Remarks by Gary Blake Ross
95 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 1 of 4
- Play at 18:49
“I'm sorry. I'll just, by way of discussion, I dislike this. And one other item is, is this supposed to replace the rules that are in our parliamentary guide? or supplement them. I suppose it would replace them and it would kind of make a hash out of them. And I've learned just very recently that We are unable to, if we're following our parliamentary guide, we're unable to suspend bylaws. We can have, there's another category of regulation or rule that we can put in place that is suspendable but bylaws are not supposed to be suspendable.”
Planning Commission · Sep 16, 2026
- Play at 19:46
“Understood, but if we want these rules to be a bylaw, or fall into that other category is a decision we would need to think about. This to me just seems wholly inappropriate for the workload we have and the complexity of the topics we discuss and the amount of time that we spend together. discussing applications before they show up here in the boardroom. And that amount of time is right now zero. I yield.”
Planning Commission · Sep 16, 2026
- Play at 25:04
“Well, is a response to a question part of the five minute or 10 minute budget? I've asked questions before and gotten long winded pseudo-answers that are not actually answers. And I would hate to watch my clock counting down while someone tries to deflect from the topic I'm trying to learn about.”
Planning Commission · Sep 16, 2026
- Play at 26:07
“Well, I'll comment that I honestly don't care how the board does it. I want to do this job correctly and thoroughly. I'm not in a hurry to dash out the door. I'm in a hurry to reach a good conclusion. And so, at least for me, how the board does it falls flat. I could care less. Now I'll also add this. I believe that items A, B, D, and F are either wholly or partially unnecessary because they're already within the purview of the chair according to our current parliamentary authority. So I wouldn't see any reason to re-specify those. Just at first glance here, I'd take those out.”
Planning Commission · Sep 16, 2026
- Play at 35:20
“Chair, I recommend that we close the public hearings for the items A, B, D, and E. The public hearing is now closed. And, okay. Before I make this motion I'll say that I did discuss crosswalks and pedestrian traffic with the applicant's representative and I was just looking at a site plan drawing, a preliminary one of course, that does show what looked like to me striped crosswalks and stop either signs or at least markings on the pavement at all the pedestrian entrances and exits. With that in mind, I'm going to say, using the item numbers and item names from Section 10 of tonight's…”
Planning Commission · Sep 16, 2026
- Play at 50:26
“I have no, there's no tabled business that I want to bring forward and I have no new motion to make. I turned it on anticipating commission members time.”
Planning Commission · Sep 16, 2026
- Play at 50:42
“Okay. There's no doubt that part of what you just said involves me. So I'm going to point out that ruling on a procedural question is not the same as changing procedures. Each time that I recall that I have disagreed with you about the procedure that you wish us to follow, it's because there is a procedure and you have decided not to follow it. And most recently when that happened, I appealed your ruling, which is the, in our bylaws, the part that says subject to majority of the commissioners present. And you refuse to hear an appeal or conduct a vote on it. So I'll also add that our…”
Planning Commission · Sep 16, 2026
- Play at 52:45
“Yeah. Okay. Well, when it comes to the topic of procedural questions, I mean, I would so much rather be in a better mood at the moment and try to catch some flies with honey rather than vinegar. But my goodness gracious, to be chastised about not following proper procedure and then to have new business introduced at the beginning of the meeting instead of at the proper time, that just chaps me. Raw. So with that in mind, I'll see everyone at the next meeting when we vote.”
Planning Commission · Sep 16, 2026
- Play at 37:44
“Chair, given the comments that we heard about Potomac Lofts, are we going to keep it on? Do you intend to keep it in the expedited group? Yes, we do. I honestly would want to learn more about Potomac Lofts before I vote.”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 39:02
“Okay. What do you think about the on-site management topic? I'm not even sure that's something that the county gets involved in, but...”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 39:43
“Thank you, Commissioner Shaikh, and thank you, Chair, for indulging me.”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 39:52
“Using the item numbers from tonight's announced Planning Commission agenda and the item names to identify each, I move that we recommend approving the following items, with each being subject to the conditions identified in their respective Planning Commission staff reports. A, rezoning number REZ2025-00030, Potomac Lofts. Item B, zoning map amendment number DPA-2026-00007, e-commerce overlay district. And item D, special use permit number SUP-2026-00016, restore physical therapy, Pilates, and fitness.”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 41:08
“If no one else objects, I would accept that amendment.”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 1:26:45
“Let's see. Yeah. When the parcels were being taken out of the current data center overlay to reduce the, I guess it's the acreage by roughly 60%, you said? What criteria were used to decide which ones to remove? How did you determine that a parcel could be or should be removed?”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 1:27:36
“Okay, and so to be clear for the audience about what the ZTA does and does not do, right now if there was an empty industrial parcel in the current overlay district, that satisfied one of the, otherwise satisfied one of those five criteria, regardless of whether it's next to a park, a school or a residential neighborhood, the staff recommended version of this text amendment would keep that parcel in the overlay district and would allow that industrial parcel to be transformed into a data center campus. Am I right?”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 1:28:48
“I apologize. And the overweight district. If I made it sound in any way like you guys were taking an initiative to decide what stayed in or out, I understand completely that you were following the board's direction. And so that following that board direction, did it create the result I'm describing where it was only the current zoning and those five criteria that determined whether or not a piece of land should be, uh, preserve its by right abilities. And it had little or had nothing to do with things like incompatibility with adjacent properties.”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 1:31:14
“Well, okay, thank you for the clarification. What I'm trying to get at for the audience and for us is that the ZTA, regardless of who created it and what their motivations were, the result of it is not curing some of the problems that many people in the audience are very interested in, but it does reduce the size of the overlay And there's been confusion about that among the people that I've spoken to in the last 55 days since our previous meeting. And so thank you for that. I'll yield the floor if anyone else has a question.”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 1:56:08
“I hope these are simple. Thank you, Chair. In the current overlay district, Do you know if there are any buy right parcels because of zoning that don't satisfy any of the five criteria? That right now if the property owner takes no action, they would just fall off the, okay. And if the property owner doesn't take action between now and either the adoption, possible adoption, or any possible window beyond adoption, would that property then fall out of the overlay district? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, chair.”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 2:05:03
“On the requested amendment, I've read up on this the last couple of days and I'm First, I was wrong before when I said that we needed to have a second beforehand. These types of amendments, this is a point of order or a point of information, these types of amendments are allowed up until the time that you restate the motion. Once you restate it, it belongs to the body here. Before then, people can pop in and seek unanimous consent or a vote. So if there's unanimous consent, we don't have to do a roll call vote. But if you want to do a roll call vote on the proposed amendment, you may.”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 2:06:00
“That would be part of without objection.”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 2:06:35
“Excuse me. We vote on the proposed amendment. Yeah, I thought we voted on it. If that proposed amendment receives a second is my recollection.”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 2:06:55
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 2:07:46
“Now or later, I would urge us to get a second just in case we need one.”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 2:15:56
“If you're just asking us to speak up, I think what you're saying is misguided.”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026
- Play at 2:16:08
“Thank you for recognizing me. The zoning text amendment's purpose is protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of you, me, and our neighbors by curtailing buy-write development before any more poorly designed, poorly located, and poorly energized data center projects take advantage of our current weak design standards. I'm glad that the planning office is working on revising those standards. Now, based on our last meeting, I think it's pretty obvious that the full commission wants the ZTA to proceed. We want it to pass. but the reasons for extending the 90-day deadline that were…”
Planning Commission · Sep 9, 2026