners advising them as to this petition's submission to the town. Yeah. I don't think it's actually a code requirement, but we did send notify all adjoining property owners. Oh, for the annexation. Yes, they have for the annexation. Yeah, correct.

Um, etc. And then I'll end this on page 13 with paragraph G that I put there. Are there any other commissioner input for consideration as we begin this journey hopefully next month? And I open now to the commissioners for any comments in that regard. Any other things we should look at to put it simply commissioner beta of the private enjoyment of all the people that are going to neighbor the property going to be around it. I'm briefly

the enjoyment of the quiet enjoyment of it is what I'm trying to say. So the the the the property itself is going to back up against all these folks houses that are here and across the road. Uh my question being, you know, when do lights go off, how much pollution do the lights make? How noisy is it going to be? Um and traffic is certainly my biggest concern because it's a two-lane road and if you got 120 cars coming in and out, that's no one's ever going to go anywhere. Okay. So that those are kind of my those are my criteria um considerations.

Okay. So I'm looking for a phrase here that captures that criteria. That is the um let's let me try this uh Brian and see if it it hits a mark. Uh we must consider the harmony of the proposed use with the immediate adjacent properties. Is it is it harmonious with the adjacent properties? Okay. Yeah. And that that encovers all the aspects you said in more detail. Light, noise, those sorts of things. Okay. Traffic. Traffic.

Any commissioner discussion with regard to Commissioner Bea's recommended additional criteria on harmony. Commissioner Back, you're ready to go. Did you have something? Yeah, I did. Go ahead. You can go first. Okay. I think I want to back up what Brian was saying. Um, and also with regards to the traffic. Um, uh, I don't want to get too far. I'm a little concerned that I'll get into site plan questions, you know, so I I I'm in agreement with Brian and Okay. So far. Yeah.

Okay. Um, and hopefully if we do, and I'm going to cover that, if we do ask for further information, uh, it would encompass that topic of traffic on West Watersville Road. Any other criteria we should consider? Water where with our water situation currently, storm water. Yeah.

Okay. Um, so Commissioner Bay brings up the issue that touches upon and I guess we really actually already have for those residents that are familiar with our adequate public facility ordinance or APFO um chapter 25 of our code. Um, we get to any uh application process, there's a point where it's called the concept plan where this commission has to approve the APFO criteria. The APFO covers seven distinct areas of adequacy for this town to provide services in seven distinct areas to any development to any to any effort growing or developing within the town. Uh traffic is one of those seven. Water is another one of those seven. Uh I can rattle off if you want to be bored the other five uh schools, etc., etc. Uh but um I turn to council now with a fourth question. We're not doing an APFO, but we're asking for information related to aspects of those seven categories. That's fair or not. U so correct you're not doing an APFO but uh it's certainly fair to assess the impacts uh on um uh of a proposed use and therefore you know the impacts happen to be the same as in the APFO but you know their impacts reviewed all the time in response to an annexation petition. Would that be uh excuse me would that be relevant to a costbenefit analysis or separate in your mind?

I don't know. Uh okay. And it would be information on water related to do you have any specifics the impact on the town water system? The impact the impact on the water the water water and sewer. Okay. Um with runoff and all of that stuff as well. um and our open space deficit right now. Um okay. What I'm trying to do is consolidate a possible further information request. Sure. I'm trying to consolidate them into very distinct areas. Uh there's a part of me that says we've already identified traffic studies. We've identified a costbenefit analysis and now we're looking at water and sewer,

right? And open space. And you have one more category. MS. If we have a sports complex, it is going to weigh heavy on our EMS system, which they're already stretched as it is.

So, one of the seven is fire/emergency medical services coming out of the Mount Airy Volunteer Fire Company. Um, so again, we're not doing an APFO full scrub. It's not that point yet, but we're asking for information that relates to adequacy of these particular services. And so far we have mentioned one, two, three, four, five. Um, and I'm just trying to be upfront and just temper our appetite because we don't have legitimacy to ask for an APFO. But we are interested in the impact on five areas. And again, that's traffic, water, sewer, open space, fire, and EMS if my memory serves correctly. Is that accurate? Okay. Um, and I'm considering and open for discussion and John your input. Would that be all elements those five be included within the task of just providing a costbenefit analysis levied on the petitioner or would you prefer that we do those separately as separate distinct items for them to reply to? Well,

I guess that's the big question like you're saying. Does the um does that cost analysis actually show the burden? I mean I would think that would be what be showing the burden on all these items that you're listing here. That's my thinking. And then you know what's the benefit to go you know with this or that again I mean it's it's it's a big task to ask for the u the applicant ultimately and for us to review what they submit to make sure it's in compliance with good we have but I think Okay. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, sure.

So, um, so I'm going to craft a motion with regard to further information later, but this is good discussion on helping me get that get that out to the commissioners here in a moment. I'm entertaining any other criteria still. Commissioner Wallace, I would like to understand why the petitioner is seeking an annexation, why this cannot be done in the under county zoning. Okay. Council, uh, legitimate request can ask. Okay.

Probably has something to do with the county zoning would be my guess. And the current county zoning, if I'm not mistaken, is R40,000. Correct, John? That's correct. Thank you. And that does allow as a conditional use outdoor rec facilities. I I don't know according to the chart that we got in

Yeah. So John provided us what R4,000 is allowed at the county level. Um so it is it is an allowable use under R4,000 if I'm not mistaken. I looked through it with you the other day. Okay. Um, [Applause] traffic, water, sewer, fire, EMS, open space in harmony to the neighborhood. I'm I'm sorry. And also the har harmony with the adjoining property.

Yep. Yep. Yep. Okay, this is exactly I I certainly and genuinely I appreciate this because this is this is really being thorough with this petition. Okay, uh last call for any further criteria for us to use again in this assessment hearing. None, I turn to council leaison. Council Member Kelly, uh, do you have any thoughts with regard to, um, I use the term yard sticks, rulers, how we are now going to go about measuring this petition? Do you have any input?

My only comment uh was uh um when uh you and um Commissioner Bea were crafting the harmony phrase, impact is the word that I um I'll be interested in. So just sort of a uh a forward there, right? So impact to existing residents will be a big concern with me and I think other uh members of the council. So I think impact kind of touches on what what you were getting at also. Right. So um harmonizing with the existing residents, but you know we talk about the light pollution, noise pollution, right? That's how it impacts who's already there.

Excellent. I just wanted to insert that. Excellent. Um, John, I turn to you also for any alibis with regard to criteria. Do you see anything that should be considered in addition to this? And I don't mean to convey to the commissioners or to the public that this becomes a finite unchanging list. This is our start point for considering this again hopefully next month. If we find in that journey that there needs to be something else considered or further information, then uh we can certainly do that. But right now, I'm just trying to get us to a start point on what things we must look at. So, John, any any comment?

The only thing I would add is that, you know, if we're asking the the applicant to provide all this additional information in this case study, I'm not sure if September will make that date, you know, for us to actually have that information back. Now, we can start the process, but that data might not be retrieved or received from them before that

I got deadline. a totally reasonable statement and yes um and so if we do pass a motion for this further information with regard to the costbenefit analysis uh timeline um I will entertain thoughts as to what would be a reasonable date to impose on the petitioners again keeping in mind if we don't have it by that date we can make a decision on this day as to extend our suspense to the council hopefully that we could get it then or we meet our 120 days suspense and said we asked for did not receive and we convey our recommendation with that with that note. Um so yes so as we start this next month it would be unreasonable to expect something that shows a comprehensive costbenefit analysis with the elements we've discussed but we would look for it in October November possibly in order to render our recommendation. Fair enough. Yep.

Okay. All right. Okay. Um, so with commissioner input, with council liaison input, with uh great thanks to our council for guiding us through a series of questions, and with our planning director input, I am now going to open up the mic to the left for any interested public resident that wishes to give us some comment or guidance with regard to this criteria. What I'm doing is I'm also allowing those who certainly are adjacent to this property but in the public in general add to this criteria uh so that we can do this comprehensively. So I would like I would endeavor you to restrict any comments as to the criteria that we've discussed that's already on this uh packet uh if you can. Um, I would ask that you direct your comments to me, not to anyone else in the room who may either represent the petitioner or represent the town staff. Please aim at me with any of those comments. And lastly, I will impose a threeminut limit on that. And I'll give you a twominute warning and a 30- second warning. Um, I'm sorry, a one minute warning and a 30 second warning if those were fair rules for you to express your your sentiments. So, can I see a show of hands of those interested in coming to the mic to discuss annexation criteria? Great. So, I'm seeing roughly about five hands. And so, this gentleman here in the front row, if you can be uh the vanguard for those comments, you you can be the beginning.

I'll be Oh, I always like going first. And if you could just please give us your name and whether you are a resident or not a resident of the town. It's simple as that. No address.

Jim Pen. Uh we're 25 year Mount residents but not of the town. We used to live in Nottingham for years. Now we're across the street. We're actually number 14 on the chart. So we live right next door to um the proposed field. Um, when I look at the the traffic that we have on Watersville Road, it's I call it a two-lane farm road. There's no way that a bald team or a place that wants to do a field is going to turn over every hour and a half or two hours that you're going to turn over a hundred cars every couple hours on Watersville Road down to the intersection and try and turn. We can't even sometimes get out of there in the morning when the school buses are coming out than to take a field which we would rather have a nice neighborhood of houses there because that to me that's sure is going to fit in better with what our streets like.

Okay. Not to go and put a ball field right in the middle of this nice gentleman over here. His he's going to be surrounded by it. We're going to be on one side of it. Um and it just it just doesn't fit in. nice houses there are sure going to look better. So if you wanted to go and put 20 or 30 houses on that field, that's going to work better.

And maybe 20 or 30 cars going out sporadically in the morning and coming home at night. Just imagine trying a fire truck trying to go down Watersville Road to get to Nottingham and there's 30 cars sitting trying to make a lefthand turn going into the field. It's just not it's just not the right thing to do. It's not the right place. I just I don't I see I appreciate your comment because I think it's it's it don't belong there. So that's my comments. I'm all good. Thank you, sir. Uh gentleman here with hand up and then the gentleman behind him next.

Uh thank you. Hi, my name's Anthony. I'm on the Butler roadside. This is basically my backyard. Um so all good questions, good things you brought up. Uh couple things you'd mentioned water. I'm also worried about water quality. You know, proposed sports fields, a lot of chemicals perhaps to keep the grass looking good. We're all on wells around there. That's going to impact all of us. Uh you're changing the grading plant. If you've ever driven down Butler Road after a heavy rain, that whole road floods out. Anyone that lives down there, I believe a lot of their septics are probably failing. Uh probably the biggest thing I'm concerned is something you had mentioned is if this gets brought into the town and it's zoned R1 and for whatever reason the ball field plan goes away now they can go in there and throw a whole bunch of houses in there and that really has us concerned. I do like the your your idea. You know, we always knew when we bought the land 25 years ago that at some point we were lucky if we got 10 years out of that backyard and we've got over 20 now. So we consider ourselves lucky but uh yeah there you know those are kind of things we're concerned about. Thank you

sir. What was your first and last name? Uh Anthony last name Pisaro. And do you know which number you are on the plat? Just out of curiosity. Number three. Thank you. The gentleman behind the yellow shirt. If you don't Yes. Yes. Thank you. And again name and uh if you're on the adjacent property Matt that's helpful.

Thank you. Yes. My name is Steve Lickman. L I C HTM. I am beautiful. Number one on this list. So, I am right next to it as as uh this gentleman referred to. Um, a couple of other things to consider. Uh, you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, uh, you mentioned a topographic study and you said that you didn't really care. Keep in mind that this has a pretty significant valley as you go down West Watersville Road and that continues obviously onto the property. At some point to make baseball fields, they're going to have to make that flat. Every baseball field I've ever seen has been flat. Um that's going to change the topography of that area pretty considerably. And where does that storm water which currently sort of goes through there go? And considering the fact that the road also follows that valley, what's going to happen to the road? Is the road going to be raised up? Is the who knows? I don't know what's going to happen. The road obviously has to match what the property is. And there's even more of a valley on the south side of West Watersville Road. So that's one thing to consider. I appreciate uh uh the commissioner who mentioned about the the harmony and the impact. Certainly those are things that I'm concerned about. One other thing that needs to be studied is baseballs where I'm going to be where I'm living. These baseballs are going to be flying towards my house. I'm going to testify a little more of that as we go along, but that's going to be a big concern to me is where do these baseballs go when somebody hits a home run and it's going to end up in my yard. And the other side of the coin is the

petitioner may say, "Well, we'll build big nets. that's fine, but we have some very large predatory birds that live out that way and we don't want them getting getting caught in the nets, including my friend the bald eagle. And I do have a bald eagle that comes around from time to time. So, these are some other things that need to consider and probably should be included in your all's studies that you request from the petitioner. It's all I have to say tonight. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Well said. Any other interest? Yes, ma'am. Name and if you are or on the map.

My name is Alisa Shackles and I'm number 13. I agree with the impact it's going to have. One thing that's not mentioned is some of us who do have land. We also have farm animals. So the impact on the farm animals, we currently have them, we have had them, we have fourers or we did. So I think this is very much going to impact all of us. And I agree with the balls. Where are they going to land? We have a barn that has chickens, pigs, and all it's going to impact. We properties around us that have the horses and other farm animals. So, yes, I agree with the harmony of how it's going to be an impact. I go to Montgomery County every day for work. Traffic is already awful. I don't have to be at work till 9:00. I'm leaving at 6:30 so I can get to work. So, I will agree it's going to impact Thank you very much. Any other interest? Gentleman in the yellow shirt.

Name and if you are on the map, please.

I'm Anthony King. I'm not on the map, but I'm actually right below it. I'm in Nottingham and I've been a resident here for over 25 years and quite frankly, I hope for another 25. But I'm listening to all y'all speak about something that, you know, we're using the word impact and and all the effects of cost analysis and so forth. At the end of the day, I believe y'all are here to represent the residents of of Mount Airy. And literally, it's hard to believe that we're literally putting a commercial application into residential and don't think that the square peg doesn't fit the round hole. You know, not only have you discussed everything you said, and I absolutely believe the impacts, the light, the traffic. I mean, just go to Twin Brook Shopping Center and watch what happens when a game lets out there, the fair lets out, you're in gridlock for over an hour. the light pollution. It's not just the 22 houses that you mailed out to. It's the houses down below that because it creates a halo. The noise the noise will travel not to just the the Nodingham neighborhood, but even beyond. Again, if anyone's lived next to a high school, you're well aware that noise doesn't stop in 22 houses. So, that's incredible to me. Another thing to be quite honest with you is is nobody's discussed even though there's a financial benefit to Mount Ary, the town of Mount Ary, it's a negative to the residents of of the town of Mount area because our housing values will decrease by having a commercial property next to our residences. And I've spoken to three realtors already and all three confirmed that what that amount will be, I don't know, but nobody's discussed about the negative effects of the homeowners and their property values, especially the ones right next to the ball field. So, we're discussing ball fields. We don't seem to have specticulars of there's a big difference between a ball field and nine ball fields, you know. So, nobody, at least I haven't heard what what is the real impact. And I'm hoping if you get the information y'all have discussed today impacts, then at least we'd have a better idea whether or not we really are trying to put something that absolutely doesn't belong in this neighborhood or whether or not we're just trying to gain

some revenue at the expense of a lot of people's, you know, quality of life. So, I really hope this works out in our benefit because I really would like to live here another 25 years. But this is the first time that I'm actually not proud to live in Mount Ary because I feel like we're putting a square peg in a round hole at the expense of our residents. So, thank you for listening. Thank you. Any other interest in the public comment related to the annexation criteria? sir. Name and if you're on the map, it'd be good to let us know what lot.

Thank you, John Garza. I'm on the map number eight. Um, and it looks like the proposed ballparks. The Baltimore Sun did an interview with um the company that's uh proposing development and they listed it as a mega sports complex where they want to put at least six fields in lacrosse fields, a park. That's just what's in the paper. I don't know.

Yes. I don't know what they intend, but I don't know how you can really do a cost analysis study or an effective cost analysis study on something like this without knowing and understanding what they're proposing to do. They're requesting town annexation, the contract specifically states that if town annexation is granted and they're not allowed to build what they want to build, the contract's null. So, I appreciate what you guys are doing and the questions you're asking, but we need to ask serious questions because it's going to cause serious issues. I've been a part of the locust descending on a small town like this with travel soccer and 3 to 10,000 people descending on Mount Ary in a weekend is not going to be a happy place for anyone except you know the proprietors really when you want to go to dinner on Thursday night, Friday night, Saturday night and you can't get in because you're 10,000 people deep in it. Jimmy Cone but that's a small consideration and I appreciate the noise consideration. This is in my backyard and I spoke to gentleman today and said, "Hey, what are the uh rules on lighting in the town of Mount Ary and I was told there are no rules or regulations on lighting." So, you know, I I think we're we're in the very beginnings of this and we need to take some serious consideration, serious thought process like you guys are proposing. And I want to say thank you for it, but I have serious serious concerns about what's being proposed. And R4000 according to Carol R4,000 according to Carol County, it's low density. That property parked for nine nine home sites. That's why they're requesting the exception and the town annexation because they can only build nine houses on it unless they get water and sewage from the town. Thank you. I really appreciate what you guys are doing.

Thank you, sir. Any other interest in the public comment on the annexation focused on criteria? Sir, come on forward. I think your name is Dwayne.

Yes, sir. How are you, Chairman Gent? Uh Dwayne Cordry, town resident. Um I'm a resident of the Nottingham community, which is not numbered there, but it is a big subdivision across from the uh proposed annex property. We talked about the traffic study. We keep talking about the traffic coming out of the facility on Watersville Road and going towards the middle school and the traffic light. The ultimate plan is for our neighbors to go the other way. And I don't know how far you do that traffic study, but that's a single lane road going the other way. There's a lots of curves and hills and things and then getting around the other way. That traffic study needs to include the other way because as somebody else mentioned previously, people turning left coming off as 27 into that facility is going to back up. I've been around baseball for 50 years. I've been a player, a coach, and now I umpire. And I umpire at facilities such as Patriot Parks North in Fairfax. It's a large facility. I've been up to Coopertown, Dreams Park, where there's over 20ome fields, and there's more than one lane going in and out of that facility. There's usually two. Um, even Bland Air Park in Columbia, uh, it's easy access off a double highway. Um, and the other thing is we talked about water, water quality. We don't know if these baseball fields are going to be uh turf or or natural grass and dirt, but I can tell you the noise won't stop or won't start at the time of the ball game. It won't start after the end the ball game. There's also a lot of maintenance that's got to occur um before and after a game. So, there's still going to be machinery operating u trash removal late. Perhaps we'll have dumpsters. I don't last thing I hate when I say the hotel is here and somebody open and slam a dumpster.

So those are other things we talked about impact. There's environmental impacts, the sound, the light, the traffic, the water. So I'm just want to make sure that these things are considered uh as part of the uh discussion on the sanexation. Thank you. Thank you. Any other interest in uh public comment? Uh the young lady in the second row. Oh, thank you. life. You are a young man, sir. Hi, my name is Courtney Moore. I do live closer to the microphone, please. Thank you.

I do live on Butler Road. I live directly behind the Garzas and so they would provide a small amount of buffer for us and our horses from this. The one thing that hasn't been brought up in quality of life at this point is the issue of safety with this property, the security of this property. Uh, is it going to be fenced? Is it going to be gated? Um, I love our teens. I taught them for many years. They're always looking for places to have fun when no one else is looking. And if they're on that property, it would be very easy for them to then end up in our backyards. I have horses. I really don't want to have to use my umbrella policy because some teenager thought it would be fun at night to go into my field and mess with my animals. That's a totally different thing. But we all are concerned about many things, but the one thing that hasn't been brought up yet is the safety and the security. I've lived in this community since 1982. I've lived in my house on Boer Road since 2001. I raised my son here. I would like to stay here forever and I would like my grands to be able to come back here when my son can afford to buy a home here. This makes me very sad, very sad. For a forprofit entity, we are not talking about creating ball fields for our children. We're talking about creating a profit for a business. We are a community, not a home for a business in people's backyards. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other interest in a public comment on the annexation criteria once more? Oh, gentleman in the second row. Name, please. And if you're on the map, that'd be helpful. Todd Moore, not on the map. Next to ours is I have the lovely young lady with me.

Um, mine's more of a question about process. Um, I believe I heard council earlier discuss that when you're initially looking at this annexation, you can't necessarily fully review intended uses because that comes later in the process. That's site plan, that's proposals, that's a whole set of other regulations. Right now what I'm hearing I believe is that this is about this parcel of land that the town looks at now and says is the town better for bringing this under our control that we can now say it can be are one with housing or sports or something. So I'm trying to make sure that I'm understanding the process flow of this because I the impression I got was that there are two phases of this. One is devoid of baseball and everything else which is bringing the parcel under town control and the town limits and then the other would be later on with site plans and impact studies and things like that. The other one that I thought I heard and I wanted to get a clarification on is this group can now sit here and debate and decide and have criteria and make recommendations to the council and the council if you even put recommendations for restrictions on use that then becomes part of the negotiation with the petitioner. Now what I'm understanding I think is that the council could say planning mission said no but we think it's still in the best interest and we vote yes. Similarly the council could say yes. I you said yes. We agree yes and there are these conditions but we don't want to look at any of these conditions to put on this petitioner. And I just wanted to make sure that I'm hearing things tonight properly so that as discussions are happening or this is in the record that people are understanding process flow and and things of that. So thank you.

Thank you. Is there any further interest in a public comment? I will um Yeah. um come on forward and while you're making your way up here um I will make a um an attempt at answering the questions on process and council level actions once we complete our job. I'll try to keep it succinct. U but I think there's a genuine interest in where do we go next kind of thing. So I will entertain that sir. Thank you for that sir. Your name and if you're on the map. Yeah Joe Par. Um my wife Ellaner is here too. We're number six on the map and I just wanted to go on the record to say these are all legitimate concerns for me as well. So I don't need to

everyone did a great job expressing my concerns. I just want to be on the record that got I have all these concerns as well. Thank you sir.

Any other interest in a public comment on the annex criteria. With that, I'll close the public comment on the uh with that I'll close the public comment uh that I've allowed on the annex criteria and I'll address the question that was raised a moment ago. And so the process is a difficult one for us because again um first and foremost we're all volunteers. We signed up to do this. We we just do this because we love our town. And secondly, because we are charged by the mayor and when the council appointed us to follow one simple book and that is the code book. The code book dictates how we will handle developments, site plans, issues such as annexation, etc., etc. And um and then in the case of this annexation under chapter 44, our task given to us by the council is to give them a recommendation. And so now let me get to that point. The recommendation given to the council and as council liaison will attest to is a recommendation. It can inform their decision making that they now have to make by the code with regard to this petition. um and they can handle that recommend recommendation in any way that they desire. It is it is simply a recommendation. Um and in their deliberation and decision on this petition, they can in they can they can call me forward. They can call any member of the commission for it during that council proceeding and dig a little deeper as to why did you say that or can you give me a little more meat on that bone as to why your recommendation has this condition perhaps or says this. And so I hopefully answer, you know, as volunteers we dig deep into what is put for force the petition. We dig deep with the

limits of the code. The code is written by the legislative body of this town, which is the council. Um, and upon approval then to the mayor. Um, and so the council legislates how we do business in this town and then they hand it to us and say, "Memorize this." No, I'm just kidding. Um, but abide by this whenever something like this comes before the town. And so um and the last point I'll make is u and it's an important point and hopefully everybody here captured this point in the discussions I had with council. It's a difficult task for these volunteers because we don't have a in writing specified detailed land use structures, fields, driveways, entrances on West Farersville Road, etc., etc., if you get my drift. Nor is that required in our code for a petition to be submitted for annexation. And so, um, if I can kind of use the metaphor, that's why there was a bit of a dance in those questions I had with council as to is it legitimate and reasonable that we ask for things beyond what's required in the petition because we want to be thorough, but we also want to make sure that we don't go out of bounds with our recommendation and how to defend it. If you follow me, certainly a process if annexation is approved by the council and the petitioner now with annexation wants to do something on that property has to then begin working with the town staff on a site plan. And that process now comes back into us for the review, for the assessment, for the dialogue with the developer, the engineer, the

architect, whatever is going on that. And that would include if they say, "And we're now thinking RX is better or it should be limited commercial or heaven forbid industrial." You you know what I'm saying? So, it's in that process that we would assuredly get the fidelity of what's really going to happen there, but it's not available to us now. And so, that's why I'm being very careful with advice from council as to what it is we want to ask in regard to 44-5 chapter that says we can ask for further information. Did I explain that well enough to everybody? So, I hope so. Again, all of that is under the umbrella that everybody up here wants to be thorough. We want to make sure that we measure this petition as best we can so that we can give value to the council's decision at some later time. So hopefully that addresses it. That wasn't too succinct though. Um, okay. I tried. Um,

one quick question. Uh, you would have to come to the mic, sir. I'll be glad to. Um, why would the town want to annex this parcel into the town for a baseball field? Why would they want to do it? What would it mean? What would it what would the town get from that?

Um, so I appreciate the comment, sir. Um, that that is a question that would be best presented at the required public hearing per our code when the council now has our recommendation in their agenda for a monthly meeting. The code requires that before they decide upon an annexation petition, they will schedule and advertise a public hearing that would then designate a date, designate a location, and then you would have every opportunity, sir, to ask that question. It's difficult for me, and I think you understand. You know, I I I can't get into the heads of the of the five council members with regard to your question. Uh but that would be in my mind, Ralph G's mind, an appropriate question to raise at the at the public hearing that the council then has to hold. Is that

does that come somewhere down the road? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. This year,

well, um again, um the 120day period for our task can extend right now to our end of November planning commission meeting. uh doing the math in my head right now with the calendar. Um, and if we were to accomplish that, and I'm just giving an example here, if we were to accomplish reaching a consensus on the recommendation at that November meeting, then it would be possibly, and again, it's up to the president of the council and the council members and the town clerk as to when to put now that topic, this annexation resolution, and our recommendation on their forthcoming agendas for the following months. That would be of course then December, January 26, etc. Um, I'm trying my best to answer your question as to what would the timeline, what's the way ahead. Uh, it could be that we accomplish our recommendation prior to the November planning commission meeting. It could be that we we plow through this criteria in September, maybe October. We're at a consensus on what we feel is an appropriate recommendation. and then we would hand it to the the council at that time. And again, it's up to the president of the council and the town clerk as to when to put that topic on the agenda. I would tell you that, and I'm a bit at risk here, and I ask council member Kelly to correct me if I'm wrong, the first time they would entertain our recommendation, it would likely conclude with no decision on the annexation, but a setting of the public hearing date. Would that be fair? Okay. So again, and they try to give ample notice to the public as to when that date and location is, you know, so that appropriate planning can occur for that event. Um, but again, I'm trying to kind of what if to your question as far as

timeline and certain things that must occur according to our code. Does that good? Does that address it? Okay. Well, I like I like my question answer, but I can Oh, well, and as you understand. Yeah, that that's a good council question to to raise clarification. Um, sure. Um, and if I may end it with this because we have other business tonight, if that's fair. Um, Anthony, yes. Will your recommendation include what? Please come to the microphone, please, sir. This is all being recorded and televised. Yeah.

Will will this council's recommendation include zoning? In other words, what what zoning you recommend it should either stay at or become. Um, so I'll quickly answer that. Also, the petition states that they propose R1, which by the way, when our code speaks to any annexation, all parcels coming into annexation consideration must be brought in initially at R1. Every piece of property that wants to extend our boundary and be added to this town must enter the town initially at R1. Correct. Correct. Go ahead.

Yeah. To clarify that the R1 is the default setting. Okay. Okay. So, if there's no request in the petition, that is not to say that the petition cannot We've had petitions request for a particular parcel industrial might but an industrial. Is your mic on Tom? Yeah, it's on. Okay. Um and um so the petition may well ask for some other zone and you could have a an annexation that brings it in under the a different zone. It's not that we bring it in R1 and then it changes. It's just that R1 is your default setting. The default. Okay. Okay.

So you have the ability to recommend a zoning classification based on all your studies and reviews. Um, I would I would answer by saying this, Anthony, and that is the petition proposes R1. Um, and we have a verbal statement as to the proposed use. And if the commissioners in our assessment beginning next month want to entertain that proposed zoning, the petition is being inappropriate, then I'm open to it. Well, I mean, I don't even know the first zoning, I guess, that I heard in this conversation that it was low density residential and then I'm hearing R1. I truly don't know from what I've heard tonight. Is one more receptive to a multipplex ball field or is one less receptive to it? And obviously, I would be wanting the one less receptive to it. But you know the question is if you're making a recommendation based on your your findings part of that could be the actual classification you feel that is proper for this property.

Um so thank you for that and and again thanks for allowing me to ask

you you bet. And and so again, let me just reiterate. We went over the R1 districtricting code and an allowable use is a recreational park, privately owned recreational facility, I believe is the correct wording. Um and so under this peti petition with what they've proposed in the petition which is R1 the purported proposed land use of a sports complex recreational privatelyowned facility as per our previous discussion does fall into an allowable use. Um

it changed from its current zoning. So, so, so the current, so the current zoning with the county you're referring to, so, so we we have what the current R40,000 allows. And if I'm not mistaken, John, it's allowed under that. That's correct. It's also, I think what he's trying to ask is the R40,000 to R1 is basically the same zoning. The base zoning is still the same. It's basically one house per acre.

Okay. Um, so thank you for all the public input and um, I would like I'm closing the public input on the annexation topic on the agenda and I'm now going to craft a motion that is going to in fact ask for a vote from the commissioners here. This particular motion I just crafted is going to uh be with regard to the further information request that is allowable under par uh chapter 44-5 in the town code under further information. So bear with me. I make a motion that the commissioner's request from the petitioner through the director of planning the following additional information in our assessment and development of a recommendation. I'm going to do this slow for Miss Clinton or she'll review.

It's being recorded, but you're okay.

Okay. All right. So, let me proceed. Number one question is the petitioner to answer the question, why not do this under the current county zoning? Number two, what's the petitioner's opinion on the harmony and impact upon neighbors to include the impact upon any farm animals or domestic pets. Third, the petitioner to provide a costbenefit analysis that encompasses these areas. The impact on water and water quality, sewer, fire and EMS open space security/safety. So that is one, two, three, four, five, six. Um sorry and traffic. One, two, three, four, five, six. So let me do those again. water and water quality, sewer, fire and EMS, open space, security/safety and traffic and

and then noise I guess was the other one. Um, light and noise. Okay. I I kind of put that under the harmony and impact. Okay. Um, so if we can include uh light and noise pollution 24 hours impact in the harmony um in the harmony element. Would that be fair, John? Yep. That's

okay. All right. So on the costbenefit analysis one more time, water and water quality, sewer, fire, EMS, open space, security, safety, and traffic. And on traffic, because of public input from a resident, I want traffic to make sure it includes the West Watersville intersection with Route 27. I'm setting an area here. Okay. include the intersection with Route 27 on West Watersville Road to the west, Watersville Road to the east, and Butler Road to the I guess you'd say

north. Northwest. Northwest. Is that fair? Let's just say and Butler Road. Um there's another road that's further east, if I'm not mistaken, RNL Road. Um, so of course if we're extending the study out to Watersville Road, which is the road that takes you down, Everybody knows we're not West Watersville, Watersville Road, across the train tracks. Um, yes. Yes, that it takes you down to entrances into the neighborhood known as the Paddocks. I'm talking about that. There you go.

So, if we extended out to that road, then that would encompass Wrlles. if I'm not mistaken. Right. But we can we can certainly list RLES RL road. Do I need to raise that area again? You got it. Okay, you got it. Um that's a very long motion. Um that's probably the longest I've ever given. So, um do I have a second to this motion? I'll second. Seconded by Commissioner Hatley. Uh the motion and all its elements are open for discussion or amendment and edit by any commissioner hearing. None. All those in favor of the motion stated, please say I. I.

I. Those opposed to this request for further information. None opposed. The request for further information that I just itemized is unanimous. Um and it will go to you John for your communications with the petitioner. Yep.

Fair enough. Okay. And in that again we touched upon it. If you need to discuss with the petitioner or myself as to what is a reasonable suspense, I'm open to that. Otherwise, if you and perhaps the town administrator and council uh can reach that uh so that we can we can do our job by the end of November at the latest. Okay, I'm closing this agenda item and we are now going to move to an update on a various items. Um planning department update item number six. We're going to begin with the Southside Plaza update. And for the residents that came tonight, I again thank you. Yes. Thank you for coming out.

Before we get into that, um, maybe we should introduce our special guest. Oh, our town town administrator. I don't know if he's still here or not. Maybe we should introduce him so he can get on his way possibly. Oh, absolutely. Thought he was going to do at the beginning of the meeting.

I I you know, I I wrote his name down. Um, so before we open this agenda item, um, I do want to welcome, um, our new town administrator, uh, Mr. Jared Schumacher. And, um, Shoemaker Shoe Shoeacher, I thought I had it correct. And, um, if I'm not mistaken, Mr. Shoeacher, this is your first commission meeting. Have it is okay. So, we set the standard for all volunteer commission. I'm just kidding.

Okay. but but a sincere welcome to join the town in the role uh that's very important for the town and the town staff of course. So again, sincere thanks from all of us for for joining us tonight. Um this item here is um is offered to not only the commissioners but the public for transparency as to the decision making we made with regard to the Southside medical buildings that are going to go in at what is commonly referred to as Southside Plaza. Just so I can get everybody oriented on where we're talking about. Um, if you go down South Main Street as if you're trying to get on to 70, you know, it makes the dog leg left turn curve as you're heading south. Uh, if you come back a bit from that curve, you've got a new, um, I believe it's the eye center on the left.

That's correct.

And then you have to the right a longstanding commercial complex that includes uh, just off the top of my head, Papa John's, those sorts of things. So, if you're on the west side, the Papa John's side, and you go now a little further south, there's a plat there that is very long and narrow. It goes from South Main Street, uh, all the way back and borders upon the residents of Rising Ridge Road in that area. And so uh this update kind of gives you uh uh a sense of the challenges we encountered with the exterior elevations, the design of that set of buildings. there are two that are going to go on that parcel and um and so it's a bit of a unique update and I'm motivated to share this with the commissioners because we did something unusual on May 19th when we last reviewed the final site plan and that bit of unusual activity will be captured here. So when we got the final site plan um we all agreed that it was a very good necessary medical enterprise because of the aging demographics within the town and this particular enterprise is going to be Alzheimer's care and dementia care and we have interviewed and had discussions with the doctor that is leading this effort along with his engineer and along with his architect and there were aspects of the final plan that conveyed to this commission and if I am mistaken in this please correct me. Uh it was one of those cases where I kind of feel like the best way Ralph Kent to describe it is they weren't listening. Is that fair? And and the aspects of they weren't listening is when we push back on some of the initial

plans and the exterior colors and materials on those buildings. Um, I know on my right there was a lot of discussion about the the appearance of that building would be too ultramodern and it wouldn't have harmony with the town of Mount Ary. And so we were in that kind of conflict between we see a real need for this. It's a good enterprise, additional medical services, but at the same time we weren't going to let a white elephant be built. And so what we decided to do at that point was we did a conditional approval on that final plan hinging on the fact that they would go back with the architect, revise the exterior elevations and materials that would be more in compliance with our desires and rather than push them because we only meet once a month and we have to do this in the public. So, what we agreed to do was hold a committee of three commissioners along with the director of planning to work with them one-on-one and their architect to refine the building elevations to something that we liked. So, that was all voted on in favor from this commission. On May 22nd, I went out and took pictures of the adjacent buildings so that it would give us a bit of a template on what we're trying to get at. And then they submitted in June revised elevations and those elevations were shared with us on June 10th. And on June 14th, we held a zoom of that committee which is myself, Commissioner Ali and Commissioner Wallace. And we reviewed their attempt now to come in line with what we've been saying we need to see on that building. So, it went from a stark white building to something that had texture to it, that had masonry on it, that had softer colors, if I can use

that term. Um, and so this was the first of many elevations they gave us back. Um, there's a lot of terms that are depicted in this elevation when we work with architects like EFS panels, surrounds, those sorts of things. I won't get into that. Let's just suffice to say they were getting really close to what we've been saying we want, but they weren't quite there. And so, next slide. That's as far as this one goes. But what I will up is I'll bring up um uh here we are.

You're going to bring up that other There you go. There you go. So, for the public and to the commissioners, um there's a front elevation and this is building A only here. And building A of the two buildings is the building that's going to be closest to South Main Street. Building B is a little deeper in the property going back toward the Rising Ridge community. Both buildings are going to be equal in their redesigns and exterior features. So, we're just going to look at one of the two buildings to to save space here. So, we made some changes after they gave us those revisions and we held a second zoom with the architect to make sure he understood. Point number one, we didn't want the white EIFS panels. We wanted EIFS panels. Point out the EiffS panels on the building. Those are those spaces around the windows predominantly on the second floor. We wanted those panels not to be off-white, but we wanted them in a shade of gray that would match the gray masonry stone veneer that he is now putting on the first floor. So, stonemasonry veneer is adding the texture that we added we asked for. Um, and Commissioner Omali has been in the lead with regard to this variation of texture rather than this monolithic white plain surface building. So, I commend him on that. And so, he's bringing in now um what's called Storm Cloud Vantage number 30 gray masonry uh veneer. And so, it's going to go on the first floor. We did question, if you take a look at the east elevation, why the veneer didn't extend into the part that's budding out on the north side where the laser pointer is now. That was explained to us by the architect as not being viable in architectural terms because it would end at a bad point and

not adhere to the building if it wrapped and then extended around that side. So, we had that discussion. We accepted that that elevation would exclude the veneer on the small part going out. The other element that we caught in this revision is on the back. This is the north side. This is the side that's facing toward Papa John's and that existing plaza. Um it was the director of planning who pointed out that the second floor windows had a nice gray metal surround, but the first floor windows did not. And for consistency, we said that you got to make them the same. It just doesn't look right. And so the architect has agreed. So bottom line is the EFS panels are going to be light gray, a better shade matching the gray storm cloud vantage 30 masonry veneer on the first deck. The surrounds on the north elevation are now going to mirror the surrounds on the second story. and John, Steve or Heather, is there anything else? Is that pretty much it? Okay. Um, and again, this was just informative to the town. This is probably the biggest commercial development in the town for a while, and I felt like we needed to kind of give the public a sense of how we wanted to make sure that the developer was going to give us what this town deserves. So, that's the conclusion. What's our next steps? With all this discussion and agreement, the next steps are the architect has agreed to provide the director of planning the revised paper plans and myars for the town staff review to make sure they are compliant with what I just went over. And then once you are agreeable that they do comply with it, then I'll come down and

co-sign them with you. That sounds good. Okay. And then we're on to all the other things that will occur with the development that's in the director of planning's purview, permitting, grading, etc., etc. So, it's a good story. Um, we got what we wanted. So, and again, you guys for volunteering. That's awesome. Yep. Thank you. Um, and then we have uh update on Carol County text amendments. These were the items I mentioned at the beginning uh that we asked for from Carol County. And John, I'm going to just ask you to quickly go over some of these. They're in the packet. I believe we have up here, right?

And again, as we spoke earlier, I think these are just for like introduction to you guys if you have any questions related to it. Ultimately, uh the one is based on some state requirements for battery backup systems for solar uh to be added to the code for Carol County, which is probably something we're going to need to think about adding into our code. But normally we let uh Carol County be the leader of that and we'll take what they come up with and integrate that into our code. But it's a state law that's coming down that uh those battery backup systems have to be allowed in all zones. Uh again the um APFO requirements they seem to be uh backing off pretty hard on their APFO requirements related to schools, fire, EMS. um they were saying uh from what I got from the meeting is that uh it's it'sems that they can't enforce. But anyway, this is what Carol County is doing. That doesn't mean we have to um follow suit in that respects. It's not statemandated. So again, I think that's just forformational purposes for you guys. Uh the other item was the employment campus and I did not receive any information. I I went back looking for it. I was unable to find anything related to to EC zoning. Uh I think it might actually be with their state the county attorney's office. So I will reach out to them to see if I can have an update for that for you guys next month.

Um great. And then we would move on to the green tree. Yeah. So So just to reiterate, John's given us a lot of good information per our request in July. So, I would just encourage, you know, look it over at your leisure and certainly um raise any questions you have at the next meeting in September or just give you a call if if you need if they need clarification on anything. Is that accurate? Yeah. Or ultimately, it's Carol County's what they're proposing. So, I don't really have much influence on that. I mean, that would be something that would have to be through the county commissioner,

but you could carry their question up to them for Yes. for for that. Gotcha. Okay. Um, if I may, then let's talk about Green Tree. And, uh, Green Tree was decided on their preliminary site plan. Uh, was given conditional approval. A key condition of three that we imposed on the Green Tree development located at the corner of Candace and North Main Street was that the developer or the applicant reinsert eight parking spaces that we wanted to have in that development for the public primarily so there would be parking for them to enjoy the open space, the rails to trail. Uh I'm not rails to trails but the the trail the trail going down under the power line etc etc. So John have at it.

Yes. So again u the previous plan that was submitted for your review and approval uh had 37 parking spaces. Again there was uh a parking space area that they had with inside the B Genie quarter which they had to remove as part of that approval. Um and actually you can see the realignment here as well. Uh this is where the trail was and the connection to uh Scotch Heather which is a pedestrian walking path again. Uh so we'll go to the next slide which is the one they submitted with the 45 um spaces. And you'll notice that there's extra cars along uh this part of the road. There's some additional cars along this part of the road. And again, you'll see the new realignment of the BG corridor. Uh BG did get back to us about the uh modification. We had initially requested a 8-foot pedestrian path here. They're coming back and saying that they'll allow a six-foot. And again, this is just a gravel a gravel pathway here. And then once we get outside the corridor uh which is then open space that's being deed to the town, this will become eight foot wide paved uh pedestrian right away with a a bridge over the wetlands. Uh this is all items that'll be installed at the uh developers cost. And again, have not received complete verbal uh agreement with B Genie right now, but uh because we did modify it to a six-foot pedestrian pathway here and gravel, I I suspect that they're going to approve that uh any any day now. So, um that's what they requested and and the engineer has modified it. But yeah, this is this is showing those eight spaces that were missing. None of these spaces are going to be

none of these spaces will actually be marked individually which we which we don't normally do in residential call residential zones. We don't mark off parking like you'd see on Main Street. So yeah. So so I think what the impression is they've added that to like guest parking. Is that That's correct. Overflow parking. Guest parking. Okay. And if you're if you're walking on a trail, if you have to walk another thousand feet, I don't I mean, I still feel like they're providing that. Okay. Um request, okay, a recommendation.

And there's actually additional parking spaces they don't show here. Uh like in between here where there's actually an inlet for the storm water management. There's parking here between these two driveways. Parking here, parking here, parking there, parking over here. So there's there's actually additional spaces that they didn't bring out uh through their submission. Okay. And and my last question before I turn to the commissioners for any interest on this update and that is there there was or was not any discussion with regard to the eight additional spaces being gathered out of the commercial part of the mixeduse parcel. It was all held within the subdivision residential portion.

Right? because they ultimately the developer of this is not going to be the owner of this and it really isn't um part of that. Uh and you know when this site plan comes in for review and approval uh then that will you know potentially take into consideration creating a um possible overflow area even possibly uh we were talking about maybe even doing some type of public area that you could come and maybe we might put a gazebo there or something. I'm not sure. But but again, these are all unknowns right at this time. And and to clarify, when the commercial portion comes in, is that what you were saying? Or the non-residential rate

or the I should say non-residential portion. Gotcha. Okay, I'm tracking with you. Any questions with Commissioner Ali? Yeah, John, I have a question. How do they add eight spaces when the map is the exact same? They're just showing eight additional cars within that area, but they didn't add any if it was the exact same. They're indicating additional eight vehicles with inside the community, but those vehicles would have fit in the last map, too. Then yes. Yes. So, there's no addition, correct? That's just adding more pictures of cars.

They're indicating that there's additional parking that's within the facility. I don't think they met the requirement from what we asked. No, I and that's what I was going to say too is that based on the pattern book that we approved was actual parking spaces, not a off road or on the side of the road parking. That's not what we asked. We asked based on the pattern book, you need to return the eight parking spaces back. Can you clarify? You were talking about the additional parking in between. on the map. It's in there. How many cars could fit in there? Do you think

one single car? That's what you're asking? I mean, there's one here, one there, one there, one there, one here. It's just one space in those inbetweens. Yes. Okay. So, there's driveways for each of these different town houses that are currently there, but it's just going to be one space. One space. All right. I just want to clarify. Commissioner Walls.

So I thought in the staff report last time there was some discussion with the fire department about having to add some no stopping or standing signs to some of the parts of the neighborhood. And so and they were also I believe they were concerned about turning in that culde-sac and that's why some of those cars had been removed from the other drawing. But I mean you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong. Um and so a couple things. one, you've got multiple cars parked around that tiny little community mailbox circle where people will probably want to pull up and get their mail and then drive back to their house. So, I don't think that's like a permanent parking area uh reasonably. And then you have all those cars parked. Is that in front of or behind someone else's residence?

Behind. Right. and and in the main entrance and exit, which is the only entrance and exit to the neighborhood and nowhere near those town houses. So, for people who have elderly guests or whatever, right, that's not that's I don't think that's a reasonable guest parking area for consideration. And right there around the front, same thing. If I'm on that end house, do I want all those cars parked? I mean, it just doesn't make sense to me. I also Sorry. Go ahead.

Um, I also had addressed the safety issue if any of those town houses caught on fire. You would have to pull up a ladder truck on that road to put out any of those house fires if there is any. And that is extending over vehicles and potentially damaging people's vehicles to run hoses to go over top etc. That is a Sorry, that's right. I think it would be helpful to understand where the fire department specifically thought there needed to be no stopping or standing signs because that could completely eliminate some of this proposed extra parking.

Okay. I mean, I can submit this plan back to them for additional review if that's what you want to make sure that it's to what they're Yeah, John, that's great input. you're you're reading my mind because what I would like to do um unless council advises inappropriate Robert rules of order is um because I know where we are right now is reviewing so so we had given plan approval under conditions they restore the eight parking spaces right no it was eight it was it was eight originally in our pattern book um that I recall was that the one that we was that the one that we approved already. Correct. Correct. Right.

We approved it and we asked them to give us eight parking spaces. So, so, so yes. But then, but then BG came in and we had they changed the design and tried to get it through again. Is that correct? Yeah. Let me let me Is that Do we have the original one that we had agreed to? It was.

So, let me recap. So through the whole process and us reviewing the plans, there was eight public parking spaces that were put in the plans that encroached upon the utility easement owned by BEG. the architect, I should say the engineer that proposed that plan had not received utility easement encroachment approval for those eight public parking spaces that this commission really wanted to have so the public could have a place to park to walk down the trails and enjoy the open space. So at the last meeting where we looked at the final plan, it was revealed that they did not have written approval for that and they were forced now to come out of that easement because BG&E wouldn't allow the encroachment. And secondly, they had to redesign the corridor under the power lines through their easement for the walking trail. Is that correct?

That's correct. So, they had been submitting us plans that did not have easement approval to be concise. And we had placed all of those amenities, I'll call them amenities, public parking spaces and trail design uh into a bit of trust that they were approved because you normally wouldn't encroach on an easement without someone's approval. So when it was brought to light that they did not have that approval, we forced upon them along the director of planning forced upon them to redesign the whole plat because they had to come out of what they had put in the easement and redesign it. And so in doing so, they eliminated those eight parking spaces on their own unilaterally. Brian, that catches you up. And so when we saw that they had unilaterally removed the eight parking spaces, we then reimposed it under the logic that we had approved those in the pattern book early pattern book early on in the whole process and they needed to be restored. And so we gave conditional approval giving the director of planning the authority now to look at the revised plan where they were going to comply with that condition. And this is what they submitted to you, John. Right.

That's correct.

And so I think if I capture the sentiment of the commissioners up here, um, succinctly, we're in disagreement with how they resolve those eight parking spaces. I don't believe any of us have an issue with the redesign of the trail under the rightway, under the power lines. I don't think there is any trail issue here. It's the parking spaces. Um I I don't want to go through a motion and I don't want to go through a roll call, but am I accurate in stating we don't agree with the resolution of the eight parking spaces? Is there anyone in disagreement with that statement? So, if I can just make that statement for the record and ask for John to revisit that with the engineer and the developer and the applicant and then I'll leave it to you as to whether you would be able to put back on the September agenda a revisit of this update and solution for the eight parking spaces.

Is that fair? Yeah, that's fine. And I can if the engineer is unable to get that to me in a timely manner, then it'll be on October. It'll be October. But in that respects too, I will then also uh reach out to the fire department and give them this plan here and see if they have any other issues with turning radiuses. Yeah. To the good point made earlier about uh apparatus being able to turn in some of those streets. That's that's great. Yeah. Is that fair, Commissioner? Is that is that where we are? Okay. So, let's look to uh another meeting on this discussion and uh seeing if in fact we can't get something uh dedicated. Sean, I'm sorry. I was trying to get your attention, but You got it. Okay. Go ahead.

Uh just just so just for my notes and just for my understanding, just um uh where we're at is the latest update um is not meeting your expectations and you're giving them one more chance because there's there's still the there was still the decision I guess it's not a motion, right? It was a decision to approve contingent on the update. Correct. So the the motion that was agreed to and is in the minutes is that we gave conditional approval to their final plan, right,

if they could restore the eight parking spaces and we left it to the director of planning to receive that next revision because by the code, the last bite of the apple by this commission was that meeting and we didn't want to disapprove the plan and all stop on it, but we conditioned it to say you can move forward if you restore those eight parking spaces. So, what they've done is they've restored them in a manner that, if I captured it correctly, isn't in accordance with what the commissioners desired.

Now, the state that we're in though is not quite final approval. Correct. I I believe so. But um again, I don't want to overstep where we are because I don't know what formal and official documentation has occurred now on this revision between the town and the applicant. I I don't know that. I'm I'm not asking for that. But I'm getting a sense from John that there is still room to negotiate a better placement of those eight public parking spaces. And and I think I get a feeling that John can entertain that with the engineer.

Yeah. I mean, I can I can bring it to their attention. Again, if it's a conditional approval, I would look to our town attorney possibly, you know, to to say, you know, is this 45 space parking layout that they presented meeting the intent of what I guess ultimately, you know, what planning commission is asking? I would think that again, I'm not the one to make that decision. ultimately and I'm not trying to put you on the spot either. So, you know, so so let's let's investigate that. I think the point I want to make is that uh the commission doesn't believe that's the appropriate solution, okay, to the condition we imposed on them

and I'll convey that to the the owner. Gotcha. Okay. Um that closes the planning department updates on those three items. I'm going to move to reports and other business starting with uh Councilman Sean Kelly's uh council report, please. Just have to find it now.

Okay. Thank you. Uh the council met on August 8th uh from the mayor and council leazison reports. Uh, Mayor Hushower um reported uh that following following the tragic death of Mason Karns on July 31st, the staff has been directed to look at every drainage pipe in town for similar hazards that need to be remediated. Councilman Mund reported that construction of the traffic circle on South Main will begin by the end of this month uh uh with an estimated completion date of March or April 2026. He also confirmed that uh an 8 in by 8 in curb will be part of the construction from the circle down toward Route 27. Uh there's also a a reminder that the uh EDC will be hosting a business roundt on September 9th. New business included the creation of the inclement weather task force which is recruiting new members. Uh also ordinance 2025-16 to reszone for properties on South Main just north of Carter Q was up for adoption. It was amended to only include 1302 South Main for reasonzoning to neighborhood professional and it passed 3 to2. Uh lastly, all uh all council members were reminded of the expectations of their conduct before, during and after commission meetings. Uh the council will meet next on September 8th. And this concludes uh my report.

Thank you very much uh council member Kelly. Any questions to the council member relative to his report? Hearing none, then um John um I think you provided us a zoning administrator report for July and uh are there any significant highlights of that you want to emphasize? No sir.

No. If if not then um I ask the commissioners to look over the zoning administrator report and bring up any questions you have uh at the next meeting. And the next meeting is going to be on September 29th at 7:30 p.m. at the town hall location here. Um, I will ask for any commissioner uh last comments or comments. Commissioner Wallace, Commissioner Bick, I just want to thank uh Steve Ali and uh Heather and yourself for the commission for um with the redesign. I think that was awesome. So, I appreciate you guys taking your time out. Great. Commissioner Hadley,

no. Commissioner Bea, no. Commissioner Ali, no. With that, then this meeting is adjourned. It is 9:31. Thank you very much.