Remarks by James Hedrick
108 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 2 of 5
- Play at 6:40:48
“It's either an easement or cleared, exactly, in that case.”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 6:51:50
“Very few of the situations that we've described before where there's the potential co-location of housing have used housing as a justification for the purchase and the acquisition. And so that's another thing that concerns me is also the Silver Spring parking garage issue is that it wasn't even built to the standards that housing could be put on top of it, something we asked for during the mandatory referral. And so without an actual plan for the co-location of housing, plus having not brought it before us before the acquisition, yeah, I'm inclined not to approve either A or D. I was just…”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 7:00:12
“And this was a question I was coming to ask on the, because we're approving, with the Forest Conservation Plan, we're approving a variance. And one of the findings of the variance is that this is not due to the actions of the applicant. And I would argue that the actions of the applicant in purchasing a different property from where they had already had planned a thing is possibly a reason not to approve the variance for the Forest Conservation Plan. I'm rereading the portions of the Forest Conservation Plan under the variance, and it's not a special privilege, and it's not, you know, it…”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 7:03:07
“May I ask a question along those lines? I'm happy to support giving them a week's deference to come with more information and a reasonable plan, potentially a draft RFP or something I think would be... It would be reasonable to approve that. Is it possible to address the first three motions, the motion for property acquisition, the referral for the library and the referral for the water quality ban and defer the forest conservation a week? Would that make life easier or would that be more of a pain?”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 7:05:23
“I may make one more request on that. For the forest conservation plan for the determinations for the variants, I would like a little more investigation of conditions or circumstances as a result of actions by the applicant. I would like to make sure that we're clarifying that because I think there's a case to be made that the movement of the site is a condition or circumstance created by the applicant to, you know, I can see the one site and it doesn't have any trees on it and I can see this site has got a whole bunch of trees on it. So there's an option there. I would just like to see if…”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 7:07:40
“And may I ask for a copy of the feasibility study that was conducted as well? Because it was indicated that there was a feasibility study conducted on the original site, and I'd like to see a copy of that.”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 7:08:17
“All right. I would move for a continuance to July 30th or our July 30th meeting, provided we receive the information just discussed. Second. All in favor?”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 8:03:36
“I'm trying to make sure that I'm following along. And that puts them within the 200 foot setback requirement. That's no longer 200 foot.”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 8:03:47
“Yeah, it doesn't seem as if that's an issue with only .”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 8:09:02
“That's what I wanted to ask. I mean, I think it comes down to the setback of being 200 feet, which is a long, it's a large setback. But it is what it is, and the AR is not one that we can do. But is there a way that we can encourage or support with either the hearing examiner, or I think I mentioned the Board of Appeals, to do the variance, to support the variance for the thing? Because I think it's a reasonable thing to ask. 200 feet is a large setback, and it can accommodate both the... exterior play area, the dedication for the right of way for the road, which I understand, and still be…”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 8:17:43
“I was going to ask on the condition. The condition 13 has alteration building permit or building permit for the exercise area fence. I think what you're potentially offering is to make conditions 12 and 13 conditional upon the building permit for the exercise area for the fence. Is that right? Am I getting that correct? So they could go ahead and continue to do the interior alteration? That's correct. Yes.”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 8:18:26
“That's why I was saying, yes, 13 has alteration building permit or building permit of the exercise area. And what I was suggesting was a building permit of the exercise area be the conditional thing for both conditions 12 and 13. So instead of building permit, we limit it to the fence permit. Is that something that's reasonable for those with the dedication in the... and the variance for that to allow for the interior work to start?”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 8:19:03
“For the building permit for the exercise fence, and that would condition upon the exterior work can be done. Okay, I think that's fine.”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 8:25:48
“I'm saying, so just to clarify, we're striking 18, we're making 13 conditional for the issuance of the building permit, and we're using a post-90 days of occupancy for the dedication under condition 12. Is that, did I get all that, or did I miss?”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 8:26:31
“Fair enough. And splitting A and B under condition 12 for two triggers on enforcement .”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 8:40:23
“Yeah, I'll move to approve the conditions of the conditional use as discussed here today and to be transmitted to the hearing examiner.”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 8:40:45
“All right. I love you all. I have to run. Yeah.”
Planning Board · Jul 16, 2026
- Play at 1:32:55
“I believe I'm understanding the applicant's argument correctly with regards to what was in the memo and what you were explaining here. I'm concerned with the signal not having a legal basis, essentially. We don't have that. We would love to have adopted that by now. We would love to have... Also, I appreciate that there is an FHA that is not the one that I think of when I think of FHA. There's another one. But we don't have that in the thing, so we can't point to it other than to point to best practices currently within transportation, I think. And if I believe I'm understanding the…”
Planning Board · Jul 9, 2026
- Play at 1:35:09
“Well, I'm saying that you're... Yeah, well, with a signal, you have to go between the time and the start of the signals. You have to make the entire... I mean, I'm thinking about doing this with children and strollers and the like, which is how I move across the county mostly. With a four-way stop signal, you're interacting at each individual point of exit or entry with one individual. You have to cross that that point of danger one time and then reset. With the signal, I'm concerned that given the size of the right-of-way, you're having to cross the entirety of Central Boulevard under one…”
Planning Board · Jul 9, 2026
- Play at 1:38:09
“But can I ask one question about that? I mean, once you're laying conduit, spent most of the money you were going to spend anyway. It's not that big a difference, is it? I mean, honestly?”
Planning Board · Jul 9, 2026
- Play at 1:46:26
“May I ask a quick clarifying question? With the red lines across, is that, I mean, assuming that's estimated level of pedestrian comfort based on actual estimation of pedestrian comfort, or is that assumptions based on existing situations in the county?”
Planning Board · Jul 9, 2026
- Play at 1:46:52
“And not great crossing that level, that extent of... I mean, I'd be more likely to support making sure Century Boulevard isn't a mile and a half wide, but I think that'd do more than anything else. I don't think that's on the table.”
Planning Board · Jul 9, 2026
- Play at 2:04:51
“It would not include, for example, a warrant that would require it given the current conditions of this intersection, so at which point we're still going back to an issue of objectivity. And the safety is the key factor here. If there's some criteria that we can establish that it would be safer, I'm all for it. But at this point, I don't think there's enough conjecture, and I don't know if that – gets us to any different place, given that a warrant is not coming from the new one. It will just give us to prioritize different things. And I'm already in and of myself here attempting to…”
Planning Board · Jul 9, 2026
- Play at 2:08:23
“And just to clarify, too, any change in the condition will not change the other improvements to this intersection, such as straightening up the crosswalks and all that kind of thing, right? The curb cuts and all that. Like, none of the condition change would affect that, you know, whether or not there's a light there. No. Good. All right. That's what I want to know.”
Planning Board · Jul 9, 2026
- Play at 2:10:33
“That would be in the preliminary plan. Preliminary plan.”
Planning Board · Jul 9, 2026