Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

You are live.

Okay, it is July 15th. This is the Planning and Zoning Commission of Poolsville, and the time is 7 o'clock, and we are going to get started. Looks like we have everyone with the exception of Martin in attendance. I know I have two citizen comments. Do you want to comment up front, or would you like to wait until we begin the discussion on the particular topic you're interested in?

Well, yeah, I think so.

Up front? All right. Jerry? Name, address, please. Oh, yeah.

As it says on my driver's license, Jerome J. Klobucowski, 17300 Fletchall Road, Pool Zone, Maryland. I've been thinking a lot about what to say because this ADU thing, accessory dwelling unit, that the state passed last year in House Bill 1466 shows no consideration, in my opinion, for the municipalities throughout the state, including this one, especially the fact that we're on wells. And every time we add somebody to a water and sewer tap to our water and sewer system, that means that's less that we're going to have as a buffer or can accommodate I think the whole policy that mandates, it doesn't say you will or if it's feasible, it says you must, which means you shall, in my opinion, in contract terms, that you will do this, and you're going to plotch down something that could be as small as a 40-foot shipping container, that's carried on these container ships across the ocean, and you've got to provide them water and sewer. And as I recall, you can't charge them an impact fee. If it's under 750 feet. That's right, regardless. But here's the thing. It doesn't matter. they are impacting our town. They're impacting our resources and what we have to do to treat what they, the effluent that comes out. And so that whole thing is, to me, is, I'm not gonna use the word, okay? So bottom line is, I hope you guys can muddle your way through this. and recognize the fact that the most precious thing we have is water. And we have developments in town that aren't even completed. Willard, Donegan, Harts, and along with Jameson, back over off of Willard Road, and we're supposed to, you know, they're looking at water. And a lot of these people who come up here don't recognize the fact that we're on wells. And I would hate to ever think that we would ever have to go to the Potomac or sign up to WSSC, because it would be really a shock to the citizens when they got their first water bill. So, I don't know if any of you were aware of this back in 2025, if the Poolsville commissioners, as in elected officials, were made aware of this and asked their opinion I also find it hard to believe that the Maryland Municipal League Legislative Committee, which vets bills before the House of Delegates and the State Senate, would not have objected to this. So I don't know what their opinion was, but it's like, this is ridiculous. Nothing should be made mandatory to a municipality without their consultation. And what to me it proves, there was nothing when they started drafting this bill and vetting it, any coordination before the Maryland Department of Planning and the Maryland Department of Environment that would ensure that this would only apply to those municipalities who had adequate, was that AFP, adequate facilities?

Adequate public facilities.

Adequate public facilities to accommodate this. And when I look at all of the houses that are planned or are going up or being built or are projected that could be built, I have to wonder where the hell the water and sewer are gonna come from. And the thing is, with the impact tax, or impact fee, you have to apportion that over the entire community. And to me, that is an insult to everybody who's lived here and paid into it to make the improvements so that developers could come in and develop their property, sell it, and then walk away. And we're left with the rest. We've gotten grants from the state for BNR, ENR, and the latest thing they're doing down there.

Jerry, I want to bring you back around. We're talking about ADUs.

But that has to do with it. Okay, so bottom line is, I think, I wish you good luck, and if there is a way that you could say, I'm sorry, this doesn't apply or cannot apply to us, or whatever, because I understand there's a few places in Pulsow where they could plotch down this, and I understand there are people who want mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother, sister to live in their homes and they attach something. But then I don't want to see the Poolsville commissioners get into it when somebody comes and says I'm selling my property and I have somebody in the ADU who doesn't want to move or I don't want them anymore and I want to make it into a shop or according to this you don't have to run a new water and sewer line directly to that ADU. Am I correct in that? That's correct. So basically then you're going to stick yourself in the middle of another thing where they're going to say, well, he said this, he said that. Was there anything written in the apportionment of that? And also one last comment. If someone goes through all the trouble of creating this ADU If anybody thinks that they are not going to charge the going rate for the rent on that, I think they're out of their mind. And I understand that this is, last comment, that this is supposed to afford housing for the state of Maryland. Go down Key West Avenue. Go down 355 south of Shady Grove. Go up to Monoxy Boulevard. Go up to Route 15 north and look on the south side. There are townhomes and stuff going up, and it's amazing how many they're putting up. And to say that we don't have sufficient housing unless people are talking about a house with a lawn around it, that's different. But the bottom line is housing is being built. So I apologize for taking so much time. Yes, sir.

A note on your concern about water, which we all share, that we are including in our draft proposal here to fall in line with the ADU law, a notation where the town will approve water allocation for accessory dwelling units, much the same way as we do for new construction. matter of fact in the same way that we do with new construction so if we don't have water we won't allocate it and they won't get the adu so that the state doesn't demand that we allow all the adus it's just that we just we allow adus as part of the ongoing and when someone says well we can get more water if we just annex this property over here

And five years later, the guy comes in and says, I want to develop it.

Water's only part of it, right? We know it's water and sewer in both our capacities. We know, I mean, we're operating on a 6,500 town resident capacity. That's all we can do is go with what we have.

Excuse me. What I've said is you can never tell a family when they come in, oh, your four kids over. or 6,500, you have to get rid of them. That's not going to ever happen. Whether it's 6,500 or whatever, you're never going to tell families, if they buy a house, you can't come into this town by having too many kids.

We can regulate that number by the number of homes we allow to have built and the ADUs.

Well, the thing is, is once you stick something out there, Somebody's gonna say, it's my right, it's my property to develop it. Okay, but anyways.

We are trying to account for the water issue and it's something that we hold very dear to our hearts, very important to us as well.

Well, personally, I think the Poolsville Commission ought to go to our delegation and say, were you nuts? Were you part of approving this? Did you understand anything about our area that you represent? And what the aquifer is here and everything else, it seems like somebody really dropped the ball. And there's other places in this area, in the state of Maryland, who have the same problem. Whether they're as vocal as I am, I don't know. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jerry. I appreciate you taking the time to listen to me. I'll get off my soapbox. and leave you to your evening.

I did want to follow up. I don't believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that the town has any sort of input on tenant...

Correct. Yeah.

So the idea that you're renting this out and that the... town has any jurisdiction over that.

For all of that, that's covered by the county.

This is a county issue as far as that particular point.

I understand what you're saying.

While I don't disagree with you, that's an issue that you need to take up at a different level.

Well, we do.

Well, or we do, on behalf of the citizens.

The whole thing, all of it is, is once they get in there, it's hell of a time to get out.

I don't disagree. I just want to make it clear that that's not in the jurisdiction of the town.

No, I understand. And then, but the issue, too, of, well, I didn't use this much water, but yes, you did, or I didn't use this much, but yes, you did. You know, that to me is, I don't want, I've seen it before, when I was a commissioner,

people thought that town could solve it and they didn't understand and that's what we try to explain that there's still issues with tenants and renters already in the city or in the town yeah that we currently have and we have uh tried to address that through the process that we do in issuing um bills and and being very clear with whoever comes in whether it's a tenant or the owner that that's between them and so we try to you know there is a landlord tenant resolution options of the county and that's where where we direct them to but just as a as a reference that already happens and to to to both reiterate and explain um your point all right again thank you very much for allowing me to address you this evening and have a good one thank you you too stay cool in fact you probably just thought of staying here right now it's pretty warm in here yeah

Mr. Jameson, did you want to speak now or did you want to?

No, I'll speak now.

All right. Name, address, all those things?

Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

I'm Frank Jameson, 19939 Fisher Avenue, Poolsville. We got an email from Niles about a week ago about having this discussion tonight. So I went back and looked at on YouTube the meeting of the 15th of June that you had, and I just wrote down some comments I'd like to address about that. Excuse me. The mission statement out of the comprehensive plan was read, and I've read over many mission statements for different jurisdictions. Mission statements really say nothing different from other mission statements found in other jurisdictions' comprehensive plans. This may have been possibly an AI-generated statement. It's what we call in our business, it's a Twinkie. It's real nice Twinkie. on the outside and real nice on the inside, but it has no nutritional value at all. It's something you put in your lunchbox to give to your kids so that they'd be quiet. Next thing that was discussed at your conversation last month happened to do with special exceptions. A special exception can be considered a downed zoning in that it places additional roadblocks on the sale or use of a property along with additional cost and additional time necessary to obtain the approval. All of that will cost money and time with the potential of a denial and various restrictions that would make a use unfeasible. My recommendation is to get rid of the special exceptions. You talked about incentives to try to get something some kind of development in the downtown. I don't have any real incentives other than get rid of the impact fee that would be charged by the town for anybody to build something in that part of town. The impact fee not only to the town but to the county represents anywhere from 10 to 15 percent in soft costs of a building. So, for example, these houses being built next door, I was on a Montgomery Newsletter this afternoon looking up something. They've taken out two permits to build two more houses there for $350,000. Out of that is the town impact fee, and the county impact fee. Those two impact fees represent probably about 17 to 18 percent of what the cost of that house is. You can't have affordable housing when you have those kind of costs associated with it. So I'm only associating that impact fee that if you want to make something more affordable for somebody to build a use that you contemplate in that part of town, you could waive the town impact fee. It's not much, but it is something. It all adds up. The discussion of taking additional resident survey of what to do with the downtown area, in my opinion, has been done to exhaustion. We've done this before the comprehensive. I do recall that before the comprehensive plan was started, numerous surveys had been sent out to town residents for their opinion regarding various issues. The best survey that has been taken in real time by real citizens that are to be impacted by the proposed CAD zone was the one the commissioners held on the 20th of April of this year. May I suggest that you might revisit that and listen to what the majority of those participants said. That is a real survey in real time in this room. The reason, in my opinion, that so much pushback has occurred to the CAD is that you have never proven a need nor has anyone sold the benefits of any comprehensive change in zoning of downtown, especially to those directly affected by such change in zoning. No offense, but you haven't sold it. You haven't proven that there's a need and you haven't sold it. If you're not telling people and proving what the benefits are, you're not going to get it over the top without people being upset with you. Now, I'm in sales. That's all I've done for the last 50 years. You may say I'm crazy, but I've made a damn good living. And it's because I understood that if you're going to sell something to somebody, you sell the benefits of it. Just like me selling you that Twinkie, it's because it tastes good. And people like it. It's no good for you, but they like it. And as to your affordable housing, the only thing that I... The number of gallons per day. The town uses a number of 325 gallons per day per household. That was a political number. That was not a number based on any science or any fact. That was a political number. And we've been using it. The real number is closer to about 250 with a redundancy of maybe 10%, so you're up to about 275 gallons per day. That's the real number. I think the town does quite well with management of water. I really do. You asked for a voluntary restriction. I hope it's working out. But I know the ones that you've done before have been extremely successful. And I keep saying, you all have plenty of water. And I keep hearing about the aquifer. But I've never heard one person tell me how many gallons are in that aquifer. I've never heard anybody say, you know, there's x millions of gallons in the aquifer. So we don't know. Okay, that's it for me. I'm going home.

Thank you, Mr. Jameson.

You all have a good evening.

I will say that mission statement predates AI, just so you know.

You may say that, but I don't believe it. I was in the room. It's a conspiracy.

Have a good day. Thank you so much. Your comments are greatly appreciated.

May I address a couple things?

Yes. Thank you, sir. Can you keep it quick? You're right. I'm giving you three minutes.

I've just entered into an Excel spreadsheet all my property taxes and how much they've increased since because I don't go back to 81 to about 92. And it's significant. And a lot of that was done because there were no impact fees in the 80s and 90s when the go-go area of building in the county occurred. But yet the citizens who were here had to pay for the new schools and all the amenities that the county went ahead and gave other people. And so I appreciate what he says, but what I've found is basically is people who, when you take something off, it only lasts for a little while because then people think, well, they reduced the price. They took the impact $10,000 impact fee off. We can increase the price of a home by $10,000. So I believe that impact fees are necessary. And everybody who are building in this town, it impacts all the other citizens who were here before us, before them. And they should be paid for so we can have a functioning water system to meet the demand and a sewer system. And then the other thing was, how many gallons are in the aquifer? No one knows. The bottom line is you go out west and there's a drought out there. And the aquifer out there is going down. And that aquifer is different from the one here. We're in sort of a rock aquifer. The out there, it may be different. Bottom line is you don't know. But what happens if you ever ran out? And because we use 325 versus 275, that's cushion. That's something, if something really happens, like a conflagration in town, like's happened a long time ago, when all of a sudden the water tank or tanks may be drained to a significant level, and then you're gonna say, what do I do? I would rather have the cushion and put up with the restrictions than I would having to import water from out of town. And I don't think anybody ever wants to go to the Potomac River to get the water or go down to either Black Rock Road to hook up to WSSC or down River Road to hook up to the plant down there. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Jerry. All right. A lot of interesting things for us to think about and a lot of good points. Let's move into announcements, Brian.

Let's see. So the last meeting we had was the 22nd of June. The commissioners have only met once since we passed the ordinance. for the setbacks on the new development. Well, for the overlay zone, which impacts new development. We voted to release some bonds for the Westerly Grove project.

They've met criteria to have some of their bonds released.

And that was all we really had on the agenda. I know there's a... piece going out in the monocle about White's Ferry? Correct. It was there's a new legislator and legislation being proposed being considered by the County Council that would. Ban the hiring of former ice agents and certain jobs within the county. That's that's going to be something we'll probably hear more about soon. And. Oh, the flag, yes. I'll let you talk about that. Sure. The study that Lilly Chee sponsored for the state of Maryland for the Ag Reserve economic study has just been released. I read about half of it before I came to the meeting today. Can you forward that to us?

Sure.

The ICE agent thing is interesting. That seems likely to get challenged in court, that seems. I would think so.

It does not seem constitutional to me. But without prejudice, I'm just passing along information. Struck by that. Yep.

Thank you. So the flag committee through me and the designer, Laura, presented the initial draft of the flag. We got some feedback from the commissioners. The flag committee met on Monday. So I'm supposed to, in the next 24 hours or so, get all the final revisions back to then present it on Monday to the commissioners again. The goal is to have it ready to go for Poolsville Day. So we're going to have to push a little bit, but I think we're at a good place.

I think what we saw, judging by comments that we all saw, we were like, that's our new flag. That's awesome. But if we can change this. Tiny details. That's exciting. The new flag is exciting.

We had a good discussion on Monday with the flag committee about those tweaks and how we want to kind of position it. So that will be good.

Really the crux of this flag discussion was centered around how they ‑‑ so we expressed that we really didn't want the town hall to be our flag. it's a cool building we get it but we didn't want to be a flag and they kind of pushed back and like well too bad it's really important it's a it's a real um something people recognize as the town of poolville and we want to have it so we were basically kind of like okay i get it but can we make it more symbolic and less of a technical representation of the town hall so maybe shapes but no doors and windows type of thing So we'll see what comes back. And that just comes from the principles of flag design that we were reading about before we started this thing. I think we're going to see something really cool. I think we'll like it. Good.

And then there'd be a couple other we went to MML. That's the other thing to mention In between the last meeting this I had a good conversation, which we'll talk about in a couple of specific cases around With MML staff about some of the state legislation and some of the stuff that will be coming forward That we will have to address next in the coming months and the Housing Certainty Act, which is separate from the two pieces of legislation we've talked about so far. We'll go through exactly what that means. And then a couple of other sort of things, sort of reporting requirements that we're going to have to deal with as well. But we'll get to that when we will. And then there's a couple of things. One thing that I wanted to highlight specifically is we had a discussion about what impact fees mean in state law versus what connection fees which is what we we don't charge impact fees as stated as impact fees we charge connection fees and there are implications to that that we'll talk a little bit about with the adu law but also for that the housing certainty act when we get to to that part and discuss the impact of that Other than that, I think we're good to go on announcements.

Awesome.

Thank you. All right. On to the approval of the June 10th meeting minutes. Did everyone get a chance to have a look at those? Any changes, comments, questions, concerns?

Okay.

Because I already said I haven't read them yet, I don't think I should.

I do need a motion and a second.

I'll make a motion to approve the June 10th meeting minutes.

Second. All in favor? Aye.

OK.

And on to old business. Just to note, we have no new business, so.

You could say that.

It says, first up, we have the commissioner goals and objectives for the town center. Is there any? reason we can't do the ADU first. I would prefer to get the more straightforward of the two items out of the way before we plow into the discussion of the other. So just we're going to swap this out and we'll do actually 5.2 first with the follow-up discussion on the state's ADU law and a potential town ordinance.

So I did the order that I did in case there were people who wanted to discuss it. So just as a general note, when we do the agenda, try to prioritize things that people might want to attend for first.

Yes.

No, and good thinking. But since it's just us, I think it makes more sense to put this one first.

Give me two seconds. I just got to grab one thing. Okay. So what I did is from the last discussion I went back and or from the April discussion, which is when we did eight years, I went back and I re-listened to the meeting and sort of tried to capture in the draft ordinance everything basically that we discussed. So what I did is I took the model or ADU ordinance that the state had given us and then edited it to include what was applicable to us. So these changes included the definition of accessory dwelling unit is the same as the state's. However, I added the explicit reference to the size of an accessory dwelling unit being based on the square footage of the finished area above grade. So one of the questions we had last time was what was it based on? And the state law did not say it. But in their guidance, the Department of Planning included that as something you could include. So the first change I made was just changing to add that, since that was the discussion that we made. And then the accessory dwelling unit definition also includes this, a structure that is separate from the primary single dwelling unit or attached as an addition to the primary single detached dwelling unit. One of the things I wanted to comment about that is that is a slight change from how, in terms of what the town does now and how the state law sort of defines it. So they define it all as one. If you remember in April when we did the presentation, I talked about there being like basically four different definitions that fell under it. One was like guest rooms for compensation, guest houses not for compensation, accessory dwelling apartments, and farm tenant houses. One of the things that is sort of a quirk of our code is that we treat things for compensation slightly different than things not for compensation because previously we didn't have this definition of accessory dwelling unit. So like if you want to make an addition to your house that was not for compensation, You weren't going to sell that room. That didn't require a special exception unless you were trying to sell it for compensation or basically rent it. You see what I'm saying? So the one question I kind of had coming in on this is, by the way the state law is written, we have to adopt this definition. What I'm trying to figure out with the appropriate changes that we can make, like the above grade. What I do want to discuss is do we want to look at how we treat attached basically doing an addition, which requires all these things. You have to have a second kitchen to be an accessory dwelling unit. Do we want to keep that distinction for when it's... Basically, if you're doing a general addition, we don't. It's permitted. As long as you meet the other requirements, it's permitted. So I think that distinction remains. It's just one of those things that I wanted to be clear. Because the way we did it was kind of in a roundabout way. where we had some things for compensation and some things not, which is not something that the state law makes a distinction about. So that was one area where I thought there was a little bit of fuzziness. Does that mean we can't? No, it doesn't mean that we can't. It just means that we might want to think about a definition for addition, like what we are talking about, like saying... You know, for the purposes of the code, addition means adding rooms that do not include facilities for cooking, for example, which is how the code.

And that would be, we're thinking that would be considered an addition and not an ADU? Correct, exactly. Um, is there a threshold of adding five bedrooms and six bathrooms with no cooking? Does that mean that it's right to you? Cause that's what you do to me.

Cause that's what, that's what you now, you now, uh, basically the county's definition that predated the state law was the specific inclusion of how it had to have all these elements. So room for cooking, cleaning, or cooking, preparing a food, and like bath, you know, disposing of waste, you know, that kind of thing. That created an ADU, just adding an addition to your house. You can do that as long as it meets all the other standards, like, you know, it meets the lot coverage, it meets the, you know, so you could add five bedrooms, but if you're not adding a kitchen, it's not an ADU, that kind of thing.

If we introduce this, and I'm sorry for dominating this, but if we introduce this without changing anything, If this goes into effect without changing anything in the town code, we're not really introducing any new vulnerabilities.

We're not. We're not. I just wanted to make clear that the code as taken has these distinctions that this does not around things like compensation. So if you're adding just a bedroom to your thing, we could probably still keep it. We might just define it a little bit differently. You know, like, say, keep it as guest room for compensation, but just make it clear in the text. I might look at that and say, you know, this is for a bedroom without a cooking facility. Otherwise, see accessory dwelling unit. You know, something like that. That would be the way that I would recommend it, and we can add that as a simple way of doing it. That makes sense to me.

I think it's very weird and interesting that we have initial intent as a guideline as opposed to general use. Like, my neighbor and i could put on the exact same addition with me for the intent to have it as guest room and them to have it as an intent intent as a rental and that completely changes the definition it's the exact same physical structure right why do we have that that distinction i think i suspect that it's it there was probably at one point because there's also in the code

there's this distinction between a motel, hotel, bed and breakfast and all of that. And I suspect that there was a concern at one point of boarding houses, of people adding like, it specifically says in the code that a hotel or motel is a place that has six or more places for rent, right? So I think they wanted to make sure, like you could, interpreting a little bit what the intent was, say, in the 80s, is you could add two bedrooms for compensation. That's not a motel, but that is, you know, potentially a bed and breakfast or that is a, you know, in the era pre-Airbnb. I think that might have been the intent, but it's not clear to me because it's just, it's the way the code wrote it, I think. So that's the only thing I can think of off the top of my head.

I think my personal feeling is that if we could move away from sort of subjective thresholds and guidelines and move more to physical and defensible guidelines that is always preferable yeah so i i mean i don't we should discuss it more of course but i i tend to agree with you but i think we should um

NOT LET THAT HOLD UP?

NO, I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD HOLD UP.

I DON'T WANT TO, FROM THE CAD, I THINK TYING TOO MANY THINGS TOGETHER MUDDIES THE WATER AND MAYBE EVEN LOOKS A LITTLE DECEPTIVE. I THINK WE DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO FOR THE ADUs AND WE PUT THIS ON A FUTURE TOPIC. ABSOLUTELY.

Okay. And then so that's the main thing on the definitions. And then I added the definition that is for dwelling unit, which is only slightly different than the one we already had in the code. But because of the way the state law is written, I just went ahead and added that in as well. So the second section is on development standards which were modified to include that an accessory dwelling unit must be on a fixed foundation or permanently affixed to the ground. This is to address the concern about mobile or temporary accessory dwelling units. So this was again a conversation that John brought up that was about, how you, sort of regulating the permanency of this, like having a trailer or sort of a mobile home versus having something that fits on a lot, you know, and therefore is governed by the rules around setbacks and lot coverage and things like this. Sort of more defining it, again, sort of in a, Because as the state law also says and as Lexi kind of referenced, we don't want subjective things. We want sort of concrete guidelines. So this is a way of sort of setting it up. You know, if you want to have a mobile home, you know, on your property, you actually can under the code, you know, since you can move it around and such. It's not a permanent fixture. So I just added that from our discussion. And then, so the state law, another thing, and this is not so much a change, but I just wanted to make it clear. The state law does not provide for specific changes for height or lot coverage requirements. So staff included that the standards for accessory drilling units will be the same as for other accessory structures. So I specifically just sort of referenced that just so that it will be clear. THAT IT'S THE SAME STANDARDS, BASICALLY. SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO MAKE IT THE THREE-FOOT AND THE FIVE-FOOT SETBACKS THAT'S REQUIRED BY STATE LAW, BUT THEN ALSO THAT THE LOT COVERAGE AND THE HEIGHT WILL STAY THE SAME AS SHEDS OR OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT. AND THAT'S THE NEXT ONE, IS THE REAR LOT LINES. AND THEN INCLUDED AS SORT OF A NOTATION THAT that the water and sewer allocation for accessory dwelling units, this will be the same as new construction in town. And so I wrote that as water and sewer allocation for an accessory dwelling unit be approved by the town commissioners. And that's the exact same language that is currently in the code for preliminary plans. And then I included the manner of review, the ministerial review as referred to by state law. um and then i just added that off-street parking is not required for the rolling unit this was an optional thing under the current regulations because that went into our discussion about needing parking studies so i just i just did it as um it will just say you don't need additional ones for an adu and that way we don't have to get into the issue of needing traffic studies or not And then I just used the accessory apartment, separate dwelling thing. The zoning would be the same. So we'd change it to the language in that. And I thought I had changed it. But for use type, it will just be the definition accessory dwelling unit rather than accessory apartment, separate dwelling. So the language in that first box will match the definition. And then the last part is the question of impact fees or connection fees can be addressed through the fee schedule, which the commissioners adopt by resolution. So the reason why I wrote that is just to note that that's not a part of the zoning ordinance, so it wouldn't be in a change. And that goes to the discussion that I had at MML about... When state law says impact fees, they mean impact fees. And impact fees have a specific meaning under state law. So, there's a potential that we could still charge connection fees even on those smaller ADUs because they're considered a separate type of fee than an impact fee. An impact fee has to do with the direct impacts of development or things like that. A connection fee is literally the cost of connecting an ADU or a house to the system. And so that's how it's defined by state law. And since this act does not forbid us from using a connection fee or put limitations on connection fee, but instead uses the term impact fee, we could potentially still be able to charge a connection fee on every ADU regardless of size. So that's just from a discussion that I had. Sorry, go ahead.

If we're treating it like new construction, then I think we should.

Yes.

If you're getting, if you have to get it allocated, if you're using up allocations, we should get connection of use board.

Mm-hmm.

My thoughts.

Yeah.

And then the other thing to note is that we had talked about having design standards or sort of some kind of design, and that went to this discussion of objective measures versus subjective. So I put in the ordinance that any accessory drawing units must conform to the design standards in the applicable zone. So the commercial, there's a commercial design standards that already exist. And then there's also the design manual for the village overlay. So it's just making it so that it's consistent with the dwelling that is already on the property, is basically the intent, rather than trying to come up with specific standards, unless you guys feel that is necessary. I was just trying to address that conversation, and that's what I came up with, but obviously it's open to discussion.

Are there, there aren't design standards for the whole town.

Correct. So there aren't design standards for a single family development zones other than the village overlay. There's specific, not design guidelines, there's specific restrictions for townhouses like how many can be in the same block and things like that that are in the code. But there aren't design standards per se. And then the only places that there is is even going back to the 2011 master plan. There were design guidelines originally for the commercial zone and the old central business district. And those are as outlined in the code, it explicitly says in the commercial zone section there are design guidelines. pursuant to the master plan, and now the comprehensive plan. And then the village overlay, part of the whole structure of that was to include the design manual. So I figured that was the way to address that. Makes sense to me.

I don't remember, but I'm curious. Did we have a discussion about owner occupancy requirements as part of the permitting for the ADU?

So we briefly, I think we briefly talked about it because when I was listening back to, but what I can do is pull language around short-term rentals that the county has, for example, that I think would be applicable in this case. And so I could add that in as well, that this is only for sort of permanent rentals. residents try to use language somewhere around there. So basically, if you are renting out the ADU, they are a full-time resident rather than sort of short-term rentals, if that's the concern that you're thinking.

No, my concern has more to do with the person occupying the main house, right? So if you're occupying the main house and you want to build an ADU for whatever reason, there is a owner occupancy requirement for that primary structure before permitting. Now, obviously, you can't say that, you know, you have to sell it to someone who's going to also live there.

Yeah.

But my concern is that you could get speculation where someone buys a house, is renting it, and is like, well, I could just add another ADU in the back, and now my one rental becomes two rentals. Right. And I think that that goes against sort of what this is trying to achieve. Like we're not trying to take one house for rent and make it two houses for rent.

Right.

Or two properties for rent.

I'm curious if there's any way to sort of restrict that to a residency requirement for the permitting.

I don't know. Thoughts? Well, I mean, you're bringing additional places for people to live, whether it's their own home or they're renting it from a homeowner, renting it from a landlord. It is still an extra place that somebody could live.

I guess that does create a question because there already are rentals, like houses for rent. And I think how would we define that? You know, where is the line with that, right? So are you saying if an owner doesn't live in a primary house,

If you don't have it homesteaded, if it's not homestead, then it doesn't qualify. Is there any way to make that sort of restriction?

I can look into it. That specific idea we hadn't talked about last time.

I guess one question would be someone does that. They're living in the house. They built the ADU, rent it out. then they rent their house that we're living in.

All bets are off after that. Just for the initial permitting.

Is that kind of the same as running two separate processes if you're going to rent it out or if you're going to live in it?

No. Like we were just talking about earlier, right?

Special exception if you're going to rent it out, but it's okay if you're going to live in it.

No, and I'm not saying that you have to live in the ADU. My thought process is that if you're living in the house and you're building the ADU, whether you want it to be a mother-in-law or for a rental purpose, for additional income for your family or whatever, that is a different situation than

So the only question that comes to my mind is that you're essentially like, as you said, if they sell it to somebody else and that person lives or doesn't live in, the issue that comes to my mind is you're treating two different property owners differently. Yes. You're not wrong. And that is where you get into some of the, just from other conversations we've had, that's where you get into sometimes a stickier idea. See what I'm saying? Because...

But we do that with taxes. Homestead tax rates are not the same as... Yes.

Well, we don't. The state does, which is one thing to note. isn't a much broader yeah yeah treat a homestead as a different level ownership mm-hmm and so I'm just asking you no no yeah I'm in all I'm saying is I'm just sort of looking through there are other jurisdictions that have such requirements

um such as the city of frederick the owner lived in the property but i wanted to bring it up yeah yeah i i think we're we're probably i mean the intent i think is kevin kind of went back to the intent of the law that we we have to adopt is to make housing a little bit easier yet and whether or lived in that's that's the that's what this would be doing I don't know if I love it, but I don't know if there's, yeah. And the question I was really trying to ask, I didn't do a very good job, was are we using the same subjectivity that we said we wanted to not include in our code?

That may be. Yeah.

For those reasons, I would think not to have that stipulation. Okay. I'm not sold on it.

I just. Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, I mean, as I said, it looks like there are some similar things that you can do, like the City of Frederick has done. Again, you know, we'd have to look through the ordinance again with that lens as well, which is not what we were doing before, which is not to say that we can't, but I was just saying that that's what I found.

Could you limit the number of ADUs other than LAT coverage?

Yeah, so essentially, and I'll look at the task force stuff there. My understanding is that the main restriction on it is basically that you can have, that the way the state law put it is just that restriction on size. But I suspect that because they say we... you know using other you know like how we treat uh sheds for example in most zones you can only have two sheds in one you can have three um uh i think we could probably do some type of requirement like that that would be similar so you could only have one frederick had on its again i don't i don't know if that has been updated with the current law in mind but frederick had it as one per lot and i imagine that that's something we could add as well um

I think that would be that would address my concern that Lexi brought up. Yes. If you're renting and you're going to add another rental property when your rental property. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, yeah.

There you go.

When are we required to pass this?

By October 1st of 2026. July so we'll see it again August yeah always God means it's got to get to the commission commissioners in August because they have to do a public hearing so what we I mean if you guys are comfortable you will meet again before the next commissioners meeting because they're not meeting again until the second meeting in August We're meeting Monday. I'm saying the August meeting will be, yes. Yeah. But, you know, if you guys, let me just look at this here. Because I've done it here.

Could you get us something via email? Yes. And provide some feedback without obviously just discussing whether it's a pass or not.

Yeah. But what I can do, I want to look up something while we're...

It does say it's a secondary dwelling unit definition.

yeah second being two yeah right but yeah i don't think that's necessarily what that means though right you have two seconds i want to see if in the state law it talks about that so give me a second here you might be able to clear it up um No greater than 70% of the size of subordinate in use to the primary dwelling unit. On the same lot, parcel or tract as a primary single dwelling unit.

A secondary unit that.

And this is, I'm going to ask Kevin, you know, just for final confirmation. Separate from the, but almost everywhere in it uses the term singularly. So like the ADU is a singular noun in the act. Dwelling unit means a single unit to provide blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That's not going to say. It is the policy of the creation of accessory dwelling units on land with a single dwelling unit to do. Yeah, what I'll do is I'll check, but I'm pretty sure we could limit it to one. Because just everywhere it states it. It states as if you have a secondary unit. So I imagine we could just flat out say one and then go from there, if that is the will of the body. That would be an easy change.

One more quick question. Why is it special exception everywhere but just permitted in PCOM?

That has been the tradition. So previously, so again, in the old, I basically took what was the accessory apartment one and put it as special exception everywhere with the exception of PCOM. The, again, the, there is a difference in the code on the farm, the farm house has it where it's allowed in, I believe it's allowed by right in for sure in PRD, and I think in PTR2, it is permitted as well, but that's for the farm house, and I think we can, the farm, the mobile tenant house, farm tenant house, and that I think we can address by just having it its own definition, maintaining the definition that it is. So when the under our traditional way of of zoning accessory dwellings it's through this format special exception everywhere except for in the commercial zone um that has been so that's what it is for accessory dwelling units guest house and and guest room for compensation so i just used the same structure any more discussion i can't think of anything else so niles is it my understanding you'll provide us feedback and we'll yeah i think and what i'll do is is i'll i'll get make it clear what we can and can't do on the number of units And then I'll add it in if we can, and then I'll send you that with it. It would be, again, I think we would use the language something similar to Frederick, which is just that it says only one ADU is permitted per lot. And so that would be, so I'd add that to the development standards section of it.

All right.

Shall we move on?

Sure.

If everyone's all right with that, we'll go ahead and move on to discussion of the planning commission's goals and objectives for the town center.

So the first thing I want to say is I use town center simply because it's the term used in the comp plan. So I just, I know we talked about development zone or investment zone last time, but there wasn't a consensus, so I just went with town center.

I think town center's good.

As the nomenclature. And then what we talked about was at the June meeting, the plan commission discussed their goals and objectives for the town center at that meeting. The Planning Commission developed a few foundational ideas. This included preserving the existing buildings and uses, especially those of historic significance, creating a walkable area that benefits the local economy. So I kind of almost verbatim took what Brian had said at the end of the last meeting. TO FACILITATE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT TOWN CENTER, I'VE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET A SUMMARY OF THE TOWN CENTER DISCUSSIONS IN THE COMP PLAN. SO I TOOK BASICALLY EVERY PLACE WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT TOWN CENTER, AND I INCLUDED THAT, AND THAT IS PAGE FOUR OF THE PRINTED PACKET. AND SO YOU CAN LOOK AT THAT. The Planning Commission also discussed how to involve the public through public surveys and oral written testimony, but noted that such feedback should be provided with context.

Can we strike that?

Sure.

Does anybody really feel like we need another survey?

I am not sure that surveys are the best way to get feedback, or at least traditional surveys are the best way to get feedback.

And I think we have done surveys, and I think we've gotten feedback. I think we understand a lot. And Mr. James made a very valid point. We got the, we know that we already got the survey from what the general, generally what people wanted. And then we got input from what the residents of that specific area wanted. So I think we've got all the feedback we need now.

That's fine. That was more, there was some discussion just last time about that.

Martin, when you hear this, when you watch this. Yeah, exactly.

Also, the June meeting, the Planning Commission decided to separate technical aspects of the ordinance into separate ordinance, and I've included those. in the packet basically what i did is i just removed any reference to the cultural arts district otherwise it's basically the same as what you've already looked at and so i wanted to see on this specific part of it if there's any changes or anything else you wanted to do but it's basically what we've done before just applying it um So it's the definitions to the additions to the definitions that we've previously done. It's the parking requirements, but with the caveat of doing it more on a case by case basis. And then we also did the sign ordinance and the changes to the sign ordinance that were governed by a. a current case law and things like that. So we took out deadlines and things like that and political signs and just rephrased it all as temporary signs. I think I have to remove one other reference, but I tried to do that throughout it.

I think I removed that section entirely, actually.

Sign design guidelines, because that was just for that area. So I made it apply just the basics that apply everywhere. So if you have questions about that part,

Now, with pulling this out and this now being coming into a separate issue and less muddy the water, we could theoretically take each section, you know, approve the changes and send that to the commission.

Correct. And you could either do it as three separate things or as one thing that just has all of these technical requirements?

No, I think it should be three just in case there is an issue. Sure. It can come back as a single issue and not an overarching three issue.

I'm concerned about doing that just because I'm concerned about it being seen as like slipping the technical stuff through when we still haven't sold the concept .

This doesn't reference the town center at all. This is not... This is not significant. These are separate...

These are general things. Yeah. And each of these things we could put in proper context. So, for example, the parking guidelines discussion is a discussion about how... I used the example, I think this might have been before Stephen was on the Planning Commission, but for example, Dollar General. Our requirements required a ton more parking than Dollar General, A, needed, and B, has actually used. There's very few times you can't get a parking spot at Dollar General. So on one level, we had that. On the other hand, you have somebody like Locals, who needed a lot more parking than was available on their specific their specific lot. And so part of this whole approach affects things both in and out of what was the CAD and what isn't. And so it's an approach to try to give flexibility while still allowing the Planning Commission to have some oversight over parking so that it's not just, you know, it creates guidelines but also creates some oversight on the back. And so it's things like that. So it could affect outside of that area.

And like section six is literally definitions. Like we did not have the definition of an art gallery. Right. Or our definition of, you know, a self-storage facility was outdated. Yeah. So that's, I mean, vape shops, those did not exist when this code was originally.

Yeah.

So that's just definition. And then seven is signs. That goes back to, like you said. Yes.

And that is stuff that probably by, if we were ever challenged on, there's court cases involving that. Yeah. So we can, you know, so each of these things have sort of overarching impacts on Um, and then the other, the last part of it is just getting rid of the, um, sign board because the sign board technically in practice does not exist. Um, all of that is now done from a staff perspective. So that's why that was part of it.

So section K number three. Yep. You struck out sign review board, but you didn't put anything.

Oh, yeah, yeah. Let me look at that just to make sure. I think there's a reason for that.

But it doesn't read correctly.

It says, oh, yeah, yeah. Section sign C, sign review board, or three. Oh, yeah. When there is an ambiguity or dispute concerning the interpretation decision of yes, so that should be what we discussed is having that be the The Planning Commission Because if you look at E, the procedures, it says the town manager or the designee will review all applications. If a determination is made that an aspect of the signed ordinance has been met, the pending ordinance shall be approved. And then you go down. If the pending application requires a variance from the signed regulations, it shall be submitted to the Planning Commission. So I think what we want to do on that other procedure is... parallel that same structure. So if there's a dispute of interpretation, that interpretation should go to the Planning Commission. In essence, a dispute of interpretation is a variance for all intents and purposes because it is the similar idea. They want to do something that they think complies with the code and we as staff disagree, then the arbiter should be the Planning Commission just like a variance in that same way. That would be my recommendation. So I will make that change.

So I like the idea of breaking it out. I understand Stephen's concern. Even if there is no reference to the town center, this was taken out of the CAD proposal and is being through piece by piece. So I think we just need to be very clear about it when we were discussing it at the meetings. whatever communication knowledge you've been doing with residents of the CA, the previously proposed district, should be made aware that we're discussing these things and that they are not relative to that district.

Well, not solely relative. They are relative to the town in general and not...

Parking. was a bit of a touchstone in the comments.

Yes. But this takes out all of the references that were specific about that. So like the questions around streetscape and sort of parking like that part. Yes, there were questions about it, but the approach itself raises questions that are legitimate to be answered anyways.

Our parking discussion even included things like school parking. Yes. Church parking. Exactly. Much broader range of parking.

Right. Absolutely.

So then if we want to send each section, we will need a motion, a second, and a vote per section.

I think we should just next meeting discuss one.

OK. You don't want to?

I want to give notification to. Sure.

OK. Yeah.

That's fine. And I don't feel like there's a rush.

No, there is not a rush on any of these. I agree.

So I think we should take one by one each meeting so that if somebody has a particular topic, they can see it in advance.

Do we want to prioritize, then, since the sign is one that could actually catch us and make that one first?

Yeah, so we'll make that the August meeting.

August meeting for sign.

Now, this is going to make the commissioners have several public hearings. Right, but what we can do. Can't they do one public hearing for all of the ordinances?

Well, what you would do, because this is what we used to do in Rockville, because we would do similar things all the time, where we would have multiple ordinances on the same night. So because each ordinance is its own distinct thing, you have to have a public hearing on each one because the people commenting on the ordinance could be different. Like someone might have comments on all three parts, but if there's something specific they want to talk about, they are allowed to at a public hearing. So what we would do is just have three public hearings in the same night if that's how we work out and do it that way. Or because we're doing this step by step, we could do if everything is fine with the signs in August, then at the August meeting, you could have a public hearing on that and so on and so forth. So the process would just continue through meeting by meeting.

I don't want you all to have that many meetings. I mean, extra meetings.

It's not an extra meeting. It's just part of the agenda. It's just part of the agenda. It becomes, as we talked about before, it becomes the top item so that people who want to speak can come first thing.

Okay. Yeah. So definitely in August for signs. I don't know which ones come after that. Yeah. parking september before poolsville day people have big feelings about parking october you said you didn't let's do parking in october you said you didn't care as soon as it suggests something you're like really you're gonna do that i know i'm sorry my bad i changed my mind definitions so november for parking requirements

I thought it would be October.

Or October, sorry. You said October for that. I was attracting one already, sorry.

No, I think that's a good idea, actually, to break these up and give them notice and give some time for, like, digestion and feedback.

Can the commissioners sit on it? Can we table it? Because I could suggest that at the commissioners' meetings. Can we just table this until we get all three of them? Sure. I mean, you— Are we carrying November?

The other thing just to note, which doesn't really matter, is each of them then would also need to be advertised individually. Mm-hmm. So it doesn't really matter because we send them out. They go in the Frederick News Post. We post them online. It would just be that there would be three of them. So everybody would get the notice of three at the same time, basically. But you can – our code allows for there to be no delay or no specific delay in scheduling a public hearing. So we can – we have to notice it for 15 days, but we can schedule them whenever, you know.

Yeah, I don't know if it's even worth doing. We'll talk about it, though. Yeah. OK. Well, I have not said anything about adjournment, so I can make a motion to adjourn.

I'll second.

All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. And it is 8.14 p.m.

I did read the agenda, so that means I'm qualified to make a motion to adjourn.

Hang on a second here. Still live? Yeah, it's just the YouTube is being a little bit weird. I might do it on here.

We covered a lot.

I'm going back to the lake.

Just for this?

Just for this. I had water plants, too. Oh, yeah.

What lake? Deep Creek. Nice. That's a bit of a drive.

Yeah.

I passed through there this weekend on my way to Charleston, West Virginia. That's pretty much Kentucky, by the way. It's a long way. It's five and a half hours from here.

But beautiful drive. Yeah, lovely drive. It gets cooler as you go north and west.

I did a wedding.

Oh, OK. They have horse racing there, too.

It's Charlestown. Charlestown. Charlestown's very close. Charlestown's 45 minutes.

Charleston is the capital. Yes.

I've never been there. That is a, are we off?

I am trying to end it. The stream will stop immediately. There we go.