Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All get started. Um, bring to order the Queen Anne's County Planning Commission meeting for Thursday, May the 14th, 2026. We will start with the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Public comments there being none. Nothing. um citizen or updates, legislation and legal matters. I'm going to give the update since I'm already here. Unless Amy, you have anything else you want?

I just have a few miscellaneous items. You go first. Okay. Um so the citizen sponsor text amendments you heard last month. Um those will uh on May 26 uh will be the public hearing for the county commissioners. Also that will include the public hearing for the forest conservation um repeal and replacement as well. Then I wanted to run through some bills that were passed um with the general assembly. That way you have an update as to what might be coming um in front of you soon for text amendments. Um well, not as many as last year passed, so it's probably a good sign. But um the first basically was an update. Um remember Senate Bill 931 that was passed last year. This was kind of an update to that for solar. Um really it had a lot to do with energy overall. Um probably some items here to note would be that within that it requires

cover

it requires the county to um do automatic approval for rooftop solar. Um so we'll be moving forward with essentially requiring using software it will look at the proposal the application that is submitted and we'll have to generate an automatic approval. Um this is a first of its kind in the county. don't operate on an automatic approval uh basis, but um that will be something that is coming. Um the interesting part about that bill um it says that the AG may seek judicial enforcement against a county that fails to do so. So that's speaking very loudly, I think. Um but also in that bill, it talks about data centers. Um, it doesn't speak directly to the zoning and like where it can be placed, but it does talk about how they have to acquire their energy for the data centers. Also, it talks about that it has to be um, you know, state employees of people that live in the state and then also that they're um they're supposed to engage with the local community. So, it's re pretty vague um, but it does talk about data centers. So, um, and that might be something that will be forthcoming. Um, also there was a bill passed for class 8 farm breweries. Um, and this is specific to some of the uses that they're allowed to have at the farm brewery. Um, based on the license, this that license is approved at the state level, not the county. Um, essentially they can have events um, which are similar to our special events application for a conditional use. um they no longer would have to go through that conditional use process and would be able to do so just with their application to the state and the approval of their class A license.

Are they limited like on the number of them like we do? Um no it just says here there are the vents and this is what you can do. do think it um limits hours of operation, but that's it. 10 from 10 to 10, I think, is the the hours, but it's um definitely more um our special events conditional use is more narrowed. Um it indicates, you know, a size and number you can have. Um but this would probably out of all of them that are effective, this is the first one to be that'll be effective first. So July one is when that's effective. Um so we'll have an update to that probably. Do they have a minimum amount of of uh acreage or anything? No. Nope.

Because you could have a five five acre farm, right? Yeah. As long as it meets the definition of a farm for a farm. Crazy. Yeah. With events. Yeah. Wonderful. Sorry for the bad news. Um also, there's a bill that was passed um in reference to vesting at the state. Anything that has to do with a housing, whether it be a permit, a subdivision, site plan, whatever that approval may be, once that application is submitted and considered complete, that application would have vesting rights. Meaning whenever they submit it, they are applicable to those laws for five, I think it's a fiveyear span, I think. Mhm.

Um so essentially if someone submits an application today, they would be allowed to move forward with any zoning laws and regulations that are existing today. Um if something changes in that time span, they would not have to update to whatever those regulations might be within that 5year time span.

So essentially in the state of Maryland, they are a Maryland looks at vesting as at the time of approval. So this is kind of moving more towards the time in which you submit an application. Um but also in that bill it talks about um impact fees. So it says basically right now we collect impact fees at the time of application. This will allow them to collect the it will allow the county or require the county to collect impact fees at the time of certificate of occupancy. So it's pushing off that payment of the impact fee um till further down the line when someone's getting their CO. And just to um chime in on that item, a few years ago, we updated our impact fee ordinance to address um incentivizing immediate payment of impact fees um and assigned an administrative fee when the impact fees weren't paid at time of permit submitt. Because what happens when those fees aren't collected at the time of permit? Um it can get a little messy in terms of is the developer paying the impact fee or is that fee being pushed on to the buyer. Puts the county in the middle of that um transition and also it puts um our zoning administrator in the position where she is dedicating a lot of hours as a colle working as a collection agency trying to get that payment. So, it had been working out really well uh the way the commissioners did update the um impact fee ordinance, but we'll be removing that provision and allowing for actually even a later payment than had originally been in our provisions.

Should we call it something else? Because they're vested before they put a dime on the table. Sorry. Obvious.

Moving on. Uh there was a bill passed for short-term rentals. Um this will impact our short-term rental process. Right now, when someone submits an application for a short-term rental, they have a county inspection the first year. Um and then when they do their annual permit for the next five years, they can do a self-certification inspection. Now, this will require essentially someone um that's either the fire marshall or someone that the fire marshall gives the authority to to indicate that they have met um the standards for fire. Um so that's something that will come through. Also, there was that annually or Yeah. Okay.

There was two bills passed um for critical area regulations. One specific to um adjacency through growth allocation. essentially it doesn't really change the law but it just defines what adjacency means when somebody wants to apply for an application of gross allocation. Um and then the other is the uh variance standards. It requires a few more variance standards to be met in order to get a variance for critical area. So both of those come into effect in October one. Um I think the only other two one is specific to the comp plan which we won't have to address until we do the comp plan again but um this was kind of changed around some things that are required in the comp plan. Um and then the other one is specific to storm water. Obviously we don't in our office we don't review storm water but it's specific to aggra tourism. it allow what will allow a um standard plan essentially for storm water instead of requiring them to do an engineered plan. So and standards usually um less costly I would say. And

do you have a brief summary of what it's going to affect on the on the comp plan? So it moves around essentially some of the um elements um I think there was 12 elements now and basically it adds a few and kind of shifts the it brings in equity um and then it also brings in um what was the other thing resiliency in a different way. Um it it definitely pulls equity and resiliency into the comp plan more than just one chapter. It kind of spreads it out throughout the entirety. Okay. Not doing anything substantial,

right? We don't have to we won't have and there's language in there that says we don't have to address it until we update the next time. Okay. County or is that municipal as well? I believe it's count. I think it's all all comp lands. It could be. I was under the land use article. Yeah. I was really looking at the county of course the portion. But I'm sorry. Can you what what do you mean by equity? I I don't understand.

So, I'd say in the last three years, the state has had a really big push to address equity. Um whether that be environmental equity, whether that be housing, which is a big discussion obviously at the state level. Um, so they're really trying to put equity as a lens when they review anything now almost as a application that come diversity, equity, and inclusion, which we haven't gotten past that yet. Okay.

So, those are um kind of a it's an overall lens I would say that the state is looking through right now on just about everything I would say. So, that's all the good news that I have. It was a very busy session, but there really wasn't an enormous role for local governments to play in adding our voices to the chorus. Um, these were initiatives that had started in previous legislative sessions that were clear uh had been delayed and renegotiated and were clear that uh they were going to move forward. So, did you have any questions, Art, for her,

Art? No. Okay. Um, and I just have two um general updates, unless Did you have any more legislative? I do not. Okay. Um, I just had some general updates. As you know, the um uh solid waste management plan was just updated and adopted. A part of that plan includes um a re-evaluation of the region three landfill site that had already been selected in Queen Ans County. Um our turn is is next on the list in terms of the four counties, but we stayed it for a while, right?

We have uh Caroline County is going to continue their obligation for a while. they have capacity and um a deal was reached between all of the partners to um retain the Caroline County site for a while. So, we do have a little breathing room and in during that time um the commissioners asked that a task force be formed. Uh Shane Moore has been heading up that task force who's our um chief roads engineer and he's uh managed as our solid waste management plan. and he's heading up this task force with um representatives from the community and other county agencies just to evaluate the viability of the site that was selected in the 90s um and compare it to potential alternate sites. So there have been three meetings of that task force. No decisions have been made. Everything right now is simply um looking at viable sites um looking at constraints. Well, right now it's in Centerville, right?

Yes. Um off of Harper Road where the um transfer station is currently cited. So um also behind a current development, residential development. Yes. Yep. Uh the Shrewsbury Yes. subdivision. So but in fairness, uh it was there before the development.

Correct. and noted on the subdivision um plat as a future development site. That said, um the commissioners felt that that decision had been made so long ago that it was reasonable to re-evaluate. So, that's what we're doing. Um just to let you know, um did Stephanie, did you mention that we're probably going to have to revisit our solar energy provisions? I did not. Um so we as you know the renewable energy act that was update that was passed last year prompted us to update our solar regulations. Um those have been in place and as we've been implementing them it has come to light not just in our county but with the implementation of the renewable energy act that the provisions related to the community solar projects that are 2 megawatts and less aren't as clear as they need to be. The processes aren't identified as clearly. So you'll probably see that update. Um, but as a response to that legislative update statewide, and certainly it's happening here, we're really not seeing utility scale solar applications anymore. We're seeing community solar applications. Um, and we're seeing them in a manner in which they are presenting colllocated projects. So there is an application that is located within uh the town of Centerville's growth designated growth area. The renewable energy act uh had a has a provision and our code has the same provision that prohibits utility scale solar to be located within a designated tier one or tier 2 growth

area. So, we're now we've now received an application uh for a colllocated community solar project that totals almost 10 megawws, 9.98 megawws collectively located on a property within the town's tier 2 designated uh growth area. Um, I've written a letter in res to the public service commission, uh, calling out the fact that I find this project to be disingenuous and inconsistent with the intent of the state and our local provisions and have asked for a review of that project as it is colllocated and cited as essentially one solar energy generating system project and I had noted that we would review that project as one collective project and not three individual community scale solar projects. Um I'll update you uh in terms of how that how this uh review proceeds with the um public service commission and with this with this applicant. Um, I don't want to be obstructionist to utility scale solar, but those provisions were pretty hard fought as you know. And um, I just want to make sure that moving forward because this is the first one that I've seen that seems to be in direct conflict with the intent of our code. Um, I want to make sure that the public service commission is going to weigh in on how they're interpreting um the state standards and to see if they we will get that support in the local interpretation.

Okay. Anything else on staff items? We need a break after that. You need a break. Did we get that report? The monthly report. I didn't see it. Let's say I brought it and I'll store it again. So, I will get that for you. Okay. I'll do that. Good. Yes. Good. All right. Citizen sponsored text amendment. Stephanie Jones. Yep.

All right. So, um, the application before you was submitted by 3C's LLC. Um, and this is, uh, citizen sponsored text amendment 2605. Uh, what this text amendment does is to amend the required distance between the point of measurement between the entrance and exit of a gas station and then to the intersection um that that it's close to. Um right now in the code what that um requirement looks like is that distance from the edge of pavement from the entrance or exit to the edge of pavement to the intersection is required to be 100 ft. What the applicant is requesting is that um the measurement be measured from the center point of the entrance and exit to the center point of the intersection and that distance be 75 ft. So, uh, your gas stations are permitted in your suburban, commercial, Ken Island, suburban, commercial, urban, commercial, town center, and then is a conditional use in the village center. And then this, uh, standard applies no matter the classification of the road, the speed limit, whether it's, you know, a county or state road. Uh, this provision was added into the code in 1994. Um, prior to that there were other um, provisions for gas stations, but they were relative to uh, residential setbacks. Um, but they no longer uh, live in the code. Um, we did do a stack review on this citizen sponsor text amendment as we do um, all citizen sponsored. We received um, comments back from economic development commission and they provided um, opposition basically citing safety and traffic control. Um and then also we received comments from DPW um and with an unfavorable recommendation for this text amendment specifically um because 75 ft would be an absolute minimum um and appropriate under few uh circumstances and that that measurement from center point to center point really

is not um something when you look at roads how they take measurements um for roads. Um DPW is here today if you have questions specific to their um review. Um also state highway does have requirements for um this type of measurement. Um 75 feet is the minimum that they require. Um but there are um also a preferred distance um which they would also require. Um and then also what is what minimum? What was that?

What's the preferred minimum? So the preferred would be 150 um in relation to what the 7 minimum 75 is and that's on secondary collector roads 150. Um in reference to how this measurement is being taken um if you look at you know your entrance your edge of curb from your entrance and exit to your intersection in 100 ft that's specifically 100 ft but you're you're taking in the measurement from the center point. You're also including the measurement of that road itself. Um depending on the width of the road will depend on how much within that 75 ft you're eating up just for the intersection or the entrance or exit. Um, also there was public comment received um and it's an it's attached with your staff report. Then also the applicant did submit um some correspondence on April 23rd. Um if you look at the comp plan, it speaks mostly to transportation and safety. It does not address uh gas stations specifically um just because it's such a narrowed topic. Um I think that's about it. uh this standard does live in the supplemental use uh standards in the code specifically is where it does live. I think you have any other questions in relation to it.

Okay. A question um just quickly on exhibit MDOT came back and um had no objection. They said the traffic impact study would be done but state highway why would they not have an objection based on you know all the research that you all have done. Okay. So that um the exhibit I think you're referencing is one that was submitted um from the applicant um that was in reference to an application that was made at a specific property. Um correct me if I'm wrong Brennon. Does that sound right? And I'll explain that for you as well.

So that wasn't specific to this um text amendment. That was specific to a certain property. So this text amendment is specific is is applicable to the entire county within all the zoning districts in which a gas station is permitted. Okay. Thank you. Mhm. Is this the property like a month ago we it was going to looking to try to get a Dunkin Donuts there or a couple of months ago? No, this is a different property. Well, it's a text amendment so it's not specific to a I understand that it's a citizen sponsored. What was at the property prior to now? The one in which this application was

this the person the people that rese what was there? So, there was a conditional use approval for a restaurant there. Um, and I think obviously there was a restaurant there and it closed and then the conditional use approval was granted and I don't know that it was ever opened up. Maybe you can No. Is that the same property that they wanted to put in the truck stop? Yes. Okay. I believe so. I think that's what you're thinking about that. Yeah. I'm just I'm just trying to envision where this thing is. I'm struggling with that. source.

So, with it being citizen sponsored, um usually there is a reason that a citizen has submitted the text amendment. So, properties do come up in question. Um but be sure when be mindful of the fact that this is applicable to multiple other properties um not just the one that might come up in discussion, right? Any any property where a fuel pump or underground um fuel storage tanks, this measurement would take effect. Okay. You want the lawyers over here.

Good morning. Uh for the record, I'm Brendan Melany with Mallister Dar Show Walter and Walker, 100 Northwest Street East in Maryland. Uh Joe, if you wouldn't mind just introducing yourself. Uh yeah, I'm Joe Kusamano. I am uh one of the three C's that owns uh the property located at uh 1104 Price Station Road. So, this is out uh in Church Hill. Um the property uh is currently a vacant restaurant. Uh it was built in 2010. It's been vacant since 2019. Um we purchased the property about four years ago. Um we've been trying to open something that will help the community out there. Um, all my friends,

we're not we're not having a hearing on a particular property.

That's correct. And you know, some of this all citizen-led text amendments have a purpose. I'm I'm not personally aware of any citizen-led text amendment proposed that didn't have a specific problem that they were trying that the applicant was trying to solve. Um, so, you know, Joe is really explaining for the purpose of illustration how this proposed text amendment impacts property owners in a specific circumstance in the county, recognizing that, you know, should it be passed by the commissioners, it would be countywide or more more surgical than that, which is something that we're going to talk about today, is, you know, the ability to limit the the text amendment so that it doesn't apply countywide to all properties where fuel pumps are proposed. Um, the record is, I think, relatively voluminous. We submitted a supplemental letter with a number of exhibits, and I'm happy to go front to back through that, but my assumption is that the planning commission has had the ability uh and the time to review what was submitted by the applicant, and I don't need to belabor the entire point page by page. Um, this really was brought uh in front of the planning commission and the commissioners because there is a property owner who brought forth the tax amendment proposal who wants to install a convenience store with fuel pumps on their property. We submitted a the property is located in the VC zoning district. So, we submitted a conditional use application which goes in front of the board of appeals for review and approval. Um, it has to meet all of the conditional use standards that apply to uh conditional use approvals in the county for any of those uses. And we were told by staff after that submitt was made that there was this distance problem, this 100 foot standard uh found in the supplemental

standards that applies to fuel pumps. Um, and so we submitted a variance application to reduce that standard by 19 ft so that this conditional use proposal could move forward, get in front of the board of appeals for review, come back in front of this planning commission for site plan approval. How many feet do you have? I'm sorry. How many feet do you have? 81 feet at this property from curb to curb. And that's to a dirt road. So, the the uh county staff took the position that variances are not permitted to the supplemental standards and said the variance application could not move forward to the board of appeals.

Sorry, can we just get to the the uh text amendment? I just don't want them to get confused by all the the history of Well, I think it's critical like any commission to understand. I just don't want you to get confused about what's in front of you being have a struggle session, I'm sure. I still like to hear okay what they have to say.

So one thing that's critical to to understand and I'll be as brief as I can but one thing that I think is critical to understand is that the county has taken the position that an applicant has no other alternative related to this 100 ft standard a variance that decision is under appeal. Um and that's a whole separate uh tract related to the 100 foot standard. Uh this proposal gives the county flexibility to permit fuel pumps within 75 ft of intersections. There are different ways to accomplish this that still provide county oversight and review authority with um you know reasonable impact review standards. So this applicant brought forth this tax amendment because there is no alternative. the the county has said you don't have any way of getting fuel pumps on this property usually by virtue of a variance. Um so we are proposing to amend the 100t standard to 75 ft. We reviewed the um staff report that was submitted to the planning commission last month, which has since been modified. And recognizing that uh staff and DPW have concerns about this standard, we submitted an additional letter with uh some alternatives. and staff, I think, has a a long history of applicants taking up valuable staff time and resources and meetings and negotiations with the planning commission that uh were, I think, unnecessary when it came to negotiating text amendments in the past. The code and state law I've reviewed, and this is included in the supplemental letter that we submitted, does not prohibit the planning commission from considering

changes or recommendations to um a text amendment from its original proposal. In other words, what we submitted says we would like to reduce the 100 ft to 75 ft. That would apply countywide. We did submit an alternative proposal in the original submission and were directed by staff to remove that. Therefore, what is on paper today is to reduce that from 100 ft to 75 ft. The supplemental letter that we submitted provides and we ask that the planning commission consider this and their recommendations provides uh some alternatives. the uh fuel pump use, the convenience store with fuel pump use is permitted in the VC district with conditional use application and approval. Uh so one alternative would be for the planning commission to forward this to the commissioners with the recommendation that it only apply in the VC district where an applicant has to go in front of the board of appeals and demonstrate that there are not unnecessary or undue impacts at the location where the use is proposed.

But that's not in your proposal. That is not in the application. So, it's not up to us for us to just verbally have all different types of alleys to go down. It's not up to us to to decide what alley for you to go down. That's up to you. And what you submitted to us, and correct me if I'm wrong, what you submitted to us is what we are going to uh look at today. You have the legal ability to consider.

That is correct. Yes. So what is in front of you is a text amendment and you are tasked with today with reviewing that text amendment and making a recommendation. When it goes to the commissioners, the commissioners can review it and make any um amendment they would like to the text amendment. It if it is a substantive amendment, it would come back to you for consideration again. Right. You have to you you chose what you wanted to submit and that's what we will well technically the first application that was submitted lawfully submitted and is in this package that is in front of you today includes the alternative that I just described which is limiting the text amendment to the VC district. Do you have something?

Yes. Um when the application was submitted, there was what was submitted and an alternative. He was it was requested that they submit one version um because in order for you all to make a recommendation and also for the county commissioners, one recommendation is something that you need to have in front of you. You don't need to be contemplating, you know, A, B, or C options. So it wasn't that they had to pick the specific one. It was they had to choose which one to submit. Thank you. Okay.

So, I mean, we we've laid this out in the in the supplemental letter that was submitted. We believe that you have the ability and authority to make recommendations based on what is in front of you. Those recommendations can include changes to the text and ask that you do that. The applicant also submitted uh a demonstration of community support for instances where this specific use on a property that can't meet the 100 foot setback is endorsed by the neighborhood. There's an exhibit to the letter that was submitted with uh a number of neighboring property owners that uh voice support. It's also important to recognize, I think, that um and we did not my office did not go to every single gas station property in the county to verify this, but a cursory review of gas stations in the property indicates that this 100 foot standard has not been applied uniformly in the past. We submitted examples of 11 gas stations where the curbto curb measurement, which is what staff uh is applying here, is less than 100 ft. and we're not aware of uh any major traffic concerns or accidents related to these 11 different properties um which is indicated by DPW comments and staff comments in the staff reports. Uh we do believe and part of the supplemental standards uh supplemental letter that was submitted addresses comprehensive plan compliance. We do believe that this text amendment is in furtherance of the uh ideals and goals of the comprehensive plan. It would allow uh further business development. It would allow uh an amenity that most people need in the form of convenience stores and gas stations to be located uh in reasonable locations. Again, I think it is important to recognize that the applicant that brought this text amendment forward is a property owner in

the BC district where this use is permitted only with conditional use approval. Um the plan talks about economic development and development on the US301 corridor uh and responsible community design. So, um, we've codified all of that in the supplemental letter that was submitted and ask that the planning commission recognize, uh, that this is a request to solve a problem that, uh, property owner in the county is facing today and would allow them to move forward in the development review process. Okay, we have any questions?

Yes. So yeah, I got lost in the weeds. I tried I am trying to understand how this is not suitable for a variance. Um, so that is a conversation we can have offline because I don't think it's relevant to this particular text amendment application. Well, I think it might be because it might affect how I vote on this text amendment, but you know, I'm still it looks like a prime case for a variance to me. And yet they're told by staff they can't submit it, but we don't get a reason why. I think the reason why is relevant. Okay, I'm not an attorney, just old farm boy. I get it, but it's relevant to me.

That's fine. It has nothing to do with uh being a farm boy or not. Um, within the county code, there are specific uses that have supplemental standards and this fueling pump is one of those. Um, there are other standards, solar is one, cannabis is others that have specific criteria that has to be met in order to have that supplemental use. Um, we have determined that the 100 foot setback is a supplemental condition particularly to have a fueling pump and there is no ability the way the code is written to get a variance from a supplemental use standard because it's not a traditional setback standard. Um, you think about variances, you think about traditional setbacks like a house has to be so many feet from a side property line. the side property line and that setback is your area use and bulk standards as defined by your code. This 100 foot setback, not only on this property does the building have to meet your traditional bulk standards, which is the area setback density, it also has to meet secondary supplemental use standards. And so we have taken the position that under the code the way it is drafted, it does not allow a variance to this particular supplemental use standard.

Would you like to reply? I'm sure he would.

I think staff's wrong. I think council's wrong. Um I think that under Maryland law, and we've articulated this through that appeal process, which unfortunately we're in um for everybody's sake, um the county is not prohibited from recognizing that supplemental standards can um are subject to variance approval. That goes in front of the board of appeals. It has to meet the strict variance criteria. There's a hearing, a public hearing. Um there is nothing prohibiting in in our opinion the county from processing that variance application to allow a reduction. We can get into the the legal case law arguments but at the end of the day it is it is a setback standard that is in the code and it is not specifically in the language of the code

excluded from the variance process. So our position is because it is not ex specifically excluded and we believe Maryland law supports this an applicant has the ability to apply for a variance to that standard which we have done but unfortunately that's not being processed. Were you turned down by the board of appeals or by the We never made it to the board of appeals. That's what we're asking to do is go in front of the board of appeals with that variance and conditional use application. And this argument is being heard by the board of appeals right now as to their ability to apply from a variance from that supplemental use standard. The board of appeals has not yet ruled on that.

We shouldn't wait for that. I know you guys are in a hurry, but in four years, patience is a virtue. We know that that's not I don't think you should wait for that because if if you are waiting for that then that means that you're only considering this text amendment to give relief to this specific property and not looking at the county as a whole and the comprehensive plan as a whole. Well, but you know you have this this regulation, whatever you want to call it, but you're not applying it everywhere. They they've shown I think they've applied it everywhere since it was put into effect. Okay. I don't think anything has passed.

So, how many accidents have happened at rest at at gas stations and restaurants? Because there was a restaurant here before now with I Well, apparently didn't have enough traffic, I guess. Uh but uh how many accidents happened? How is how is this how is this how is this number determined to be the number? Okay. at the property that you brought up about the Dunkin Donuts. The Dunkin Donuts. Yeah. Lots of accidents happen there. Yeah.

A lot. And across from on Route 8 across from where um who wants to put Royal Farm wants to put in. Lots of accidents happen there. I mean, there's hardly ever a week that goes by that there's not an accident on that property. So, what you're saying, the current standards aren't working. Well, I know some of these were put in before the current standards and they put the current I'd like to hear from DPW. I also want to clarify as they come up that that this is specific for fuel pumps. So, it is not um a a 100 foot measurement for every single use at this property. Restaurants are separate. This is specific to fuel pumps.

Yes, ma'am. Amy, I'll put it in the It's not just specific to me.

Thank you. So, I I do want to make one point of clarification as relates the county's variance standards and how they differ from the annotated code. So, um Mr. Melanie is correct. The annotated code gives a local jurisdiction uh a wide variance authority. uh the Queen's County code does specify the applicability of variance standards to the bulk standards. So the way that our provisions have been written and implemented are specific to allowing variances to move forward when they meet the bulk standard test. But any project whether it's this example or an example of say um a cannabis application um the way the law was written and I think um hearing from DPW about this particular standard will be relevant but more recently with cannabis legislation when our county commissioners wanted to take um a very proactive approach to how those um facilities were cited. those supplemental standards are a part of allowing the use. So that is different from looking at a variancable bulk standard. Um when there are supplemental standards attached to a use, that use isn't permitted unless those initial standards and those thresholds are met. So staff can't put an application forward if the minimum standards aren't met for that application to be processed. So I just really wanted to make that point of

clarification that uh Brand uh Brendan is correct and Lindsay is correct. uh there is broader authority for variances at the state level but we happen to be um more targeted in our variance standards in this county.

I think another um simple example related to cannabis is a cannabis processing facility and having a thousand foot setback from a daycare facility and that is a supplemental use standard. So it would be applicable to applying for a variance from that thousand foot setback from a daycare facility. So it includes your poultry house setback requirement of 300 ft. We have a 600 foot um residential setback for anhydroammonia storage. So there's all those that live in the supplemental standards that are all a distance um that have to be required in order for that use to be permitted. So just to focus that conversation um that's why this matter is important that is sitting before the board of appeals um should there be a decision by the board of appeals um where it is found that our code does allow for variance from supplemental standards then that would apply to multiple uses, the uses that uh Stephanie's just mentioned. So, we are staff is upholding the consistency of the application of the standards and that's why this text amendment is before you. Um, which is the correct path is if there's a disagreement in terms of the applicability of a law, there's this is a path to change the law. So, um, going back to what you just said. So, we're on two levels here. The text amendment before us is going to be countywide where we're where appropriate on that level. And on the level with regard to variances, it's not going to apply just to this supplemental use, but to all supplemental uses.

Correct.

Within the code. Okay. And just to clarify, unfortunately, this use is getting caught up with all the all of that stuff, you know, chicken houses and marijuana facilities, etc. And and I understand the concerns there. Two things. One, even if the board of appeals finds or the circuit court after that finds that the county is wrong, an applicant for any of those uses still has to get the variance. It still has to go in front of the board of appeals, still has to go through the process. It isn't chicken houses and marijuana facilities can be located anywhere in the county. That that isn't what the outcome there would be. Um, also, you know, to note that this application was brought forward because if this is a path to resolving this issue, then the appeal is unnecessary and and would be dropped. I mean, that's just the the

So, let me ask the question. If we if we say we're going to stay with the county standards, their appeal can still go on, right? Correct. And it could be changed for their property. Okay. It would have to be changed in the county law. It it the variance if the county is different from what she's saying.

How could it be changed for this? So I if the board of appeals determines that the county that that the applicant does have the authority to seek a variance from this particular standard, they would then go forward with a variance application and they could get a variance from this 100 foot setback. All right, let's hear from DPW.

Hi. Hi. So what's the question? Okay, introduce yourself. We went go ahead Shane Moore, chief roads engineer. Hi. And you had indicated when you guys reviewed this that you were against it because of safety reasons. And I understand that every department that reviewed it has said no. So why did you say no?

The main purpose of the uh the unfairable recommendation was their proposal and how they measured um distance from the intersection. So they use the language of from the center of the intersection um which negates the width of the intersection. So you can you can shorten that distance between intersections um even though you may say 75 ft that 75 ft may be very close in the sense that those intersections would be very wide and you're measuring from a center of a wide intersection versus the center of a narrow intersection. So um per state highways requirements you need to measure from the return radius which is the um that basically where the curve comes around to the tangent and that should be where the distance is. So that was the main issue.

So then their distance is even less than what they think it is. Yes.

No, I'm sorry if I could interject. The curb to curb measurement for this property is 81 ft. The uh specification about a proposal for how the measurement is made was made at the behest of the county. we weren't going to include it in the original application. We do agree that the county should have a standard in the code of how this is applied uniformly. We're not wed to the centerline to center line measurement and frankly I agree with DPW's position which is the width of the drive lanes then determines your center line to center line and and I think that that's a reasonable statement from DPW. We don't have a strong preference. the center line to center line method solves this applicant's problem if it were adopted but we don't have a strong preference in how that measurement is applied frankly so no issue with that comment from DPW

okay so that was the that was the main unfavorable recommendation okay with that right any other questions Mr. Sylvester, you're sitting there. I can see those wheels turning. Well, I don't know if it's an appropriate question to ask, but okay, you brought it up. I'll ask. So, the the board of appeals process, how long will that take? Uh, that appeal is in front of the board for its next hearing next week, I believe,

Wednesday. And from there, if the board of appeals agrees with staff's position, then that appeal goes to the circuit court should this applicant continue to to move the appeal forward. If the board of appeals agrees with the applicant and says that this standard is subject to variance approval, then the variance and the conditional use could move to into that process with the board, which takes a couple of months to to get through. Okay. Yes, sir. Have any questions? Art,

no. But I'm conoring Bill's position. I mean, you know, this seems like a one-off that we're trying to get to. Um and and you know uh rather than changing all of the county's guidelines uh you know just uh this specific property it obviously shouldn't should be solved you know by Amy and her team I think and DPW it it doesn't you know why is it coming you know before us you know the way it's for the whole text amendment to apply to all our properties in the county. I, you know, I always, you know, thought guarding against that unintended consequences of, you know, making a text amendment, but this is a specific situation. Does that really belong to us at this stage or uh back to your point, Sharon, you do we let the appeals process uh work its way through?

Okay. What about what about this end of the table? I kind of question whether it makes sense to do this as I see it as a oneoff. Um that's really I don't think good management and if there's a board of appeals process that allows this applicant to go forward then perhaps we should allow that to happen. But I don't really support changing the county code for one one instance and ones that follow. Um, in my mind too, uh, this is a safety issue and to me safety pretty much trumps every other consideration. U, so I'm I'm disqueded by it. Thank you,

Tom. You have any questions, Teddy? Yeah, I think I guess uh only comment I would make is is the curb to curb measurement of 81 ft. It is there a curb at the that's a gravel road, isn't it? Yeah, I think it's sand. Um it's a it's a local road with a a minor collector intersection and um so it's just a point. There's no concrete curve there that's measured to. Once again, you're looking at the whole county though.

I'd like first. Yeah. I'd like to make a comment. Okay.

All right. I was actually going to bring this up today because we're hearing these things. We had text amendments last month and uh if I'm not incorrect uh text amendments are allowed like the first 10 days or two weeks of February like 4% of the year gets allotted to text amendments coming into the planning commission. Now, I don't know how many meetings we actually missed or cancelled last year because we didn't have enough work, right? And I find I don't know if it was an argument that was made, but I'm going frame it as an argument that was made u uh by the staff that the idea behind stuffing all the citizen sponsored text amendments into that merit time frame uh allowed them to concentrate on getting through that whatever it is, you know, because they're worried about quantity and everything else. And I've always maintained I don't think that's right. I think if a citizen has an issue, he ought to be able to apply for a text amendment and with a reason within a reasonable amount of time. It doesn't mean you've got to do it within a week, whatever. You set the time, 90 days, 60 days, something like that. Um, we hear that text amendment. Now, here's a perfect example. I mean, I think where that you got a you got a a citizen who wants to do a project and a pro on a property that meets the zoning requirements, but there is a technical issue that is preventing them from going forward and improving the property. Whether you want to argue about the distance of gas pumps, notwithstanding the argument about distance gas pumps to the intersections, they can't get it done. And if they and if we don't do this now and they fail at the board of

appeals, right, they have to wait another full year. Yeah, they do. You got to wait a full year, ma'am. Okay. Well, you you'll have your saying. My understanding is you got 10 days in February to to provide your citizen sponsor text. That's what I'm referring to. If they fail here, they won't be back till next February. Meanwhile, they're they're they've got that interest expense to make, that mortgage payment to make, and they can't go forward. So, you know, if I feel like if we could do it any time, uh we're not that busy. Um they would be able to come back in a reasonable amount of time and make the same argument. And they probably wouldn't be here today if they could do that. They'd let the the appeals process play out. That would be I'm not an attorney, but that would certainly be my recommendation to go that route first because this is tougher. This one's tougher. Changing changing all the rules for every property, which I'm not making against, but I'm just saying it's tougher. That's it.

Any comment? Well, in in response to Bill's comments, right, any Yes, you're correct that citizen sponsored text amendments only have that window. However, any one of us or any one of the county commissioners at any time during the year can at the request of a citizen enter a text amendment. Okay. So, there's another avenue. So, it's it's not so binary as you comment. There are other options. I wasn't aware of that, but okay. Yeah, I still theory they could come ask you know someone since you're leaning in slightly. They could in theory come to you in four more months with a similar text if you were amanable to putting it forth on their behalf. just that you know they know who I am now.

Yes. And I do want to make a reminder just before um you finish your deliberations to ask for public comment. Thank you for doing that. Any public comment? Well, first is there any more questions from up here or comments? No. Okay. Not public comment. Do we have anything? No. Okay, there being none, let's go for a vote. All in favor? We need a motion first. Oh, yep. Can I get a motion?

I'll make it a motion. Okay. I'm sorry. Do you want to do it? No. No. Go ahead. This is harder. So, you're smarter than me. And I I do just want to um make sure that within your motion, whether in favor or against making a recommendation, that there's some particular reasons as to why you're finding it appropriate or inappropriate. Just so that the commissioners understand that vote. Okay. All right. Tom, do you want to you like me to go?

Yeah, happy to. Having resolved the testimony presented and having reviewed the findings outlined in the staff report, be it hereby resolve that the planning commission makes an unfavorable recommendation to the board of county commissioners regarding citizen sponsored text amendment 2605 to amend chapter 188 Bravo. Additional uses and regulations as follows. Point of measurement from which the entrance and exit of a property that contains fuel pumps, underground fuel storage, tanks, and islands, including canopies, to be from the center point of the entrance/exit at the property line to the center point of the applicable intersection and from the required distance of 100 to 75. uh citing comments in the staff report that the supplemental standard is required to be applied to all zoning districts no matter the classification of road, county, state or the speed in which traffic is traveled. Um that other supplemental uses in the code require specific distances based on the prescribed use of safety for potential nuisances including cannabis solar generating stations, poultry houses, manure storage buildings, and hydrous ammonia storage. and that uh in no small part the economic uh development commission has suggested an opposition as a as their position and even more strongly the county department of public works has provided an unfavorable recommendation based on their safety review of uh the application.

I get a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? I you're you're opposed art. Yeah, I am. Again, I just uh Yeah. Okay. But I have it. Sorry. What are I think you misunderstood. Yes. Did you Okay. We voted not not to allow it happen. And I I concurred with the opposition that uh you know there there had to be a better solution.

We're not changing. Right. Okay. So is his vote in favor of the opposition? Is that what So you're voting you're voting in favor of making an unfavorable recommendation. Correct. Yeah. So I Okay. Five to two. Yes. Five to one. Five to one. Five to one. Yep. Okay. The next one. Six to one. Oh, they have me muted. I I thought he was agreeing with me. Yeah, I did, too. Are you agreeing with me? Are you agreeing with the guys? These guys are wrong. I'm agreeing with you, Bill. Thank you. Oh, okay. I'm supposed to be They've got me muted. Oh, well, we hear you.

Okay, we can hear you. Fine, Art. Okay, we're speaking double negatives periodically here. That's the problem, I think. So, five un unfavorable, two favorable in simplest terms. Okay, I'm I'm okay. Can I just ask? Yep. So the motion was for an unfavorable recommendation to the commissioner's art and we're not going to change it for you are in favor of the unfavorable or you are opposing that unfavorable as bill I'm opposing it. I'm opposing it. Okay. Okay. He and I think there should be a favorable recommendation commissioners regarding farmer said no. That's right.

It's the double negative that's throwing us. Yeah. Okay. All right, moving on. County Ordinance 2606.

I'm recruit recusing myself. And we're Yes. And he's going to recuse himself. You mind if I sit up here? I've got the next one, too. Oh, do you? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. having a good week. What's that? I said you're having a really good week. Let me tell you here about the next one. It's only Thursday. You ready? Then ready. Mhm.

All right. So, the application before you um was submitted by DeepW LLC and Robert A. Shabber. Um this is citizen sponsored text amendment 2606. Um what this amendment would do would increase the maximum imperous surface ratio for commercial industrial uses in the suburban commercial district that were operating prior to to December 31st, 2025 from 45% to 80%. Um so what the impervious surface ratio is based on the percentage of the base site area um in reference to the impervious surface that is on the site. Uh this includes everything obviously your buildings, your sidewalks, your driveways, but also includes uh your stored lumber area, outdoor storage and displays and junkyards as well. Uh the SC district uh is to provide primarily for a variety of commercial uses and light industrial uses in predominantly rural or suburban areas not served by public sewer. Um and essentially it is as well to mitigate commercial use impacts and preserve surrounding rural or suburban character. Um, essentially with the landscape standards, uh, your SC district is located outside of the growth area. And then looking at I had GIS take a look at the properties um, of those that would be applicable to this scenario. And granted, this is from using data from 2016 because that's the most up-to-date impervious surface data we have. Um there was an average coverage of 34.4% um in relation to that scenario. Um in relation to impervious commercial in relation to this um the commercial or industrial uses existing as of December 31st 2025 they would be permitted to have the impervious surface ratio of 80%. If it was a site plan that was

essentially to walk in the door as of today, um they would be held um to the 45%. So it have would have to be existing already as of December 31st, 2025. Um also they are all pretty much on private water and sewer. So all those sites um are not on public facilities. Um there is an avenue existing in the code for this that would be the board of appeals can grant a variance to increase impervious surfaces on a site. Um there is also the the TDR um which is mentioned in the code but it's specific to growth areas and I think that's just something the way the code was it it doesn't apply probably because this isn't in the growth area but I think it was just the way it was mentioned in the code. Um so for any um oh I think I already mentioned that when you're looking at non-conforming uses um there are what would be existing legally non-conforming properties already over that limit of 45%. So per say they had you know they already had 60% impervious surface there is legal documentation of it permits um you can clearly see that it's been there for a very long time that is documenting what would already be legally non-conforming those properties um could not increase that legal non-conformity but they would be permitted to stay at that 65% already. So, what this does, this text amendment really um would take properties that do not meet that legal non-conformity test and allow them to go over um what would be the 45% up to 80%. Um also basically um it could make this unrealistic for properties allowing 80%. Um 80% is consistent with our urban commercial town center and our zoning districts that are in the growth area. Um, if you're looking what's required, you know, when a site plan comes in, you're looking at forest conservation.

This is on private water and sewer. So, you're looking at both of those to be addressed on the site. You're looking at storm water um required parking. So, there are um requirements that could be fighting against each other um on some of these properties when they come in if it would to be um approved. This limitation um would only be to allow um once you meet your floor area ratio, you cannot go above it. This is strictly for impervious surfaces. So if you're already at your limit for imperous surfaces, which in the SC district, it's 17% for offices, 20% for commercial, and 17 for all other uses. Once you reach that percentage, any other increase in imperous surface essentially would have to be nonfloor area. So you're looking at storage yards, which is not floor area. you're looking at um you know areas in which you parking um it's not considered floor area but it's considered impervious as well. Um you're looking at the environmental uh standpoint of it. You know obviously there'd be more runoff if you're allowing more imperous surface and the treatment of it would be required um through storm water standards. Uh some other consistencies at least within the code, the suburban industrial allows for 65% impervious. Um that is probably looking at all districts that's probably the most similar district. Um but it does not require it to be um some of those are served by sewer. So there is that option. Also, um the SC district, which is what we're talking about, that is it is consistent with the Kent Island suburban commercial in which years ago, um the Kent Island suburban commercial district was essentially extracted from the suburban commercial. So, they could apply what would be uh design standards essentially in the growth area. But those two districts,

the Kent Island suburban commercial and the suburban commercial, those um pretty much still are very similar to each other and as how much impervious they allow and how much floor area they allow. So they might mimic each other. It's just the location of them. Um, we did receive comment um from DPW um citing unrealist could be unrealistic expectations obviously storm water runoff um that would need to be treated um there would be more obviously um and then it would be limiting green space on site only because when you increase the impervious you decrease um also one thing to mention the landscape standards as I mentioned that's in the purpose statement of the SC district um they are the landscape buffering yard requirements are pretty high in relation to requirements because most of the SC district is commercial and industrial uses but it's adjacent to residential uses. So that landscape barrier is utilized um for protection of those surrounding residential neighborhoods. Um and also econom economic development commission had no position on this amendment. Um on March 30th, the applicant submitted an addendum which is attached. And then on May 5th, uh the applicant also submitted correspondence which is attached and that's new from the previous um April meeting. The comp plan um talks about the reduction of imperous surfaces, limiting impervious imperous surfaces and then um obviously growth being um pushed towards our growth areas. Um and I think um staff is giving um an unfavorable uh recommendation for this text amendment.

Any questions? Uh Stephanie, I was particularly interested in the comment that said um if you allow this standard, it makes unworkable some of the other standards in the code. Uh essentially that to me brings it to an all stop pretty quick.

Yeah. So really it'd be based on obviously the characteristics of a particular site um the size of it um how much storm water they have to treat but there are implications where you're going to be pushing you know a lot of standards against each other potentially because of allowing 80% imperous surface. um that doesn't leave much room for your sewer, your landscaping um or your septic, sorry, your landscaping um your well um so there are things in forest conservation which would have to be addressed or critical area um if it is in the critical area. Um so there are things that would be competing against each other. Um and it might be false adver in the code. But it might be false advertisement to somebody that's wanting to develop the site essentially if since it's not in the growth area or served by sewer.

Good. Thank you. Any other comment from the commissioners? Yes, of course. So, what's the difference between suburban commercial and suburban industrial? Why have a double standard there? It seemed to me the suburban industrial has a higher degree higher chance of problems, which I'm not even gonna argue. We can argue that one too quite frankly. One I well in reference to the two districts. Um the suburban commercial is definitely more towards your commercial uses, not your industrial uses. Um also

which would to me indicate a higher need for impervious service. being commercial over industrial. Yes. Um let me you should at least have them to the same standard.

Let let me read to you the suburban industrial purpose just so you have an idea as to what is trying to be met by I read to you the suburban commercial. This will be the um suburban industrial to provide for primarily for development of office regional commercial warehouse light industrial uses that are compatible with surrounding development. New development within the SI district should provide adequate screening with buffering to minimize adverse effects and surrounding properties. So they both speak to, you know, not putting adverse effects on their surrounding properties certainly um by requiring the suburban industrial does allow for higher floor area ratios as opposed to the suburban commercial district. Um, so essentially you're allowing for someone to create a larger building and it does allow more impervious

question that actually because you bring that up. I go what's the difference in imperous surface between a building and a national hall parking lot? The what it may look like from the outside your two has nothing to do with impervious services to correct me if I'm wrong is and I'm not trying to be argumentative. No, you're fine.

Impervious service has more to do with the environment than anything else. Correct. Or am I wrong in in jumping to that conclusion? No, I think the intent of it in the code is an environmental reasoning. Prior to back in the code before it was a impervious surface standard, it was a green. I'm going to put it wrong, but essentially there was a area required for the property to be in some type of vegetation, not impervious. And then at some point in time, the code switched and said, well, here this is the limit on impervious. you no longer have a requirement to meet for. But at least from my perspective, it seems these numbers

I'm certainly aren't to say they're without thought. It would be not fair, but they certainly seem to be arbitrary. Uh and um well, because you can't I'm sorry you I don't think you can explain to me to my satisfaction why industrial has less smaller impervious surface requirement than a commercial property. other way the commercial housing. Yeah, you're right. Right. Right. That's so I don't think it's um arbitrary because these standards have have lived in the code for a long time. And if you look at like every other government program, right, but let let me finish. Okay. I'm sorry. You're right. I'm sorry.

There are um the way the impervious surface standards are designed, your more rural um zoning like your A and your countryside has a less of impervious surface, you know, standard. very minimal, but once you get to your urban commercial and your town center where your growth area is, you're looking at, you know, 80%. So there's between those two, as your uses and your um districts get more intense, that impervious surface um increases throughout the districts. So there is a um if you were to line up all the districts and all the impervious services looking at the purpose of the district and then what is allowed there there would be correlation between the two you know allowing more commercial and allowing more industrial there will be more of a um linear it's kind of it's very linear I would say

okay any other comments from Commissioners. Nope. Art. Nope. Okay. So, you want to Yes, ma'am. I'll plead my case. The dog and punish one.

Oh, don't call with that. Um, so Brendan Melany with Mallister Detar Show Walter Turn Walker 100 Northwest Street East in Maryland. Um, I am here on behalf of Chesapeake Boat Lift Service and Chesapeake Family Flooring. They're the two property owners in the SE district that uh brought forth this text amendment. This discussion is luckily going to be much less uh property specific. And what I hope to demonstrate to you is that this text amendment as proposed uh is meant to solve a problem that the county has. My my staff did go property by property over 200 plus SCZoned uh parcels and our conclusion is that there are 39 properties that have gravel, asphalt, and building coverage over the currently applied 45% threshold. And the reason that I state it that way is because the county's current policy and position is that any areas, even if they are grass, that are used by a a property owner for their business are lock coverage and count towards that 45%. So if somebody owns a parcel and has boat storage and they park boats with trailers on part of it on top of grass, the county treats that as lot coverage. My analysis of the 39 of 202 properties that are zoned SC only considers what has historically in my professional experience been considered lock coverage which is gravel, asphalt or buildings. So, in fact, the numbers are higher than what I'm going to to give you and what's in the materials that we submitted when you consider that the county is looking at turf that is utilized by property

owners and businesses and counting that towards the lot coverage calculation. Um, so this is a discussion about suburban commercial zone properties. Those properties make up 0.41% 41% of the parcels in the county. 0.41 is all we're talking about today. And the request is to increase the 45% coverage to 80%. 80% is consistent, which we've heard from staff with other um block coverages permitted in other zoning districts. If if the planning commission and the commissioners find 65% to be more reasonable, it does not solve the same number of issues. But to give you uh perspective on that, if the number were to go from 45% to 65% based on our my office's research, there would be only 12 of the 39 properties over the 65% threshold. So it solves the majority of the issues that these property owners are dealing with. It does uh increase the lot coverage that is permitted in the zoning district. So it is there there's no question about that. The proposal is to give these property owners and businesses more flexibility to move into properties and operate their businesses and to grow existing businesses that are in the SC zoning district. That is without question the intention. Um it would result in more lot coverage. There's no question about that. We are propos proposing more lot coverage in support of these businesses and these property owners. Um I think it's also important to recognize that our finding is that the average property size in this zoning district is 1.85 acres and that at 45% the lot coverage is 36,360 square feet. Again, including turf that's utilized by businesses, including

gravel, including building area, and including asphalt. So the the nature of the SC zoning district today is that about 20% of all the properties in the SC zoning district, not even considering the turf areas, 20% are non-compliant. So this is this is a problem that is impacting real businesses that cannot grow and and operate their businesses in this zoning district. and increasing the lot coverage would make the majority of those uh properties compliant and allow them to operate. This doesn't alleviate the need for all of these businesses, any new businesses should they propose expansion to go through conditional use approval if the use is is uh permitted by conditional use. Site plan approval, it has to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. There was discussion about if this goes to 80% it's going to conflict with forest conservation and storm water and erosion sediment control and landscaping requirements. This does not even if it went to 80%. All of those are codified regulations that apply to the development. A property owner can't say well I get to go to 80% therefore I don't have to comply with forest conservation. All of those legal requirements still have to be satisfied. And that dynamic is inherent in any development in any zoning district. A property owner has to consider what their parcel is, how much open space they need. They have to treat storm water. It goes through the permitting process. It goes through the site plan process. We're not trying to skirt any of that and those regulations. We're trying to give property owners more flexibility to increase their lot coverage. The proposal is to 80%. Again, if the planning commission and eventually the commissioners look at this and say, "We believe that 65% is more consistent with the SI zoning district," which it is and that that's more appropriate. It solves a lot of the problems that these businesses and

property owners are facing and gives some needed flexibility to increase the lot coverage on site. Uh I again I submitted a supplemental letter that addresses um all of this and proposes or recognizes that 65% is being more consistent with the SI zoning district which is a comparable zoning district in the county and does allow 65% lot coverage and 80% in growth areas. Staff has correctly recognized that SC properties are not within growth areas generally. Um so the letter asks the planning commission if 80% is not palatable to look at 65% standard uh in its recommendation to the commissioners and we'll also uh bring that up in front of the commission. Um we do believe that this proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Again this is laid out in my letter but um the 12 visions. Vision 4 calls for community design that is compact and mixed use. Um the plan throughout recognizes the need for economic development and attracting and retaining businesses uh and directing housing and business growth to existing communities. The SC zoning district is primarily located in and around uh existing communities and uh therefore we believe that the application is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Ask that you look at this with reason and recognize that it is a problem in the county that we're just trying to deal with to give existing and new businesses uh some flexibility. I would also like to recognize that the date of um December 31st, 2025 was inserted to limit the breadth of what this would allow so that the planning commission

and commissioners were not uncomfortable with well what comes next. We don't know what what uses may be proposed or what's going to happen. that that was intended just to cover existing businesses and lot coverage situations on properties that existed as of the end of last year. Recognizing that this may end up at 65% and that may be more reasonable, what what we would uh ask the county to consider is getting rid of that date, which I think aliv alleviates staff concerns about nonconforming situations being endorsed and made lawful if that date were to go away. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. Um, but ask that you look at this favorably and we move to the commissioners.

Any questions? I have a general question. Um, with regard to text amendments across the board is so we've had two before us today where there's been some addendum amendment changes. Maybe you can consider this. Is there any in the text amendment process? Does the process speak to that? Like you you've crafted this text amendment and it's going to go before the planning commission as is, if you will,

to be considered. I'm not saying don't allow someone to make adjustments, amendments or or make recommendations. Correct. Right. Yeah. So the the process is that um an applicant citizens bond text amendment comes in front of you based on the that text for a favorable or unfavorable recommendation which then goes to the commissioners. Um certainly if you wanted to consider other language or what may be more consistent in your recommendation, you could do so. But what's in front of you is that particular text amendment. When it goes to the commissioners, the commissioners have the ability to view that text amendment or amend that text amendment if it is a substantive text amendment, which I would argue you would probably agree that 80% to 65% could be and should be would come back to you for another recommendation and view and then back to the commissioners.

Would you agree that if their recommendation endorses going from 80% to 65% that it does not have to come back to the planning commission? I think that has to be a commissioner discussion as to whether there needs to be another public hearing on it. Um, and whether they determine that that would be substantive or not. It would probably a waste of time if your recommendation was going to include that um finding of a recommendation. I concur with council.

So, let me ask a question. Does that mean that they still if they if we go with 65 or 80%. Does that mean they still have to handle the requirements for their well for their for their septic system for they have to have Yes. everything in order to do those things? Yes. Yeah. Okay.

Can I make a clarification? So Brendan was speaking to lot coverage. I don't want you So lot coverage is critical area. impervious surface is outside of the critical area. So I don't want you cross reference like looking at those two terms the same because they're for two separate things. One's the zoning code, one's critical area. So I think you were meaning to say impervious surface, right? Not lot. That's a defined term impervious. I just wanted to make sure because I know as far as the definitions that I that I explained and how it's treated from our perspective changes. If they have an office building and they and it's on a well and it's on septic, it still has to meet all their requirements. Yes. Yes. They would still have to meet any of the the whole place,

right? Okay. And just for my edification, just clarification in areas that aren't suburban in regular industrial commercial places, what is the impervious surface? Okay. So, if you're looking in the growth area, which I think is what you mean 80%. 80%. Yep.

Okay. Madam Chair, um if if the conflicting laws about wells and septic and all that limit whether you can go to 80%. Aren't we in fact solving the problem that way saying okay 80% fine but you still have to comply with all this other stuff therefore you can only use 65%. Is that 40 or 35 or whatever it is, whatever the other stuff indicates is what is that appropriate scenario,

they would still have to to meet all the other standards and applicable, you know, regulations. But by putting 80% in the code, if someone was to look at a property, look at what the limit is, and not contemplate everything else at the time when they're contemplating on purchasing a property, they say, "Oh, 80%. That's a lot." You mean kind of like when somebody buys a a commercial property thinking they can put up a gas station and and come find out they're they're styied by a rule that they're that they're missing by about 15 feet 20 feet. Okay. I I that was that's a separate I did not do that

like like like maybe not unlike uh people that buy residential lots in a community that uh you know on the plat it's maybe annotated there is going to be a dump behind them but it's never told to them right and it's never conveyed to them that that and that it was this planning commission maybe not this particular one but it the planning commission and the county commissioners that approved that residential property there or that residential development there when maybe they shouldn't have. All right, but it was on their plat.

Or maybe it might be that there is a house or two within a th00and ft of an anhydramonia facility right outside this town, but we we changed the regulations to protect it protect those people. I was on that. And I can't remember all the details but you know most of the pollution if you ask me is coming from the growth areas not the suburban areas not the commercial not suburban commercial areas not the rural areas it's coming from there and if they have an 80% u r

we should too we can't we can't prognosticate success small business and we should allow them to do whatever they can to grow their businesses freely without damage in this county. So relaxing regulations I'm all for particularly when it doesn't when you've already got that number elsewhere. You know that's a one thing in your um staff report there is a suburban commercial map if you're curious where exactly they are. um locate. I just wanted to point that out. Very tiny areas.

My perspective is that the burden falls on the purchaser of the property to do the due diligence and study period prior to making a purchase to to take a look at. My husband and I spent quite a long time looking at before we purchased our home 35 years ago to see what was coming up, what is down the line, what we could and could not predict. So, this is what this is what the where I'm coming from approaching these types of um issues is there's always a study period incorporated into a sales contract. And that's that's how I'm approaching this issue. But certainly to go forward with your text amendment would bring uh everyone into compliance. We did it once with RV homes. I think

I don't think you can bring everybody into compliance. You got one. Maybe maybe you bring maybe you bring some 80. Yeah. You know, some are what? Some of them are over 80%. Okay. Well, those guys got an issue.

Well, some of them may be legally non-conforming. they already have the the technical right to stay at that whatever that number may be. You also have to remember there is a variance process in the code that does allow um this is a bulk standard that can be go through a variance process. So that that process process does exist for this um imperous surface standard. And I did find run across a project where one was granted um for a gas station um in Queen Ant. So I saw it on the the site plan a few days ago. So we've had have seen them before in the county that request.

All right. You have any questions? No. No. All right. No further questions from the commissioners. I will ask for public comment.

Okay. So, that being said, can I get a recommendation? Um, Madam Chair, um, having considered the testimony presented and having reviewed the findings outlined in the staff report, be it hereby resolve that the planning commission makes an unfavorable recommendation to the board of county commissioners regarding citizen sponsored text amendment 26-06 to amend chapter 181-21-E2A1 by increasing the maximum impervious surface ratio for commercial and industrial uses in the suburban commercial district that were operating prior to December 31, 2025 from 45% to 80%. I'd like also to incorporate the findings from the staff report into my motion.

Second. All in favor? I I I did you say I art? I did. I said I Okay. So, it's four. I guess you're a no. I'm a No. Okay. Yeah.

Yeah. I'd like just to add with that no that anybody who does this still has to comply with all the other regulations in the county prior to that, with regard to screening, with regard to septic, with regard to, you know, whatever. Lord got books full of regulations. They've got to reply comply with all that. All this allows people to do is use their property as they see fit to the maximum extent possible. And when you're a small business person, you're trying to grow your business. You cannot foresee sometimes how successful you might be. And good lord, we penalize somebody who's young, smart, hardworking, and successful. So, no, make it 80% make it the same number as the rest of the developed county. You know, keep your industrial the same if you want. We're not discussing that, but uh which has a higher standard or excuse me, what 45%. Yeah. So, it's I guess a lower standard

um than suburban commercial, which is silly. It's as Oh, it's backwards. Oh, the vote vote went four to three. Is that what that? No. Four to one. Four. Five to one. Five to one. Thank you all for your time. I appreciate it. Any public comment? Nothing. That being the case, I will

Before you, can you remind everybody that next month's meeting will be back in this room for the June 11th? You better send me a text. I will. We were all worried about you. Yeah, you should have been. I drove up to the other places. Pardon me? I drove up to the other place and I'm walking up. I go to walk before I get to the building. I'm reading. Oh, damn. I'm supposed to be at the Liberty building. All right. Can I get a um motion to adjurnn? Second. Second.