Remarks by Josh Linden
96 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 4 of 4
- Play at 1:27:29
“specific school years enrollment that they see and then calculate the next five six years accordingly one one other observation just to build off of what commissioner hedrick was saying but if you look at um the placement of all of these um catchment areas at least on the elementary school level, they are all in the turnover impact area, right? And not the infill impact area. Basically meaning areas where we're looking, where we have and would look to see more infill development, particularly multifamily and various types like that. So it's just interesting and reinforces the point that it's…”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 1:32:54
“Per unit, yeah. And another quick question just based on your point. I know we've talked about this one before, so I apologize. I just don't remember, unfortunately. But applicants that go through, they get entitled. Beholden to the rates at the time of entitlement? No, it's at the time of pulling the building permit. So, okay. Okay. Got it. Yeah, thanks.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 1:36:55
“So because this is, we've talked about this a lot in the past, but because this is sort of a cohort view of elementary school enrollment leads to middle, leads to high school, and so on. Do we, with the recent drop-off, do we think that that is mostly slightly lower middle school enrollment, or is it a slightly lower continuation rate from middle school to high school? Like, are we seeing sort of more drop-off from middle school to high school recently, or are there just fewer middle school students in general?”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 1:41:16
“It is interesting looking through, related to this point, like looking through the chart that's in the staff report, kind of, it is a huge range. Like there are middle schools with, there's one with 45% utilization projected and two within the 50s. And, you know, it's not like huge numbers at that level, but. you know, it clearly is sending signals for the need for some, you know, boundary adjustments, which, you know, I'm glad that kind of we're following the data in that sense, we in the broad sense, like the, you know, school system. That's, I'm sorry, that's it.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 1:46:10
“It would be interesting to see maybe for next year, a version of this that also highlights a few different categories of school areas, like those that are projected to be in the UPP tiers currently, those that have low utilization rates, just so we can see how like this housing analysis and particularly the turnover, particularly the sales data, how that relates to the projections on kind of both ends of the spectrum, because this is obviously a huge, this is really important and it's really interesting, but it would be cool to see that relationship maybe for next time.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 2:44:32
“Just that it was sad to see Park Social go. It's exciting to see an office come. Uh, but yeah, that's, you know, park social was kind of such a unique space. And I think, I don't know, I don't remember exactly. I think maybe that that company is having broader challenges. I can't remember exactly their situation, but this is obviously really exciting, um, addition to, to the neighborhood. So yeah, excited to see it come to fruition.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 4:18:44
“Can I ask a quick question on that? Is there a quick way to describe what structural soil is?”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 4:19:21
“Yeah, that's really cool. I hadn't heard about that.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 4:29:19
“It's excellent, excellent work. So yeah, congrats to the whole team, everyone who worked on it. And I hope it'll be used well for a long time, hopefully not 30 years before it's updated again. But yeah, it's really excellent work, and thanks for the presentation about it.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 5:18:02
“Would you all like to get started with your presentation?”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 5:46:36
“Vice Chair Linden. Yeah, just briefly. Yeah, I share a lot of the same thoughts that have been already said. There's a lot to like about this project, a lot of it you already mentioned. And this is a unique site, clearly, and it's also a rare opportunity to put, you know, as Commissioner Hedrick mentioned, sort of tightly packed but still attractive and appealing homes for people in a really appealing attractive desirable neighborhood right and it's it's a chance to welcome more people into a neighborhood that a lot of people want to live in clearly like you're very proud to live in your…”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 6:11:46
“And this was sort of, from staff's perspective, this was kind of like the optimal way of doing that, to push it together, to buffer. Was this suggestion coming from them, or is this kind of how staff work with them to kind of locate where it would be?”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 6:13:45
“Just one kind of process question. And I'm sorry if you mentioned this at the beginning, but this is an administrative approval that came to us. And that happens sometimes in other contexts. But what was the reason that this one had to come to us?”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 6:14:11
“Okay. Anything over five acres in the AR? Yes. Okay.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 6:14:22
“So that specifically is for subdivisions in the AR zone for lots above five acres. But this was... I know this is a bit maybe a rabbit hole, but this was two parcels. So is the reason it was technically being subdivided because they were changing the boundary of one of them?”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 6:48:25
“So... Ask a quick process question. The way this, I know we've been through this before, but the way this works from here is we make a recommendation to council. Council then takes into consideration our recommendation, the county executive's recommendation, and then they make a recommendation to WSSC. Is that it?”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 6:50:04
“Yeah. So in terms of do we do a transmittal letter with accepting staff's recommendations, just based on what we're hearing, it's pretty clear that the policy is the policy. And it does feel difficult to make a recommendation outside of the policy. But if our intent through the transmittal letter is to get the county council to make a different recommendation or to get the committee to make a different recommendation to the council, which would then make the resolution that contradicts both us and the county executive and to say, yes, we want this to MDE.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 6:51:41
“I think what I'm sort of getting at, and maybe I'm coming to this idea as I'm talking now, but this process, is it fair to compare this process a little bit to the mandatory referral process in the sense that we're not making a regulatory decision here. We're taking into consideration policy and guidance and zoning, or not zoning, but policy and guidance. And because of that, I think I feel comfortable making a recommendation in line with what we would actually hope would happen and not make one recommendation with a transmittal letter that actually says, actually, we know we said no, but you…”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 6:53:29
“And I support that, but I think what we're talking about almost flips it on its head. So instead of saying maintain S6, we'll say actually change. And in the transmittal letter, we say We recognize this does not be policy staff recommended to maintain because it does not be policy. And here are the reasons why we think that you as council should consider changing some version of that.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 6:54:44
“OK, I'll see if I can get this right. We can kind of workshop this. So I'll move to recommend changing to S3. Is that it? S3? Yes. and transmitting that recommendation to county council. In addition, including a transmittal letter that acknowledges the staff recommendation, acknowledges the policy that underpins the staff recommendation, and that we're going against that and explaining some of the reasons why we think this is a policy. desirable instance of, or explain our position that the policy is problematic and this is a desirable exception to that policy. I second. Because of the public…”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 7:04:57
“If that happens, they would then have access to sewer, correct? Yes.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026