Remarks by James Hedrick
108 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 4 of 5
- Play at 1:28:20
“And I think we've seen Burning Tree in the last few times as well. It's also been in this thing. I can't remember anything from there. You can see on the map. These are not places where we've approved development sites. This is not Germantown. This is not Clarksburg. There's a turnover area.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 1:30:01
“As I've said many times before, I'm the problem. I bought a house from a woman who was in her 70s who retired in North Carolina, and I immediately had three children. I will be a burden on the MCPS school system for the next 20-some odd years. But new construction isn't the problem. And these are not happening in areas where we are authorizing or allowing for new construction. Whereas what's happening is in places where People age. Other people buy their homes because they're long-term durable economic products. And our focus seems to largely be on our concern with new development when the…”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 1:31:39
“I'm not going anywhere after they're done with school. I will sit in that house until I die.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 1:43:54
“Do we see clustering within the imbalance, particularly at the lower and higher, the extreme ends of the distribution? Basically, are we seeing elementary schools within the same high school? catchment area with similar utilization issues, or are we seeing disparities in utilization within a high school like catchment area?”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 1:53:12
“Definitely not. One more thing. This really is the last thing. I also enjoy it whenever you come. I'm very excited about data, and it makes me happy. But for the... You're discussing with the board about the effects of their decision, Board of Education and things. Have we... emphasize the relatively minimal amount we get out of these utilization premium tiers. The actual amount of funds that we get for these is not high, which goes into the point of these are not large developments happening in these areas that meet these criteria. I remember last year, but I don't remember the numbers, it…”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 1:55:24
“We're already back to growth and infrastructure? Yes. I really feel like that was last minute.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 2:09:01
“Just for the, I think, again, I agree. It's a good project. It's really creative and good use, I think, of that with the density and the type of housing to fit. So I think it's really interesting. Other than that, just the reforestation that you mentioned in the pot hooks at Watershed, is that a possibility to put, is that in the... Is there a way we can do that? Are there any objections to attempting to find a way to do that reforestation within the watershed?”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 2:09:38
“I'm sorry, your comment. I missed it. Oh, the comment from the Patuxent Watershed Group, the reforestation to be within the watershed if possible. And I just want to make sure that we highlighted that. If it is, if there's an available bank and it's feasible, I think it would be just to make sure that that gets in there, that we try to do that if possible.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 2:11:11
“No. I'll move to approve the preliminary plan with conditions and the comments from today.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 2:19:33
“I'm jumping on you a lot today. Already my apologies. But yes, I would move to approve the staging allocation request.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 2:45:41
“I'll move to approve with conditions the staging allocation request. Second.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 3:01:25
“All right. All right. Yeah, move to approve it and send it to both organizations.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 5:45:53
“No, I think it's a good and creative, legitimate use of the CRT zone that's there, what it's for. Honestly, I hope we see more of these. in these spaces. They're good developments. They're tight. They're filling spaces that wouldn't be filled with much else. And I think it's clear from the history that we can't wave a magic wand and put a commercial space of any type in a spot and hope that it lives and it just won't happen. So this is something that's got a reasonable chance to be sustainable in that place as nothing else has been. So I think it's good. I'm supportive of the project.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 5:50:53
“Move to approve the preliminary plan with conditions. Yeah.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 5:51:07
“Yeah, with conditions and corrections as provided by staff.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 5:51:34
“Is there a motion to approve the site plan with conditions?”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 6:09:29
“Sorry. I was trying to be quiet about that, but it didn't work. With the net tract and non-net, can you go back one slide? My apologies. I was just curious on the forest saved. So it's in the green here. Which is in the net tract and outside of the net tract area? Because I was curious about that. That 3.25 and 2.08... Because it all looks to be out of the net tract area to me, so I was just checking on how that was calculated.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 6:11:01
“So it all works out. In addition to the LODs. So that's what's combined with the 3.25 that's saved as part of the net tract.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 6:11:37
“And forced stream buffer at the bottom. Yeah, that's interesting. Thank you. I appreciate the explanation. Really nothing more than my own curiosity for that. But thank you for...”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 6:14:18
“We're trying to give as much of our work to Jason as possible.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 6:40:52
“I was going to ask a question. I'm trying to make sure I'm understanding it. Sewer and water is available to all of the plots that are in red surrounding the application plot. And I know we've come before to different, when we've had the water and sewer come before us, that adjacent properties, properties that are adjacent to certain access are usually allowed in or allowed to do it if they wouldn't otherwise be. Is there a reason that this one's not in the envelope, or the water and sewer is not to those red properties yet. Is that what I'm understanding? And they're adjacent and eligible,…”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 6:43:08
“That was a Potomac-specific policy we've discussed in the past.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 6:43:12
“Okay. It's not, but we don't have, that's not a general peripheral policy based on. It's not countywide. Okay.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 6:44:45
“Can I make a quick recommendation? Sorry, just for the Transmittal Letter for that point. I'm sorry, I've been going back and forth and trying to make sure that I'm understanding it. The actual distance proximity to sewer and water lines is not far, as far as I can tell, right? Were this Potomac, we would probably be having a proximity discussion.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 6:45:24
“I was going to say, that was 1,000 feet, something like that? It was a long way, maybe more?”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026