Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'm going to order the Queen Anne's County Planning Commission for Thursday, June 11, 2026, and we'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Public comment? There being none, do you have anything?

Okay.

Updates, legislation and legal matters. Amy and Stephanie?

Good morning. Good morning. So I have quite a few updates for you regarding text amendments that you've seen. Stephanie Jones, Long Range Principal Planner, sorry. Text amendments that you've seen in the last two months, so it might take a bit, but we'll get through it. The commissioners this past Tuesday did have many of those on there for actions. So 2604, which was to add boat sales and repair to marinas to the list of uses that could occupy more than 65,000 square feet. in the Airport Protection Gateway District. They did approve that and that will become effective July 25th. Also as well, and these next two as well were approved and will become effective the same date as I just mentioned. 2607, which was specific to the WVC, which was to increase the floor area ratio to 40%. That was approved and then also 2608 also in the WVC which was to allow commercial apartments essentially to move that commercial apartment onto any other same floor was adopted and then will become effective on July 25th. So those were three that were voted on. Also 20 citizen sponsored text amendments and then 2612 which was the update to forest conservation The commissioners did approve that they also did approve it with an amendment that amendment was to address Essentially to address solar projects that were to come in and essentially might be located on forested properties that amendment specifically what it says is for properties larger than 25 acres that have 50% that are 50% forested and include priority areas are not allowed to clear more than 20% of the of the forest all the afforestation is to be accomplished on-site or off-site fee and little will not be accepted and then a higher afforestation rate which will be one and a half to one so that was the amendment sorry Stephanie what's the you said other proposals in there somewhere in mid-sentence what Was it regarding what they can or their conditions or yeah, you said there was other there was a vague term in there Sorry up from priority properties larger than 25 areas. What are our priority areas? Okay, so those are listed in the code essentially. Those are some environmental They include areas that might be your endangered species areas areas that kind of already I designate forested interior dwelling birds. So if there's two or more of those on the property, then this would be subject as long as it's over 25 acres and 50% forested. So essentially this is to assist with what would be those properties that might be solar and have forested lands. Um, that is, um, was adopted and it will become effective July one as that's the date of the effective for, um, forest conservation, the commissioners that was the legislative actions, um, that were approved on Tuesday night. There were two that will be sent back to you. This was the 26 Oh nine and 26, 10. This was the, um, non-contiguous and TDR, uh, administrative subdivision. specific to open space the commissioners proposed an amendment and that essentially is to prohibit those uses that are non agricultural on those properties that would come in and basically have an approved lot line adjustment those uses are specific to minor extractions public recreation shooting clubs and outdoor recreation So those are uses that are permitted in open space at this time But if a property owner was to have a lot line adjustment approved if this amendment is to go forward Then it would be they would not be able to do those uses on those those that open space property So we'll come back to you for your July meeting for a recommendation back to the county commissioners And then two more there'll be a public hearing two public hearings on June 30th and that is for 2606 and that's the suburban commercial of impervious up to 80% for your commercial and industrial uses that exist as of December 31st and then 2605 which is the gas station tax amendment to change the measurement and where the measurement is taken that public hearing will also be on June 30th. That meeting is a week following the normal date because they've moved that meeting because of the primary. election, which was to take place on that same day. Um, one other thing I wanted to address these, that's all for text amendments, but we did, um, talk a little bit last time about, um, bills that were passed essentially this, um, past session when I wanted to bring up that, um, and kind of clarify a little bit is the one that was specific to the comp plan. We did have some questions over what really that meant for the comp plan. I kind of want to take a step backwards to the 25 general session, general assembly session. There was a bill passed essentially that changed the outline of a comp plan from 12 visions to eight principles. And those principles are land, transportation, housing, economy, equity, resilience, and place, and ecology. So the one question was specific to equity and what that kind of meant for the comp plan. That 25 bill basically identifies equity as engage all sectors of the community in plan development to ensure diverse voices are heard and that needs of underserved populations are prioritized. So then in this past 26 session, they kind of went on and elaborated on what had to be put into the comprehensive plan specific to all of those principles. And then specific to the equity portion, what it says is that the needs of overburdened and underserved communities need to be addressed as well as interest of populations in the county that typically have not participated in the planning process. So they want to try to have more people essentially kind of involved in the process. The equity element also shall include report shall include information from the report of the Commission on Environmental Justice and Sustainable Communities, which is a report that's completed every year through MDE. As well, MDP, Maryland Department of Planning, is required to provide information to the county, which we kind of already go out and grab the information that's needed, but this is them kind of saying, we have to provide you with that information. And then there's also a portion that indicates what the element may include. So those are essentially aren't, that's not a shall statement, it's a may, but that includes promote a broader civic engagement in the public decision-making process, address health risk and environmental problems in overburdened and underserved communities, and prioritize improvements and programs that address the needs of overburdened and underserved communities. This past bill, really what it says, this is what we have to do, and then a portion of it, this is kind of a May statement. So that's kind of where the equity portion is. If you have any other questions, I can answer them now.

What, if any, impact does that have in the comprehensive plan that we've already formulated?

The one that's been completed?

Yep.

So we don't have to go in and change our comp plan right now. We would have to address it with the next comp plan. within the next comp plan or at the next comp plan at the next when when we do the next comp plan yep thanks thank you which is like 10 years out no less than that it's closer than you think it was approved in 22 so come on i know i'm sorry i'm sorry like it was a year ago

So I have lighter updates. I want to let you know about some of the initiatives that staff is involved in. One is I've been really excited about and it's pertinent to our update to the forest conservation plan. Just to let you know that we have traditionally collected fee and lieu for forest conservation, but it's very difficult to find projects where we can spend that fee in lieu of money because it has to be on public land.

So what are you doing with it? So here's what we're doing with it.

We have collaborated with the town of Centerville. Mike Whitehill was working with the YMCA on their buffer enhancement plan that was a part of their site plan. update and approval we have collaborated with them to utilize our forest conservation funding to create a forested area on the YMCA property which is public property and at the same time we're working with the Department of Parks and Rec and DPW to implement a trail system that will run through county properties certainly we're going to start with the YMCA property within that forested area but as a part of that project we're going to expand that walking trail to include all of the county properties and the Board of Ed property and while the annexation project has been approved and as that project comes to fruition being mindful of connectivity between that new development and hopefully connecting with the town's Mill Street Trail. So that is a project that Rob Gunter and Doug Summers have been managing and then expanding that management to include other agencies when the trail system was added to the project. That is one of the best case scenarios for implementing our forest conservation fee in lieu dollars because it really will serve the community. I don't know when we're going to start that.

We are going to attempt to have trees in the ground before or by December. They got to get at least the base of the trail in So that trail work doesn't destroy trees that we just put in the ground and then we have to replant them That timelines pretty tight Who's doing the construction? Parks is going to hire somebody out. I'm not sure okay, but they're managing that portion of the project better get started pretty quick Yeah It's been a very fast turnaround Barrels doing a great job I appreciate the help that Parks has given us, but it's a very tight timeline.

Good.

Are these trails going through neighboring farms?

No. They're all on public land. Now, once the Providence Farm development occurs, it will connect. with private lands, but that should be within the area that has been zoned T and D traditional neighborhood. Yeah, that should be within the towns, um, residential and commercial district. Um, a couple of other words. We're sitting on a lot of task forces. Um, so I thought I'd let you know about them. Uh, we're currently participating in the Marlin farm dominion task force. which is working on the project that Water and Wastewater is managing to bring Marling Farm and Dominion into the comprehensive water and sewer plan. That amendment was just approved to redesignate the Marling Farm Dominion area to future service as we're looking to take those parcels with failing septic systems offline and bring them into the county's sewer system. So that task force continues to meet to evaluate that project.

Is there a timeline on that?

It is happening now, I mean, just because they're looking to.

Well, they're meeting now.

They're meeting now. But they're also taking definitive action by amending the wastewater, the water and sewer plan. So the feasibility study is what will be the next step. So it will be not fast tracked, but a priority project moving forward. So it should be happening. Expeditiously Amy is that already built into our sewer allocation that we have capacity it is hooking up failing septic systems in southern Ken Island and Dominion and Marlin farm has long been identified in the plan and also in the sewer allocation policy where all the allocations are outlined I

Which treatment plant will take that effluent?

It's the Kent Island Wastewater Treatment Plant. Okay.

Down Route 8. Is that down Route 8? Up. Yes. Terrapin Park. By the high school.

That's the only wastewater treatment plant that the county operates. Yeah, that's our growth area.

Yep, thank you. And one more thing, Amy, do we know, do you know if that's to be constructed in similar fashion to the Southern Canal and extension with the step septic tank effluent pumping rather than a dedicated hard line, do we know?

I think that is what is being discussed currently.

Still being on the, okay, fantastic, thank you.

And in the same vein, I'll update you on the moratorium task force. which does continue to meet as a part of the county commissioner's resolution to evaluate the comprehensive water and sewer plan, but specifically the sewer allocation policy, looking at how the county is going to designate the re-rated flow of 300,000 gallons. That is still currently being discussed. It is complicated and the task force is working hard to put the commissioners in the best possible position to make sure that there's equity and that those allocation pots are very clearly identified and that the process to apply for especially residential projects is just clearly identified and in a way that will maximize what is left of our capacity for the best projects. Additionally, there's one last task force that is being managed by the Department of Public Works, and that is the midshore three task force, which is the Queen Anne's County landfill. uh... topic county has taken its turn caroline county has taken its turn and has extended its commitment and uh... queen's county is next and then kent county is the last and are uh... mature three re in our mutual region uh... that task force is looking at the current site and potential alternate sites uh... for landfill in Queen Anne's County.

So they're talking about moving it from...

Considering.

Okay. There's been, there was a lot of... That should make a lot of people happy.

And then a new neighborhood, I'm happy.

Depends on where Plan B is.

There's also another moratorium that the county commissioners enacted and that is the data center moratorium to give staff a year to investigate and draft a text of a text amendment to address data center development staff had already been working on this but it is very pressing planning issue so we'll be working on that proposal and bringing it forward currently we are not preempted in terms of the citing of data centers so there's a great fear that the data centers may be cited in our agricultural district and as of right now clearly they're not permitted And there is not a preemptive process to site a data center in our agricultural zoning district. Right now, we would consider them materially similar to warehousing uses, which would be permitted in our industrial areas. And that development would be limited to 65,000 square feet. So that is how our code currently addresses a data center. But having a materially similar use isn't as strong a position as having a very specific standard for a data center. So we have never had an application to date. If we did have an application, the standard I just cited would be the standard that would apply.

Are we aware of anybody that's pondering Submission? I haven't heard anything.

Unaware. We haven't been contacted yet. But it's good to get ahead of these things and be proactive rather than reactive.

And the preemptive piece that you spoke about, that's analogous to the solar and that would go through the Public Service Commission? Or what body would manage that?

No, this is not a public utility. It's just I think there is concern that because of so many uses that we have seen in recent years, where the state has taken a preemptive approach. Cannabis is a good example that isn't a utility like solar. That has been a concern in a lot of jurisdictions that if we don't get specific standards on the books that we could be going in that direction.

So that would be done legislatively most likely at the state level. Gotcha.

the last item that I have for you is we have a conflict this year with the August Planning Commission meeting it coincides with the summer Mako conference and Mako is the acronym for Maryland Association of County Governments there's a fall and winter conference every year this year over half of our staff, planning staff, will be attending the MACO conference. So we're going to cancel our August meeting and let any applicants know who may be getting close to their 25-day submittal that we have some July potential for agenda items, but that anyone who's queuing up will be placed on the September agenda.

So we have a vacation in office. Okay, anything else?

That's everything.

Thanks, any questions? Okay, let's go to public hearings. concept plan for the by-law materials.

Don't forget the annual report.

Oh, I'm sorry. She picked it up. She's doing the annual report.

Good morning, Mary Ellen Gray, Senior Planner. As you know, at this time every year, the Maryland Department of Planning requires an annual report be submitted regarding our activities. The goal regarding annual development, permitting, and planning related activities taking place in Queen Anne's County. Before I talk about some salient data points in this report, I want to thank specifically Doug Summers, who did a lot of the number crunching for this report, as well as a lot of staff across Queen Anne's County, IT, Finance, Department of Environmental Services, Parks and Rec, Public Works, Housing, Economic Tourism, and Jeff Frank also from Finance. supplied some new information that was a new reporting requirement this year regarding the reporting of impact fees. This is a new requirement that the county, that the state required the per, our, we, So we administer a program for the development of impact fees for central public services, including schools, parks and recreation and fire protection. So as a result, we need to report how we how much we collect and how we implement and the amount of fees that are implemented. So regarding impact fees, the total amount of impact fees collected for both residential and non-residential in 2025 was $1,876,367.07. And of that, 46% or $864,340.14 was in the priority funding area. The bulk of the impact fees collected were for schools, which totaled $1,531,101.75. The schools utilized $2 million, $167,290,000 of impact fee funds, and the fire districts utilized $440,877,000 in 2025. Moving on to residential, 108 out of 160 units, or 68% of the total residential units approved were located within the priority funding area. The number of lots approved within the major subdivisions have been relatively consistent since 2022. A total of 317 residential units were constructed with 233 located within the priority funding area and 84 outside of the priority funding area. Of these units within the PFA, 109 units were located in age-restricted community. Moving on to commercial, commercial growth data showed an increase in the number of approved commercial sites. Site plans over the past couple years from a total of four in the calendar year 2023 to six in 2024, and then eight in 2025. However, the gross building area constructed has remained fairly steady since 2024, which had 70,739 to 67,739 in 2025. And finally, I'll conclude with agriculture preservation. As of 2025, the county has permanently preserved 92,630 acres of land through various programs. So the planning staff recommends that the planning commission approve this report and request that staff send the 2025 Queen Anne's County Annual Report to the Maryland Department of Planning and file a copy with the county commissioners. I will ask if anybody has any questions.

You sure gave us a lot of numbers. There's a lot of data. Thank you very much.

You're welcome. Any questions? Yeah, I do have one. How many lots are available in the county? Do you know?

How many lots are available? There's some charts in this report. I have to get back to you on that. I think we have the, there was a development capacity analysis. Let's look in the appendix here.

Appendix 5. Appendix 5.

Thank you. Yeah. 16,297.

Thank you. 16,000 lots? Number of potential lots, yes.

16,297. Of potential lots for development. Okay, fine.

Do we have any statistics that tell us how many acres came out of agriculture in any given year?

Came out of agriculture? Not specifically. We could do an analysis of that looking at agriculture. and break that down. I don't have that broken down specifically, but certainly we can look at that.

It's more of a philosophic question than anything else, but it's something I'd personally be interested in.

Sure, we could work with GIS on that data point, yeah. Thank you. You're welcome. Yes, ma'am?

If it's a non-priority funding area, it's likely that it's agriculture. Fair point, yeah. Okay.

So the 16,000 lots on Quebec, that's not approved lots. Is that a calculated amount based on the farm's seven acres per parcel? It's a maximum, I guess.

Correct. These are lots that are available for development.

They are approved.

No, these are potential. These are lots that on Appendix 5, these are lots that are available for development. They have not been approved for development.

Do they have their SRAs already? I mean, I assume. How many of them are, to Ben's point, on agricultural land, farmland? How many of them are in the PFAs?

Okay. So are we looking at this chart? Um, so the, we do have a broken down on which ones are PFAs. I don't have that total. Um, we don't have a broken down. I would have to total that out, which how many lots are in PFAs. Let's look, look at the, hold on, on the chart. Okay. On page five. within PFAs, we have residentially zoned acres with capacity. We have in the PFAs, 730 lots and residential parcel and lots with capacity in the PFA 545, inside and outside the PFA.

I'm getting assistance from Stephanie, because she has more... I just want to add a detail about the development capacity analysis. So this is analysis that is run by GIS. By any means, it's not survey grade. It doesn't look in the details of exactly where wetlands are, so it's not taking a survey grade of the entire county in addressing how many lots can be created. So it's the best... available technology that the GIS department has to understand potentially how many lots could be available to the best of their ability. So really it's not the number of lots that have been created, it's potential but definitely not to anything that has been done, looked at for a subdivision. So let's add that detail.

development capacity, right? It's what could potentially be. Yeah. But by all means.

Is it a time frame? I mean, certainly short capacity would limit development. Yes.

So those things like that aren't looked at because, I mean, those things can't be baked into the GIS analysis. Right. And I think there's an explanation in here that says, you know, this is the best of ability that an analysis could be done. It's not by any means exact.

Well, I guess the concern I would voice is that you show 16,000, you know, lots and for people that don't want to see a great deal of growth at one point in time. That's a scary number.

Yes, I realize that.

And without a qualifier to say, no, this isn't coming online next week.

Right. No, and it's not, they're not, proposals haven't been received. It's not that we've taken those applications or anything. It's just an analysis that has been run. The GIS, they are required to do it every three years. That's what's required of the annual report. So it's a number that has to be run at that point. In the 2010 comp plan, I think, there was a development capacity analysis run with that comp plan. And then we tried to use the same, as much as we could get, as close as we could get, that same analysis that they had used in 2010.

What was the number back then? Do you know?

I don't know. I do not have it on. Okay. I can look it up if you're interested. Okay.

So the reason I asked the question was because, according to your numbers, and I'm going to oversimplify this and then hopefully you'll understand that, but your lot's constructed. or outpacing your lots approved by about 70. So at some point, on an oversimplistic view, those two numbers are gonna converge where there's no lots available. That'll never happen because the market will change, the value of the lots will go up exponentially if need be, and there'll be more lots that come online. But the reason I ask this, I just read an article, and I say the other day, I'm saying it, use that term loosely, that the average home price in this county is like over half a million dollars now. Now, I don't know about you guys. I have children. I have grandchildren. Now, luckily, we have a farm. Our children are on farms. But the average person, their kids are going to leave here. And is this county looking at that to say, do we want to make everybody that already is has a home wealthier because their home goes up, or do we want to try to make a place where it's affordable for many, including their children? Has that question ever been asked?

Yes, the state really also has been asking that question more of on a statewide level, not just Queen Anne specific. So it is something that is contemplated.

Yeah, but I don't know that their ideals mesh with mine. Which way are they leaning? Are they trying to find to make housing more affordable? Are we to become California? You know? Good grief.

No, I mean the state.

But you know where I'm coming from, right? What I'm saying, right?

And the county, obviously, I think in the comp plan, we talk about looking at density and essentially size of lots. So that's going to change your affordability essentially of a lot. So there are things in the comp plan that have been designated to look at affordability.

I'm not discounting arts comment about the 16,000 lots and that's scaring people. One way to lower the price of real estate is to increase the volume, increase the amount available, right, the supply.

Right. That's fine.

Okay.

Yep. Nope, the housing chapter.

But don't plunge the farms, correct?

I never said that. I never said that. Ask the farmer first, though. Okay? It's up to the farmer. We're not mandating that they develop. Never have. And I've never promoted that for certain.

Okay. Is that it? Yes, ma'am. Anything else? Any other questions?

Madam Chair, I would like to take staff's recommendation that the Planning Center Planning Commission, having reviewed, now approve and request that the staff send the 2025 Queen's County Annual Report to the Maryland Department of Planning and file a copy with county commissioners.

Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? OK, so be it. Thank you.

Nice job, Mariel. Thank you.

We're going to take a five minute break.

Let's go back to the session.

Okay, concept plan by-law materials.

Madam Chair, I want to first note for the record that notice containing the necessary information regarding the application and notice of the public hearing was advertised in the Bay Times Record Observer on May 29th and June 5th, and it was posted on the website, and notice of such is within the application file.

Okay, thank you. It's me. Do we usually have a... Yeah, I know. Who's presenting? I am.

Steve's Steve's out of the office, so I'm on the pinch hitter today.

Oh, OK. Good morning, everybody.

Rob Gunter, development review principal planner. As mentioned, we have the folks from Byler Materials here this morning. They are proposing a 215.5 acre expansion of the existing Merrick Farm major extraction operation. This will be phase five of their project. This morning they are requesting concept plan approval and a favorable recommendation to the Board of Appeals. The project is located on the eastern side of the county in between Ingleside and Barkley. Outlined in black, you can see the 348 acre parcel is located at the corner of 313 America Corner Road. Back in May of 26, the zoning department did their annual inspection of the site and at that time it was determined, sorry about that, everything was in compliance. The property resides in the agricultural zoning district and major extractions are conditional use in that district and require approval from the Board of Appeals. The phase five LOD, limits of disturbance, includes 215 acres of mining expansion area. That area is shown in the red dashed line. It also includes 3.88 acres of road improvements along Merrick Corner Road. That area is generally shown by the yellow dashed line at the top. The yellow circle on the map is the approximate location of the existing site entrance. And that entrance will remain with the future expansions. If approved, the overall LED for the project would be 339 acres in total. So that would include this phase and all previous phases. The project is proposing no new impervious area and no new floor area. It complies with the mining setbacks and phase five will also comply with those setbacks. It's currently served by Well and Septic and will continue to be. On average, 100 trucks a day visit the site, or truck trips a day visit the site. That's to remain the same, even with the expansion area. Those trucks remove approximately 343,000 cubic yards of material per year. The estimated lifespan of the project is just over 49 years, and 17 million cubic yards of material will be removed. Excuse me. At the conclusion of the project, the depth will vary between 67 and 70 feet. Phase 5 proposes landscaping and berms around the entire expansion area, which will meet up with existing landscaping and berming. Those berms will be 62 feet wide and 10 feet tall, and they'll be planted with two rows of evergreens that will be six to eight feet tall at the time of planting. The site's not located within the Chesapeake Bay critical area or the hundred year floodplain. There are no erosion hazard streams, wetlands, or threatened endangered species on site. The Southern portion of the site does have 39.6 acres of woodlands. Department of Natural Resources has indicated that this area contains fizz habitat, mainly for nesting birds. Shown in green dashed outline on the map, this project, Phase 5, does propose just over 32 acres of woodland clearing just above the green and the white dashed line or previously approved clearing with earlier phasing. This project, just like all major extractions, are exempt from the regulations established by the Forest Conservation Act. There is a tax ditch that runs through this property, shown in the solid blue line, bisects roughly the middle. That tax ditch will be relocated to the area shown on the blue dashed line. The Caroline County Soil Conservation District manages these tax ditches, and they have reviewed this project and approved it with three minor conditions. Those are outlined in your staff report. There's no proposed changes to the hours of operation. The applicants did submit a sound study completed by Vibratech. That study concluded that the noise will not exceed residential nighttime or daytime limits at the property line, provided that the standoff distances outlined in the report are met. Trucks will continue to use the existing haul route, which is Merrick Corner Road to Maryland 313. I mentioned the road improvements to Merrick Corner Road. There are approximately 3,350 linear feet of improvements. and they will start at the intersection of 313 and move east along Mary Corner Road. They'll include some widening, restriping, and some shoulder work. At the conclusion of the project, there'll be a 259-acre pond and a location for a future house. That's a little bit of pasture area or tillable area for the residents. And with that, I have a colleague, Eric Miller, from the Department of Public Works here, and he can elaborate a little bit on the road improvements that have been done, are proposed currently, and he can answer any stormwater questions if you have any. So with that, this is Eric.

Good morning. Eric Miller, Department of Public Works. Can everyone hear me all right? Yeah. So Rob had asked me here today, we had, I'm going to segue slightly, but in our comment memo there was an item.

Can you speak up a little?

I can. Is this better?

Yes.

maybe there all right so I'm gonna segue a little there is in the most recent DPW comment memo a line item indicating a public works agreement the Department of Public Works is still in the process of coordinating with the applicant the terms of the agreement we were contacted the department yesterday that the applicant did not agree with the terms and so as such we just wanted to bring that to the board's attention now that we would like to when Rob gives his final summary add a condition that we the dpw department of public works and the applicant byler mine agree to the terms of the public works agreement prior to the applicant submitting an application for board of appeals what did they disagree with so what we're disagreeing over is money Now, this mine has been in operation for approximately 20 years, and we're looking at, speaking in round numbers, I can be more specific at your request, a 50-year lifespan. So the department is looking at projecting, as Rob pointed out, their time to mine out this property will take 50 years. So we're looking at 50 years of road maintenance built into an agreement that we're deciding upon today as part of this application. Now, I'd like to be perfectly clear, we are not in opposition to this. We are... just not prepared to give a favorable recommendation because we haven't come to terms with the applicant. So what we're trying to do is project, based upon our last 20 years of experience, a 50-year life cycle for this road. Now, they are providing, as part of their application, substantial road improvements and upgrades, as Rob identified in his report. We're simply trying to plan for the next 50. Now, what we are proposing is... an identical agreement to a neighboring mine, which is Bridgetown Stone and Gravel, which assesses a 12 cent per ton royalty, and that money will go to the cost of road maintenance.

What's that equate to?

Well.

On their projection, their projected numbers.

Using their projected numbers. you get 12 cents and again we're using some approximate math here but we're looking at roughly 62 000 a year so if you compare that to the current maintenance or i should say road upgrades that are being performed That is a project that is costing, I believe the estimate, and there are representatives from Lane Engineering here who can correct me, is $845,000. Or, as Jonathan and I were speaking yesterday when he contacted me... How long is that $840,000 projected to last? Well, and that's what I'm getting to. So if you look at the $60,000 that we are assessing per year and we look at this cost now, it'll take roughly 16 and a half years. And that's using a round number of a million dollars because that was an estimate. We don't actually know the cost of construction until it's built. So using a round number of a million with the 61,000 which is based upon what they're on their plan identifying as removal Sixteen and a half years is how long? It would take to get to that sum of money again, but the trucks are the trucks.

Okay What is your span where that type of road with all that truck truck traffic exactly?

So what we're hoping is is that, because essentially we're trying to predict the future here, with the widening of the road and the reinforcement of the road, that the $60,000 a year will be sufficient to perform annual maintenance or maintenance on demand. That is not the department's intent to have major road rehabilitations when it becomes sufficiently damaged to require it, but simply to perform routine maintenance. So we are not anticipating... letting the road degrade to such a condition that it's in now, again, we'd like to avoid that. We'd like to be able to maintain it as necessary.

When was the last time it was upgraded?

I believe 2014. Now, when you say upgrade, I don't mean to split hairs.

That's only 12 years. Correct. And you're talking that the $60,000 will take you to 16 years.

Right. So what I'm doing is comparing that amount.

I mean, you haven't maintained it the last 12?

I thought we were comparing major renovation to major renovation.

Right.

So the last major renovation was 12 years ago, as I understand it.

Right.

Now they're going to perform a current major renovation. We're looking to avoid the major renovations and fund continuous maintenance.

So you haven't done the continuous maintenance over the last 12?

No, we do. I understand what you're asking unfortunately I don't have those numbers in front of me because this issue was raised yesterday by the applicant so hence why we are not prepared to give that recommendation now I need to go back do the research look at the numbers you're asking for see how much we spent per year and then look into all these other things we had hoped the department we that using an agreement identical to a neighboring mine would be applicable to use a pithy term, apples to apples. Mine to mine, we use an agreement. One is agreed to, we agree with it here.

But I'm sure the applicant is looking for that price to be lowered, not increased, right?

I'll let the applicant speak to what they want, but yes, I would imagine so.

I would imagine that's why it got turned down. Okay, all right, do you have any questions at this point?

Okay. So I do, so that the, as I understand it, dump trucks probably paying somewhere between five and $6,000 a year in road use taxes, specifically because of the damage that they do to roads. Do you not get any of the money from the state from those road use taxes that are paid. And maybe I'll get to you later, ask you the same question.

Sure, so as of the most recent legislative session, I am not sure exactly what the funding stream is from the state. I can tell you it's very turbulent and that there are proposing changes on the highway user revenue, which I believe is different from what you're talking about. I don't have the state funding numbers in front of me to see what proportion of tax dollars from heavy vehicles comes to road maintenance. If you like, I can look into that.

I know that under O'Malley, you know, he stole a bunch, as far as I'm concerned, he stole a bunch of tax revenue from the county back during that, I think during the recession. And I don't know if he's given it back yet or not. Last time I talked to one of the commissioners, he said they had not. That was several years ago.

Bill, we're having trouble hearing you.

I'm sorry. I'm getting lazy.

But your microphone's not close to you.

No, it's because I'm leaning back and...

Take a nap. Sorry.

Do you want me to repeat what I was saying? Yeah, would you? So all I was asking was don't these dump trucks at $5,000, $6,000 per year in road use taxes, fuel taxes, does any of that money come back to the county for the maintenance of these roads? Do they not get anything for their investment, those independent drivers? small businessmen and everything else that have these things. We've had this discussion before about road use taxes and everything else. I know that O'Malley stole, I'll use that word, stole road use taxes from the county back during the recession. I don't know that the state's ever given them back like they should. At the last conversation I had with one of the commissioners, he said they had given some back but weren't up to what they used to be historically.

Right.

Okay, so that's all I'm asking. You know, it sounds to me like it. Because 50 years, $60,000 a year, that's $3 million. That's not chump change, right?

Correct.

How much does it cost to build a road, for goodness sake, a county-level road? Are we building a state-spec road?

I'm sorry, what was the second one?

Are we building a county-spec road or a state-spec road? With $3 million in maintenance over 50 years, that's not a small chunk of change.

No, absolutely not.

I'd be like him.

And that's fair. We're not opposed to the discussion. We're not opposed to looking at the numbers. It's strictly a matter of timing. The objection was raised yesterday, so we need to look at this. So your questions are legitimate and appropriate, but I don't have the answers now.

Okay.

Fair. It's just a question of process because in reviewing these materials prior to the meeting delivered to us a week or more ahead of time, typically my eyes always go to the no agencies that have reviewed the concept plan have offered objections. So I'm wondering at what point in the process is an issue like this supposed to be resolved, like I'm not sure why it's, okay, why is this coming up at this time when I base my review and thoughts on these projects by what is before me and then sometimes subsequent updates from John as needed, so I'm trying to figure out when is this supposed to be resolved, like, because we're here for final approval of this concept plan, so.

Yeah the concept plan will allow them to move forward and seek additional use location. So excuse me. The major extractions are unique. They require public hearings which no other development projects requires. So there are advertisement deadlines. So this project had to be advertised in the paper prior to the comments coming back to the. And that overlap is when. that comment that Eric referenced came in. And that comment says that DPW is okay with the project coming to Planning Commission as long as the applicant agrees in principle to the Public Works Agreement, PWA, prior to Planning Commission. Well, prior to Planning Commission. This morning at 8 o'clock was prior to Planning Commission. So in lieu of not stopping the project, keeping things moving forward it was our intent to here and here we are and that's where Eric mentioned his condition that they can work things out whatever that may be prior to the applicant making Board of Appeals application to keep the process isn't that normally already completed before we get the paperwork to review No, not necessarily. Things like forest conservation. If this project had forest conservation, they would usually tell us, this is our idea, but we don't have definitive legal documents and everything finalized yet until site plan. So in this case, we wouldn't have, they don't require site plan because there's no more floor area. So their final step would be Board of Appeals, and then they'd go straight to permit. So by Board of Appeals... Anything has to be determined and figured out and finalized. Okay. In this step, no. For us, for DPW, they would like a principle figured out and a draft accomplished prior to board of appeals.

Okay. Madam Chair? Yes, sir. In a situation like this, my immediate reaction is disapprove. You know, we don't have agreement, and we're asked to render an opinion on something that's not agreed to by both parties. But I sense that staff is comfortable proceeding with conditions. Am I understanding this correctly?

I will defer to Eric on their condition. The conditions we outlined, which brings me to another. If you turn to page six of seven in your staff report.

That's quite a few.

17. There are 17. Well, they are not labeled conditions, but those are the conditions. So once we get to that, if we get to that, those are the conditions.

Plus number 18.

So staff is, planning staff is comfortable with 17. If the condition that Eric suggested were to go through, planning would be okay with that as well. IF THEY WEREN'T FINE WITH THAT, STAFF WOULD SUPPORT THAT AS WELL.

ARE YOU FINE WITH THAT?

TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, YES. THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS IS FINE WITH THE CONDITION AS I PRESENTED IT.

CAN YOU GIVE US A WRITTEN Or can you just say that again? I think I can assist with that.

So I think it would be inclusion of condition 18, which, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the condition would be that the applicant and public works department enter into a mutually satisfactory public works agreement prior to making the application to the Board of Appeals for conditional use. Does that work for you?

Yes.

Okay, good.

Okay, now, anything else, Rob?

No, ma'am. I have one more question, Madam Chairman. Why did it take this long again to get you had a meeting this morning? Why is it this long in the process? Why wouldn't it have done before? It seems to me that maybe you could have. Having an 8 o'clock meeting ahead of Planning Commission doesn't seem like good planning.

There was no meeting at 8 o'clock, too. And there was. That comment came out. The 25-day review was at least two weeks ago. And as I understand it, there were some emails changed

And to clarify with your question, yesterday was not the first attempt at communication. There were phone calls and emails back and forth between the applicant and the Department of Public Works. The objection to the Public Works Agreement was raised by the applicant yesterday, which is different from there was no communication until yesterday.

Yes, ma'am. my name is cheryl tommy with lane engineering i'm the project drafter for this project i've worked on it throughout the years with us today we also have our project engineer brittany wallace who can answer any technical questions you may have the owner jonathan byler and our attorney steve mehan rob gunther gave a great overview of the project and i would be happy to ask answer any questions that you have just give a brief overview of generally what we're proposing and what he had said already is that the, it's an existing mine, it's there, we have an entrance that's already in place and the office, the different, the different plants that are there, those are all gonna stay in place and those are gonna continue to be used. We're not proposing anything new for that. The trucks per day is going to stay at 100 trucks per day. We're not proposing any increases in the trucks or the hours of operation. So you're not going to see a change in the increase in the traffic going to and from the site. It's just we're proposing an expansion of the mining pond so that the mine can continue to stay in business and expand the life of the mine by about 50 years. as market conditions allow. As a part of this expansion, as he had shown, we're proposing the road improvements to Merritt Corner Road. We've also proposed to reroute the tax ditch that does go through the middle of the site to go around the exterior of the mining pond. and then inside of that we'll have a visual screening berm with plantings on top and then even you know further interior to the site will have an access road and then it will be the expansion pond everything will expand towards the west and it'll slowly happen over those 50 years what you'll see initially are the berms being established as well as the rerouted

public drainage association tax ditch uh... do you have any questions for us at this time any road improvement questions or stormwater we'd be happy to answer them ms tommy i have a question where you you suggested the you know the slow walk east or sorry west and south of the property when with the exception of the rerouting of the tax this when would we expect to see the tree clearing

the tree clearing at this time they're in their phase four so they've been approved for a hundred and nineteen acres so they're they're working in that additional nineteen acres that they were approved last year so eventually you know as we go through this process for approvals for this phase five they'll continue to work westward uh... for the removal of those trees to the south it's really as they grow the mining pit and it depends on what direction they're going to start to grow the mining pit it's going to be a combination of dry mining and then you know as they get down to the water level then the the dredge will continue the mining so Really, it's when they want to expand to the south to be able to.

So it's not necessary for initial berm construction or rerouting of the tactics?

What you'll see initially for the berm construction, as you've brought up, is they will need to strip some topsoil and other material in order to construct those berms. And they have some room to be able to do that with the existing farm fields that you see open at this time.

So over years, years out. Yes, over years. Without having you to put a number on it. That's fine.

Yeah. When it was approved last May for the additional 19 acres, we approximated that they had about five years left of material, maybe a little bit more than that. And this will be the slow walkover.

But are you still on schedule with that?

Yeah, that schedule is still very appropriate, yes.

yeah and then this mining expansion will give them an additional 50 as market allows 50 years you guys have always done a nice job of your berms and everything thank you okay any other questions

Can I get a public hearing? Oh, public comment. Yes, ma'am.

Yes, good morning. I'm Kelly Ireland. I am an adjoining property owner I own both the lot that is across the street as well as the an owner of the 200 acre agricultural farm across the street I have no illusions that there will be any stopping this project and I do respect that property owners have the right to do things with in reason with their properties and But adjoining property owners should also have the right to not be negatively impacted by those activities. My ask is that there's a potential condition that there be an honest assessment that actively engages adjoining landowners of the current and potential impacts of the plan so we can look at ways to minimize those impacts and potential risk. with more in-depth considerations specifically for noise and vibrations, light pollution, local air quality impacts related to dust and exhaust, groundwater. It's a large amount of groundwater that would potentially be exposed with this full expansion, the impacts to our wells. Looking at the long history of biosolid application on these agricultural fields and any potential impacts of making that exposed to groundwater. I'd also like to look at the entrances, both the number and location. We've been talking about one entrance, but there are actually more than one place that the pit is accessed currently.

I'd also like to ask that there be impacts of

attempts to minimize the impacts while installing the berms around the area. Currently there's a significant amount of dust and sediment along the roads and my fear is that even just installing the measures for mitigation, if we don't look at that further, will create additional impacts. I saw that some of the core values of Biolares was to always do the right thing. I hope that we will have an opportunity to engage. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you.

Any other public comment? Do you have anything? And you didn't have anything outside, right? Okay.

Okay, madam chair, yes Having considered the testimony presented and having reviewed the findings outlined in the staff report be it hereby resolved that the Planning Commission regarding the quest wide by byler materials LLC for concept plan approval for a two hundred fifteen point five five five acre expansion of an existing major extraction operation in the agricultural zoning district which is more particularly described in planning and zoning file SP number twenty six dash oh one dash oh one seven oh here finds the concept plan is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Queen's County twenty two comprehensive plan the concept plan is consistent with the Queen's County zoning and subdivision regulations I'd also like to incorporate the findings from the staff report into this motion. And here are the conditions. One, proper controls and methods are maintained to minimize truck mudtracking or dust plumes in dry times with wind swift suppression. Two, the facilities continue to be adequately designed and maintained to free dirt and debris from the wheels and undercarriage of trucks prior to entering Merrick Corner Road. Three, all soil conservation district approvals are maintained. Four, the hours of operation will be consistent with the approval of condition use case number BOA-19-10-0049. Any changes require additional approvals. Five, haul trucks shall adhere to the approved haul route as discussed and presented. Six, the use of dredge, loader, haul truck, and excavator during daytime and nighttime hours must adhere to the standoff distances outlined in the staff report and in the sound study dated March 5, 2026. Number seven, material storage piles cannot exceed 45 feet in height. Number eight, the applicant submits as-built updates to the Board of Appeals and Department of Planning and Zoning yearly on the anniversary of Board of Appeals approval or on a schedule determined by the Board of Appeals. Number nine, the applicant agrees to an annual inspection. 10, all state permits are in place prior to final permitting by Queen Anne's County. 11, any legal documents are approved and reviewed by the Planning Commission attorney. 12, any future mining phases or changes to the end use plan must return to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the Board of Appeals for an amendment to the conditional use. 13, any and all financial sureties for reclamation, landscaping, stormwater management, and enforcement, et cetera, are in place before final permits are granted. 14, there shall be no truck parking on Merrick Corner Road. no stacking or parking outside of the gate, no jake breaks, and no tailgates slamming either onsite or on the public road. The applicant shall post a sign with a notice regarding these restrictions. 15, any requirements by the Queen Anne's County Roads Department must be satisfactorily addressed. 16, conditions of approval for the relocation of the tax ditch found in the letter from the Caroline Soil Conservation District dated November 10, 2025 and provided in the staff report must be satisfactorily addressed. 17, any outstanding documentation or comments stemming from agency reviews are addressed prior to Board of Appeals submittal. 18, applicant and the Department of Public Works must reach a satisfactory public works agreement prior to Board of Appeals application. And having considered the testimony presented and having reviewed the findings outlined in the staff report, be it hereby resolved that the Planning Commission regarding the request by Byler Materials LLC for a 215.555 acre expansion of an existing major extraction operation in Agricultural Zoning District which is more particularly described in Planning and Zoning File SP 26-01-0170, hereby forwards a favorable recommendation to the Board of Appeals under Sections 18.1-14.C7 and 18.1-95.E. Second.

We have a first, a second. All in favor? Aye. Any discussion?

Yes, discussion first. In light of Ms. Ireland, was it? Public comments. I'd like to suggest an additional condition on to Commissioner Diotis' motion that the applicant engage the surrounding citizens to address any potential concerns to their, to their, to their, to, let's see what I want to phrase this. to meet with local citizens, adjoining neighbors specifically, to understand their concerns and do their best to address them.

So could we get a motion to amend the motion on the floor to include that additional condition?

We can accept that as a friendly amendment. Can we not? Do what? Accept that as a friendly amendment under Robert's rules.

Well, you should still, because there's a motion on the floor that hasn't been voted on yet. move to amend that motion, and then you could all vote on it.

If I may interject, I listened to the citizens' testimony, but my thought was going to, that would be more of a planning and zoning requirement across the board, not just to this particular project. I'm not really sure I should, that I would be willing to make it a condition of this particular project. Rather, I think it's a discussion with planning and zoning or the county on projects of this type or magnitude across the board. So that's my feeling on this.

And most of her, my thoughts were that most of her concerns appear to have been handled in the 17th place.

I was thinking about that as I was reading them as well.

And the 18th point.

I'm sorry, I'm sure not allowed to speak, but I think that the reports were done without any any engagement or the ability to ground truth some of those findings. I want to be a good neighbor. I want to have good neighbors. The sound report, for example, we can hear the sounds at night. So it being 50 decibels, just a conversation at the property line, depending on weather conditions, cannot be true. I'm sure that it was tested and that was the case at some amount of operation, but there's lights and sounds. and just an opportunity to engage. The way the process is currently set up, the public notice at the end of the road was my first opportunity to know this could be engaged with, and the stamp report was already directed by that point. And I apologize for,

No, and I think it was clear, Ms. Ireland, when you made your testimony that you are not necessarily opposed to this from a property rights perspective. It's just you'd like to be included in progress as it's made.

We've definitely impacted my property and my property use are impacted by this.

I'm sorry, we're not really supposed to be Q&A with you, but appreciate your testimony.

Okay. Have you ever made any complaints to the zoning department or has anyone ever made any?

No, since we're engaging. I said I want it to be a good.

I understand. I'm not trying to be argumentative.

But there is a difference between, you know, this is going to be 17 years initially, unless Brennan Barrett ended up being over and now expanding to 49 years additional. It's a lot of water. And the top of the lake is 60 acres. This is going to be... Okay.

Okay, we've heard, we've heard. Thank you.

Well, can I ask Mr. Fowler one question in the same vein? Do you allow tailgate slamming on your property? Do you have people that violate it?

Not to my knowledge. I mean, I'm not saying it's not ever happened, but certainly we will get rid of it. It sounds like it might be happening at night.

It sounds like it might be happening at night. I have a question, how long has Mylar been in existence?

As far as in Queen Anne's County at the mine or in total?

In Queen Anne's County.

So we bought into the mine in 2013.

Was the mine there prior to?

It was there prior, yes.

Okay, do you know when it started?

I believe it was 2007, it was around there.

that's when it was created okay so right now just procedure there's a motion on the floor there was a motion to amend it sounds like it wasn't seconded do i get a second to the amend okay

Let's go back with the motion. I have a first and a second. Can we vote, please? All in favor? Oh, wait a minute. Rob, you have something?

There's two things you have to vote on, just FYI. The concept plan approval. and then separately recommendations. Ms. Diotis read both of them so I just think you need to vote on both of them separately.

All right, we're gonna go with the first one. Okay. Okay, for the 18 additions. So I have to read all of that again? No, just the last one, we'll do that separately.

No, I think, just to clarify, you can keep your motion to find the concept plan consistent with the comprehensive plan and Queen Anne's County zoning and subdivision regulations subject to the 18 conditions, vote on that, and then make a motion on the favorable or unfavorable recommendation to the Board of Appeals.

You don't have to read it again. Okay, thank you. Correct. Okay, so we have a motion.

We have a second. We have a second for the 18. Correct.

You have a motion right now for concept plan approval with the 18 conditions and a second. Okay.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Nay.

Okay. And let me just read this again. Okay, so we'll read the second one. Having considered the testimony presented and having reviewed the findings outlined in the staff report, be it hereby resolved that the Planning Commission, regarding the request by Byler Materials LLC, for a 215.555 acre expansion of an existing major extraction operation in the Agricultural Zoning District, which is more particularly described in Planning and Zoning File SP number 26-01-0170, hereby forwards a favorable recommendation to the Board of Appeals under Sections 18.1, 14.C.7 and 18.1-95.E.

second all in favor aye aye and just as a fyi or for you it would be nice if you talk to your neighbors we will certainly do that absolutely that's great that's great um any opposed opposed okay um with that ben was opposed too just so you know not opposed Oh, are you? Yeah. To go to the Board of Appeals. To go to the Board of Appeals.

To make a favorable recommendation to the Board of Appeals. There's already a condition on the application that they can't have the Board of Appeals hearing until this agreement is resolved.

Say that again?

There is already a condition on the concept plan application that they cannot proceed to the Board of Appeals until the Public Works Agreement matter is mutually resolved.

I understand that, but... I was under the impression that at some point we're gonna include this acknowledgement of the citizen's observations in a more formal fashion. And perhaps procedurally I've made a mistake and didn't get that in in the original motion.

There was a motion to amend my motion to add that, and it didn't get a second.

We didn't get a second. We didn't get a second.

You could certainly, on your vote for the favorable consideration to the Board of Appeals, express some of your concerns.

Well, I'd like to do that. Please. In that I would hope that we could, in the future, include wording that, makes it clear in these approvals that the applicant has to speak to the neighbors uh... when this has been raised now this is for futures i don't see it as a condition on this approval i support commissioner lay in making sure that the citizens comments are acknowledged by the planning commission and in declining to amend my motion i i feel like it's not something that should be case specific to this

project, but rather a broader planning and zoning. Do you know what I'm saying? I understand that.

I would have gone with both, saying it's OK to do it here, and let's get to work on an underlying. Understood.

So just to clarify for the record, we have favorable concept plan approval, which was a vote of 4 to 1, and a favorable recommendation to the Board of Appeals, which was a vote of 3 to 2. Yes. Correct. OK.

I was going to say, let me count that again. I don't do math, you know.

Five to one and four to two. Well, Sharon didn't vote. I don't vote unless there's a tie. Because it should need to break the tie, right?

Right. At least that's what she told me last meeting. Right.

Going off that premise.

That's what it is. Any public comment? Nothing?

Okay. Just to be clear, that was, so that was the end. The public comment you just asked for was for generic public comment at the end of the meeting?

Yes, generic public comment.

So, I actually would like to comment on Ben's comment. You know, I look at this form here this venue here right now to be the opportunity for the people to engage with the owners of the properties i question i'm not saying it's bad to meet with the community i think you should maybe but to what end you know um miss island nice nice lady right very respectful i mean i and i i know your family who you are um but All the Jabberjaw in the world is probably going to change her mind about what's going on there. And I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I just question to what end those things really work. You know, here's the venue. Right now, we're all sitting here taking this stuff in. You have an opportunity to speak your mind, bring your friends in. Quantity counts, apparently. I'm the only one in here.

Yeah. Okay. Okay.

That's all I'm going to say.

I guess I'd see it the other side saying it can't possibly hurt. Right. Yeah.

All right. Can I get a motion?

You have a motion to adjourn.

Can I get a second? Second.

All in favor? Aye.

So moved. Thank you.