Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Amsterdam.

for Queen Anne's County Planning Commission for Thursday, September 10th, 2026. Start with the Pledge of Allegiance. Public comments? Updates, legislation and legal matters.

GOOD MORNING. I HAVE ONE UPDATE FOR YOU AND IT IS SPECIFIC TO THE UPCOMING LEGISLATIVE SEASON. WE ARE ALREADY KNEE DEEP IN Secretary Jake Day. There is a 2027 housing legislative suite of proposals that has already been released. So through the Mako Planners Affiliate, We are directly engaged in being reactive and hopefully partnering with the HCD to better the Department of Health and Community... Department of Housing and Community Development, sorry. Department of Housing and Community Development. So we're working on... uh... helping to craft the text of the uh... legislation in such a way that we can support and partner uh... this year through the legislative cycle we do have a meeting tomorrow through the planner's affiliate with secretary day uh... and his staff to talk about that suite of legislation uh... we're also next week uh... through the rural uh... maryland council participating in a housing work group to also discuss the upcoming legislative cycle and the Mako Planners affiliate has formed a legislative committee so that we can better coordinate moving forward.

Yep, so do you have a question?

Amy, is there anything significant in that package of legislation that

Yes. Could you just hit the high points? Sure. So last year, during the last cycle, there was a bill called the Silver Starter Bill, which was meant to streamline processes and to provide greater flexibility for starter homes. and for senior housing a lot of the legislative pieces of that bill included streamlined approvals instant approvals on certain projects we worked with the legislative through the legislative process to promote formalized plans that would be if we were going to streamline and give auto approvals that met general citing standards. So that's pretty much the bulk of what we're working on now. Thank you.

All right, Stephanie Jones, Long Range Principal Planner. I have two updates for you. On August 11th, the county commissioners approved Resolution 2613, which sent an application to the Department of Housing and Community Development for a sustainable communities designation. This was in Stevensville. It's about 200 acres. The designation included the A&E District, which is the Arts and Entertainment District, and also the historical district that's located in Stevensville. IT WAS A JOINT EFFORT BETWEEN PLANNING AND ZONING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. A WORK GROUP WAS CREATED. THERE WAS A PLAN DRAFTED SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT AREA. AND WHAT THIS DESIGNATION DOES, IF IT'S APPROVED BY THE STATE SMART GROWTH COMMITTEE, IT ALLOWS THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THAT DESIGNATED AREA TO RECEIVE FUNDING THROUGH SPECIFIC GRANT OPPORTUNITIES. THEY CAN APPLY THROUGH basically those grant opportunities are only available to designations of sustainable communities. So it gives them, the grants specifically are for infill, redevelopment, also I think a specific one that's really a facade treatment. So if it's a front of a business where they're looking to update the front of the business, sidewalk, any type of transportation. So it is a very much an incentive to Stevensville They said it will be about a three-month process at the state to get through the approval process, but that is also a comp plan initiative and goal, so it was good to see that project kind of get through to the next level.

Give me my update transportation.

So if they're really, it's for pedestrian or sidewalk improvements, if there's gaps in sidewalks, it's kind of to assist with those types of issues that might be in that actual designation.

Also looking at some opportunities to study parking and traffic calming.

Did I miss it or did you mention the dollar amount?

So the dollar amount, there is no dollar amount right now. The dollar amount comes when those properties specifically apply for those grants. And depending on how much money is available at the time through the state, now they are competing with other sustainable communities throughout the state. So there is that as well.

Just curious, has the state budgeted?

Yeah, that is included. Sustainable communities have actually been around a while. Centerville is a sustainable community, and Southernsville is working on revitalizing their sustainable community designation. Every five years, they have to update the plan. So it will be good for Stevensville. And then the other update is Providence Farm. I know back in March, you all gave recommendations to the county commissioners on the termination of the open space. So that's the project here. close to the YMCA and also they, the town requested a zoning waiver. Um, the property is zoned agricultural. Now, um, it's in the town, but they requested a zoning waiver to a T and D district, which is a district in the town. Um, we're about two and a half years into that five year zoning waiver, but, uh, the commissioners held a public hearing on the update, um, of the comprehensive water and sewer plan, which is another piece of that puzzle. on August 25th so in the near future they'll be making decisions on that open space and the zoning waiver and the map amendment for the comprehensive water and sewer plan so that project is moving it's just a takes a while that's all I have so any staff items nothing in mind everybody's good and

Okay. Anything else? Just in the same vein as Stephanie's report on comprehensive water and sewer updates, I will relinquish my seat to Alan Quimby.

Good morning, Commissioners.

Good morning. Thank you, Betty. Alan Quimby, Director of Public Works.

how do you want to do this i'll give them a quick update and then if there's any specific questions so before you you have the 2026 comprehensive water and sewer plan it is a fairly large draft your basically initiative now is to confirm the consistency with the 2022 comprehensive plan and also send a recommendation to the county commissioners regarding that consistency so Basically, we are looking at how our 2022 comprehensive plan lines up with this updated comprehensive water and sewer plan. If you recall back when we were doing the comp plan update, there was a lot of discussions around So there's multiple places throughout the comprehensive plan where sewer is mentioned. There's two goals within the comprehensive water and sewer plan that do specifically address the 2022 comprehensive plan and the consistency. And also the comprehensive water and sewer plan does include the growth area map from the comprehensive plan, also the land use map. So it is directly tied to each other. One thing I'll point out is I know we did, like I said, we talked about the county's sewer plant, the Kent Narrows, Stevensville, Graysonville, the KNSG plant. There is an update in there specific to the adequate public facility of that, and it outlines the process that the county will go through in order to address the remaining sewer capacity, and it gives an outline. But there are They are directly tied to each other. Alan did send you in your report a kind of a memo kind of outlining some of those details. And then the second attachment is a letter, a draft letter to the county commissioners, basically indicating your agreement that this consistent with the comp plan. I don't know if Alan has any specific things to add to that in regards to.

No, as I mentioned in the memo, really the plan has very little to do with development. The biggest parts are amending the plan, which is relatively rare when that's in the back part of Chapter 5, and probably the biggest component is the allocation policy, which is Appendix 1. Other than that, it's basically an inventory document.

How much did you pick up?

When you reallocated?

10%, so 300,000 gallons.

How that works is we're allowed 36,547 pounds a year at our maximum flow of total nitrogen into the bay. So in order for us to get a 10% re-rating, instead of having to meet a 4 mg per liter total nitrogen, now we have to meet a 3.6 mg per liter to keep the pounds even, which we felt comfortable doing, but we wouldn't feel comfortable going any lower than that.

Because it still gives you a cushion, I would imagine.

And I want my operators to be able to sleep at night.

Okay.

Madam Chair?

Yes.

If I might, what sort of impact does a change in impervious services have to do with this plan? Does it affect it at all? Yes, sir. And the second one, quickly, was that... capacity need is 1750 gallons per day or less is typically granted administratively by staff which is fine with me but is that truly de minimis in other words the impact is so small that it doesn't have an effect or could this be not to get dramatic death by a thousand cuts in other words

Currently it's de minimis 10 or 15 years. It may not be. Okay. We probably have to revisit that. And we also have the ability. Staff always has the ability to kick it up to the County commissioners that they feel uncomfortable. Okay.

Thank you.

And you're looking for what today?

So the draft letter essentially, um, which confirms consistency, just a recommendation that the planning commission will send the letter, um, to the County commissioners confirming that consistency.

Madam Chair, I make a recommendation that this body send the letter dated September 10 addressed to county commissioners confirming that the 2026 comprehensive water and sewer plan is indeed consistent with the current county comprehensive plan.

Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. So moved. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Project Courtyards at Nesbitt. Steve Johnson, I guess. Yes, absolutely.

Yes, it's me.

good morning everyone i'm steve johnson senior planner with planning and zoning it's uh good to see everybody back on our home turf for a change even if it's brief we're here um as stated we're here to discuss uh project number spe 25-06-0155 for paquin design build who is proposing a major multifamily development that includes 46 condominium townhouse units, uh, the associated infrastructure and required open space. And the applicant is requesting concept plan approval projects located in Graysonville, south of route 50 on the north side of route 18. More specifically tax map 58 F parcel eight 20 lot three totals 4.2, zero eight acres. And it's located off of Leonard Smith drive in Graysonville property zone, Graysonville gateway and medical center, GGMC, and it's located within the Graysonville growth area. Here's a look at the concept plan. The buildings that are proposed are the shaded brown buildings that you see at the center of your screen there. Access is taken via two entrances, one off of Shoreway Drive and one off of Leonard Smith Drive. Conceptually, all applicable development standards for the zoning district and the townhouse planned residential development standards have met with this proposal. Again, this is a 46 unit proposal. That's the maximum permitted number of units on the parcel. The required point 421 acres of open space is being provided on site and a total of 83,119 square feet of impervious surface is being proposed. There are 137 proposed parking spaces. As you can see, that greatly exceeds the required 92. This is to accommodate townhouse guest parking in the center of the lot there. Amenities on site include a tot lot, a mulch walking pad, and gazebo. They're all labeled on your screen there. Sidewalks are provided around the proposed development to connect the residents to these green areas and amenities. Um, to provide connectivity to uses across the street, uh, two or excuse me, three crosswalks provided to across Leonard Smith drive and one across short way drive. This project is required to be served by public water and sewer. The site currently holds 125 gallons per day and requires an additional 11,375 gallons per day. Should concept plan approval be granted today, the applicant must file an application to the Sanitary Commission to obtain the necessary allocation for this project. The adequate public facility ordinance, or APFO, must be addressed at site plan. Determination of adequacy of water, sewer, transportation, and schools will be required at that time. This project is also required to address moderately priced dwelling units or MPD use. Uh, the number required for this project is five compliance can be made via providing the units donation of land or fee in lieu. In this case, at the moment, the applicant is proposing to provide these onsite and they continue to work with the housing department on that requirement. Stormwater management is provided on-site. The Department of Public Works will continue to review this through the site plan process. All landscaping requirements, including on-site parking lot, street buffer, that's all provided on-site. All the circles that you see on the screen are proposed plantings. There are no steep slopes, floodplain, or erosion hazards on-site, and it's not located within the Sensitive Species Project review area. There is an intermittent stream and some non-tidal wetlands kind of on the north, northeastern portion of the property in dark green. No disturbance to those features or their buffer yards, or their buffers, excuse me, are proposed with this project. And the applicant does propose to clear 0.138 acres of woodlands, which is the hatched white and brown area that you see on your screen. Forest conservation was addressed at the time of the original subdivision. This slide this slide the next one kind of give you a look at some of the features surrounding The proposed development of interest are numbers one two three four and six Let me see if I can get my laser pointer working So number one is the emergency center Queenstown this this is Queenstown landing assisted living number three is slippery hill and Uh, four is the overpass Nesbitt road overpass at 50 and number six is the Ewing farm, 270 lot subdivision. That's currently under review in our office. Um, and this slide just kind of pops the development in there so you can see the scale. Just look at the architectural renderings. These are consistent with the architecture of the other structures in the surrounding area as required by code. Uh, this would be the front of the building facing the roads. These next two slides are the sides of the building. And this is the rear of the building, which will face internal to the proposed development. And with that, that's all I have. I can try to answer any questions you may have or return it over to the applicant. from a water and sewer standpoint or stormwater management standpoint.

I'm looking at how long will it take this to come online, and will we have capacity to handle the stormwater of the project?

There's representatives from DPW here. Could you answer that, Eric?

Can you come to the microphone, please?

Good morning. Eric Miller with the Department of Public Works. I'm sorry. Are you saying sewer and water or storm water?

Once the project goes forward, it's going to have to have a capacity, correct?

I believe the next step from here with approval will be to go before the Water and Sewer Board, which is the county commissioners, where they would assess and either grant or deny water and sewer capacity based upon what we already have.

All right. So that'll be a step ahead.

Yes.

Thank you. You're on. Go ahead.

Morning. Brendan Mullaney with McAllister, Detarcho, Walter & Walker 100, Northwest Street, Easton, Maryland. Brett Ewing with Lane Engineering is the design firm. uh... handling the design for this project and sprint back when is behind us uh... available to answer any questions from an ownership perspective that you have thanks for having us this morning as usual stats done wonderful job outlining all the particulars and showing you all the design this project has been ongoing for uh over two years now we originally submitted in october of 2024 the major multi-family use in this graysonville gateway medical center district is permitted by conditional use approval so we submitted in 2024 the conditional use was approved by the board of appeals in may of 2025 And, uh, shortly thereafter the County, not specific to this project, but specific to potential impacts, uh, related to large residential developments in Queen Anne's County in general. passed a moratorium stopping approvals of sewer capacity for developments requiring more than seven EDUs of sewer capacity. So that moratorium has since expired as of August of this year. This project was recognized, the conditional use approval specifically was recognized as not expiring the moratorium in July of this year was modified so that we didn't run into an expiration problem on the conditional use approval and could come back into the process once that moratorium was lifted and get back in front of you all to continue through the site approval process. The next step, we're seeking approval of the concept plan from you all. So this is the first planning commission step for us to get through the site plan approval process. This is the first step to open the door for us to be able to go and get the sewer allocation approved that the project needs. So that is a step that we're, eagerly awaiting applying for and are going to do as soon as we get through this uh this step the project is a 46 unit townhouse project it is defined as far as the use is concerned as a major multi-family use the units will be condominium eyes and sold to specific owners so there will be a condo regime created there are open common areas that will be maintained by a condo Association I'm gonna have Brett walk through the general layout of the of the project but there are two access points on Shoreway Drive and Leonard Smith Drive this this property was subdivided as part of a residential and commercial subdivision historically, I think around 2008 or 2010. Staff went through the surrounding properties, but the IntegraCare Queenstown landing development is to the southwest, the emergency center is to the west, and then there's another uh... townhouse development villages slippery hill to the west further from that so this is a property that has been specifically identified for development it is within a growth in priority funding area it is designated in the comprehensive plan for medium density residential development which is townhouse uh... project falls into And it's within the Graysonville growth area. So as far as the comprehensive plan is concerned, it checks all the boxes to be consistent with the comprehensive plan as far as the development type and the density. We conform with all of the bulk standards in the code. We don't have any impacts to streams. We're not in the critical area. We don't have impacts to wetlands. Forest conservation requirements have been satisfied. We're not asking for any variances or waivers of any type. We meet all of the landscaping requirements, as you can see in the, colorful rendering on sheet four of six. There's pretty significant shrubs and canopy trees and deciduous trees that are thoughtfully placed around the perimeter and the interior of the site. There are on-site amenities for the occupants and owners in the residential development to use, including walking trails, general open space, a tot lot, These units will have garages and driveway parking. There's also a significant interior parking lot to ensure that there aren't parking issues and at no point will parking be pushed off site to impact adjacent properties. The interconnectivity component has been addressed with sidewalks and crosswalks. We believe that this is a good development that provides needed housing. There will be five MPDU units that are incorporated as part of the development and consistent with the code and we're having those discussions and that will be formalized as part of the final approval process. Um, that said, Brett, if you wouldn't mind just going through and orienting the planning commission on the property and walking them through that.

Sure. I mean, I don't have much more to add again, Brett Ewing lane engineering, uh, obviously Steve and Brendan just now kind of laid out the project for you a little bit more in detail. Um, again, 46 overall units. We have five buildings, uh, stormwater parking, et cetera. Everything's compliant. As Brendan said, we're not requesting any waivers of any of the site standards. So I don't think I have much more to add than what those two have already presented. I will say that the circulation on site can accommodate fire trucks and emergency vehicles. So I think we've checked that box. A fire marshal has reviewed this conceptually and has given some minor comments, but nothing that will significantly affect the layout of the project. The county staff did review this as well. I think that was mentioned through their stack review process last summer, about a year ago. And all agencies have kind of given their blessing conceptually that we're allowed to proceed through to this step and then to the next step of major site plan site construction plan design and review. So, Again, I think we check all the boxes from a design perspective, from a code compliance perspective at this level of concept review, and we're happy to just answer any questions you may have.

Many questions.

Okay. Um, you answer one of my questions. So these are going to be units for sale. Okay. Individual sale. Um, and is there any, and this might be a little early on to ask, but will the, an owner be able to rent these units after purchase or is that something that would be determined by a condo association or

It would be, and we haven't had internal discussions about restricting that. Okay. You know, they would be sold. It would be possible for an owner to, you know, own it and rent it for a variety of reasons, investment and, you know, personal and otherwise, but. We haven't had any requests, and I don't think there's any legal requirement that that be done.

Okay, just curious. And then a price point to you? That's just a curiosity on my part. Are we a little early in the game?

We can bring that to you in the next discussion if we could, and I can commit to doing that. I don't know that we have a price point prepared right now. They will be market rate housing. It's not affordable housing, and it's not considered luxury housing, but it's market rate.

Other than the five. We'll have five in BP. Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Can you define an MPDU for me, please?

Definition.

I'm a close. What's it, I'm talking, what's, what's it cost? What's, what's a moderately priced dwelling unit cost? I'm not sure of the cost of these. That would be, I'm sorry.

I don't know.

Maybe. So the moderately priced dwelling unit cost is evaluated annually.

Kelly Huber with the housing department maintains that spreadsheet. It's based on a formula that is based on the market value within the year. And the qualification at a 65% low to moderate income threshold. So every year it's a different price. I don't have it off the top of my head right now.

The answer. That's not an answer. I'm sorry. Hold on. Let me walk across the hall and I can give you that answer.

I can give you a number. Yeah, I'd appreciate it.

The reason I asked, I'm not trying to be combative with you. I had this conversation with one of our commissioners not recently, and the average home price in this county, and this is according to Grok right now, my AI that I use, the median price in this county is now $531,000, according to Grok, which it could be argued that's great, You argue that's not so great. I tend to think that there's some problems with that. So there's got to be something available. I would hope we could make something available for people of lesser means. And that's all I want to say on that. But I am curious what the county considers moderately priced.

And that is outlined in regulation. I'm still just curious. It is a definitive number every year, so I can give it to you. But there's a difference between a moderately priced dwelling unit which is specific to a qualifying resident who meets the criteria under the DHCD standards of low to moderate income. And there's another category, which is general affordability, which isn't regulated through our inclusionary housing standards. And that was the question that... I think that Brendan Mullaney said that he would bring back to you just to let you know what that price point was. But as he noted, these aren't proposed to be workforce housing units. That sounded to me like they're not going to be luxury homes, but they're also not affordable. The MPDU requirement at this level of development does guarantee at least five units that are going to be accessible to qualifying residents.

So thank you. Yep. So now the next question I have or comment I guess is going to go completely opposite direction of what I was just talking about. But when I look, can you pull up the elevation of the buildings? that go the other one. So you know, can we do a little bit better on some of this architecture and make it a little more aesthetically pleasing without, you know, ruining your marketing plan, siding on these big buildings, I don't think is really the best or a long period of time. The the single roofline could be maybe improved a little bit. It's not I you know, I'm okay with the project. I won't tell you that right now. But I'm just I understand it's gonna be and we see a lot of these bills around here. They look good the first few years and then they steadily done.

Is it the size of the windows and the and the size of that?

I'm not an architect. I'm a farmer. I'm telling you, I just think like, could you put a shutter on the thing but not be a real one? Or do something with the window with the window casements to improve the the aesthetics? Yeah, those are things you know, to revisit that you got I'm guessing you're not an architect here. So you know, you guys got an architect you're working with? Yeah, you know, ask them, you know, don't wreck the I'm not asking to wreck the marketing plan, but

do better it's usually the conversation is folks want a different aesthetic to a building and obviously our response generally is that impacts the cost but i think we can look at this and try to find that fine line balance of i bet you could do that i'm sure we could i'll bet you could yeah i got faith you got that face man we'll see what we can do all right that's it any other questions elevation is the one that you're focused on correct you could you know

I mean that's to me that could be improved that view is just from the interior parking lot obviously the front is from 18 yeah you got to go through stacked meetings and all hearings all that kind of stuff that's really their bailiwick and we can have that discussion you know that that side doesn't bother me quite so much that's the side you're gonna see from the public

All right. We'll, we'll have that discussion and see what we can do.

Any other questions?

I have some actually, um, and staying on that vein, um, Steven, can you go back to the aerial that shows the layout of them? There you go. Thank you. The artist rendering here. Are those the proposed or, or considered, uh, tiles for the roofs, the colors for the asphalt or that.

This is just artist latitude and illustrative just to provide some context. All right.

If that could get cleaned up for the next round, that would go a long way. So it doesn't look sort of Disney colored.

But you wanted to, okay.

That's the picture that was provided. It's informative, but I don't know that it's appropriate to have four different, five different colored roofs and for that to sit with us. Just a comment along previous commissioner's comments. And also, the GGMC zoning district has a purpose. and it's laid out, dot, dot, dot. Community of Graysonville to provide the development of mixed uses, including medical related uses, retail and limited residential. Can you make me feel comfortable that this is a limited residential development?

And how your interpretation? On two sides of it. So I think the point is that it shouldn't all be residential in the zoning district, but there are residential developments permitted

Two of the existing are residential. You're proposing 100% residential, and the one across the street is medical and emergency. I'm reading this. This is my job to weigh in on whether this is consistent with a comprehensive plan language, and the language clearly states not just residential, limited residential, and retail, and health care-related services, employment, and business opportunities. I don't so much see that in this proposal.

I don't, well, I'll defer to your staff, but I don't believe that that's intended to say on each property for each development, all of those should be incorporated.

Okay. Well then it's three, three V one with your development, residential commercial.

Well, the property of the Southwest is assisted living, correct?

They live there. That's residential.

So that's technically a commercial use assisted living.

You're splitting hairs, but go across the street. That's 90% residential slippery Hill.

Correct.

That's what's on the first floor. Do you know? No. Absolutely nothing of that front building. It's commercial. That's been there for five years? Easily. Probably a little bit more. So, I mean, I get it, but we're drifting away. This is mission creep, right? We're drifting away from the definitions in the zoning district. I'm asking you to make me feel comfortable that that drift is appropriate. And pointing out that other people are doing this specific development.

The use is permitted with conditional use approval specifically allocated to the board of appeals. The board of appeals considered this use in this zoning district on this property and found it to be appropriate. Unanimously approved it and found it to be compatible with the code and the comprehensive plan. So I believe that that box has already been checked as far as the use specific on this property. I also believe that this residential use is permitted generally in the zoning district and that what you just cited specifically allows a development like this and complements it.

I just have the problem with the term limited. It's clearly inserted for a purpose. And I don't see this as a limited development. Yes, the other two had some commercial components or this medical component. I don't see any of those other components that are listed in the district purpose on your property.

What do you believe a limited residential use would be?

A mixed use. Something other than 100% residential, which is what limited suggests. Not even half. Limited. This is 100% residential. Again, I need comfort in this moving forward, and this is the time to raise concerns about what you're proposing and how I interpret that definition in 18.135.1a.

I'll make sure that I've got a explanation, but that's all I can ask at this point. And I'll dig into what that limited residential reference.

Fantastic. Appreciate that. Uh, next, uh, of significant concern is the over parking, uh, by 45 spaces, which essentially one per unit. And this property, Graysonville, this corridor is part of the MS4 jurisdictional permit that the county has, right? The municipal separate storm sewer system. It's in place to limit impervious surface development and to the extent possible. And if not, then those exceedances must be mitigated somewhere else in the county. So every square foot of impervious that's laid down, we have to plant more trees or develop more open space. Can you justify why the 45, almost 50% increase by 45 units in your parking plan far exceeds the parking required? Understanding that it's expensive to pave. And as a follow-up, while you're thinking of that answer, Stephen, do we have any knowledge on whether there is on-street parking allowed on Leonard Smith and or Shoreway?

I don't believe there is, but I didn't look into that. I don't know if Eric would be aware of anything.

Can that be made into this next stack conversation?

Yeah, we can talk about it.

As well as the applicant's sort of... considering concern over that. We're gonna talk about it later in some of the text amendments. We've talked about it at length with stormwater concerns. And also of concern, I'll give you a chance to respond before I go any further.

So I guess just a clarifying question. What's what's driving the concern? Is it that stormwater requirements aren't being met or that there's some, I don't know if the stormwater has been met yet.

It's still under review by DPW. My concern is that this County typically over parks and we're being bit by that situation with this MS4 permit, which is a binding permit legally that requires us to mitigate for impervious cover. in this district between Graysonville and the Bay Bridge, essentially. The Route 50 corridor. It's pretty unique as far as an MS4 jurisdiction goes in the state. It's the only one we have. It's only one of four on the shore. Can you tell me what an MS4 jurisdiction is? Sure. It's a permit that is required by the state. If you exceed impervious cover percentage by some number, it requires you to mitigate and offset those impacts right we're paving too much between this property and the bay bridge so the state says okay you're only allowed to do it to a certain extent and then when you exceed that you have to plant more trees or have more open space or offset those those pavements right it's an environmental impact and it's a it's a statewide permit it's not inexpensive it's a bean counters worst nightmare And on the downstream side of this, sorry for the pun, right, it influences the stormwater practices that are put on site because they now have to treat the nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment that Mr. Quimby just said were in exceedance at our wastewater treatment plant. But it also runs off in polluted stormwater. So... I always question the over parking. Sometimes it's justified for whatever circumstances. It's a convention center or it's a shared parking situation. And hence my question about the street parking. If there is street parking, and don't take this the wrong way, it's how society, right, we build these massive parking lots at churches. Massive. For what? For one or two days a year that maybe it gets to 80% capacity? It's just... Sunday's a big day for a lot of people. But for Easter and Christmas, do we pave five extra acres of farm field? No, no, I'm not really stopped. It's an example of we prepare for the worst-case parking scenario. And for the other 363 days a year, we suffer from that. As opposed to having somebody walk across the street or maybe drop somebody off the door and then park in a nearby other place, we overpark. And we have to suffer the consequences of that in the long-term management of this MS4 permit in the state. It costs the county money to overpark. It costs the applicant money to overpark. It costs the environment to overpark. All right, I'll step down for myself.

I'm not as familiar with the MS4 permit and what the implications of that are and what the implications of this project on that are. So I'll get conversing with that to make sure that to the extent we need to address it next time we're in front of you, I will.

Don't mean to give you homework, but I appreciate that follow-up.

What I can say is the project will meet all the stormwater requirements, state and local. The project does comply with all of the lot coverage requirements and is well under lot coverage and well over open space. The open space required is 18,339 square feet. The total landscape surface area provided is 2.3 acres of a 4.2 acre site. So this site is... a lot of green. There's also an extraordinary amount relative to development elsewhere, I would say, of plantings that are required. I wrote those numbers down and left them in my office at seven this morning, so forgive me for not regurgitating those immediately. But there's a lot of planting that is proposed as part of the plan.

this project required as part of the plan it is required let's be clear what you're what you're complying with is all required and we wouldn't be having this conversation or we won't be having the next phase if it's not because you won't be able to meet the minimum standards so appreciated but they're all required

I don't disagree, and if you meet all the requirements of the law, you should be approved. The use is permitted. It's been approved. It complies with all the bulk standards. It complies with everything. There's boxes that need to be checked and approvals that we need, and we'll be back in front of this planning commission for all of those subsequent approvals. But I'll research the MS4. designation and if this project has any impact on that, I'll be able to articulate that. One thing that I do want to note is that 46 of these parking spaces are in the units. So that's not additional lot coverage. Those are garage parking spaces. There is an interior parking lot for overflow parking. This is about three spaces per unit as proposed and a third of those are garages.

46 units, one extra you're asking for one extra parking spot per unit.

Well, there are three bedroom units, right? And so we've done multiple projects like this together in multiple jurisdictions and. The common theme is you're not parking enough. We don't want overflow parking on the public street. We want you to have enough parking to accommodate a party if you have an event. Where are those six to 10 people gonna park? We don't want you parking on a neighbor's property, blocking the driveway, et cetera. you know, I think we're, we're trying to walk that fine line where yes, we meet the requirement, but we also hear the common theme and concern is you don't have enough parking for these events. Hey, what if somebody has a teenager that has a vehicle, where are they going to park? So we have these, this third space, again, there's some extra parking will comply stormwater. Uh, as Brendan said, it has been reviewed conceptually by the county. Now the county has agreed that it conceptually meets the standard. Again, we have to go through more of a process from a stormwater design perspective. But for now, we check all the boxes for stormwater. So there should be no additional runoff or impacts to anything downstream of this project with this additional parking proposed. So again, for the reasons that I said, that's why we thought it was appropriate to. provide these additional parking spaces because our three bedrooms because teenagers, events, et cetera. Um, that's the common concern from most jurisdictions is you're not parking enough. So that's why we're providing what we are.

Fair enough. And if the general consensus from the planning commission is we don't want the parking, we think it's impractical and the applicant, we will have the discussion can live with less parking than, you know, we don't have whatever the county is comfortable with and the development can live with and function with it where the where those 2 are compatible is what we're and I've I've asked staff to do some homework and look into the right that Leonard Smith is a wide road.

And I and I don't know if there's the even ability to legally part there or what the maybe that in is dependent upon what goes in your on your parcel.

right that's TBD as far as I'm concerned just from a just a design engineering perspective I would I would advise against parking on Leonard Smith just because the traffic to the medical facility back and forth would create a some sort of pedestrian hazard in my opinion if we can avoid Leonard Smith that would be my advice but again whatever the county is comfortable with if we you know we need to remove some parking spaces on site we're happy to do so do you think the crosswalks are inadequate then

Yeah, people's parking on the street and getting out of their vehicles is different than, you know, pedestrian understood.

But what is that 200 yards? I mean, people aren't doing 40 on that street. But okay, let's look for alternatives to reducing that parking number has that. Thank you. And I think that was the last The color of the roof, the language in the zoning district purpose, and the over parking. Oh, I know what it was. It's concerning to me that we're, and this is not restricted to your project, is that we are removing beneficial land cover Specifically looking at the tree line that will be cut and removed to build a stormwater treatment facility. It sounds absolutely blank to me and I don't know if this is a conversation we had with DPW or with staff to encourage development not to remove beneficial things like a forested wood line to put in a stormwater feature, and it goes back to because there's increase in impervious cover, so the stormwater treatment pond has to be that size. Do you see where the problem, the rub is? It's getting down into the weeds with me, but I've been doing this for 30 years, and I've finally found my seat and my voice. And I just caution you and others in your profession, looking at Lane, not you personally, sir, And again, maybe it's a conversation with staff and DPW that is this a comfortable path for the county to take that? Yes, you can mow down a half acre of trees to build a stormwater treatment pond. It just sounds like we're robbing Peter and not paying Paul because we're taking out a beneficial practice. That's natural. That's free. And you're cutting it down and putting in a stormwater treatment plant. soil and water treatment facility to treat the upland that you're overpaving. It's a silly cycle of society, and we're contributing to it by promoting and approving plans like these. So please caution and please have a response with staff and or the applicant to that when you come back, assuming you'll get your approval that you're asking today. Why you were comfortable cutting down perfectly healthy forest to build an open water stormwater treatment plan pond that you've designed because you've chosen to develop your property as you're proposing?

Well, there's, property owners have rights to do with their property what they want within the confines of the law.

Understood.

This development satisfies the requirements of the law. Forest conservation has been satisfied. A property owner has the right to clear vegetation on their property. If we give you approval, you have not gotten there.

I understand. With all respect. And we don't have to approve even though you checked all the boxes. Right? It's our discretion. Some of your tone is a bit presumptive.

Well, there's stormwater design requirements that are in the law that have to be satisfied. There's parking. There's a practical aspect and a legal requirement for parking that both should be satisfied so that there's a functional development. And all of that is designed for and requires some clearing. Forest conservation requirements have been satisfied, and there's on-site retention in perpetual easement to ensure that those forests are not removed. This development, as proposed, does require some minimal clearing of existing forest land.

It requires it at your own action, is my standing, is my comment. It's a self-inflicted wound. So I just, it gives me caution, like the limited, like the language that we've discussed, like the other points I've brought up, with the exception of the artist rendering of the roof line, which I get at this level, but I was just making sure that you weren't creating some, you know, oddly colored roofs in this community.

We'll modify that. Understood.

I get it that an artist has a palette to work with, and I don't anticipate seeing pink trees, but maybe there are flowers and dogwoods. I don't know.

And I think there's an assumption that this, this hatch area of removal is a robust, mature forest. It's an edge of a field. That's a lot of scrub, scrub brush, invasive, just a lot of, you know, not mature canopy trees. There might be a handful in there. We can verify that number. It may, if it makes you feel any better that, you know, Hey, we're moving just a few mature trees and the rest of this is a scrub brush and edge, you know, invasive type of tree. Uh, again, that that's usually what you see on the edge of these, uh, you know, mature woodlands is, is not the greatest.

Careful where you're going. Um, cause you're talking to a guy that does this for a living. The edge is probably more important than the standing force behind it and the open field and the other sides transition zone. for a number of species to move between the upland fields or the upland woodlands typically and the lowland meadows. Uh, it's very important habitat, um, because it's that transitional piece. Granted, I've seen frag in there and that's not a good thing. And I, but you're also putting a giant stormwater pond in an existing frag field. So it, yeah, I'm just putting cautionary tales out there.

We're using the term forest and I don't know if that the term is a hundred percent wooded.

at some level of health TBD. And I don't want to go down this rabbit hole any further than I already have. I think I've made my points clear and my concerns clear, and I look forward to hearing your responses and assuming you'll come to the next phase. And I appreciate your comments thus far.

thank you I just had two questions for the staff the Queenstown landing assisted living and memory care unit is that not considered commercial slash medical words I mean it's an institutional use institutional use okay and then the way I heard Commissioner Lee's concerns with regard to the term limited use, but the way I read that limited use in this Graysonville growth area is not limited use on that particular property, but limited use in the whole zone. So that's how I was reading it. So I'm kind of curious about that.

Which one is it?

I would interpret it as the entire zoning district. limited residential throughout the zoning district sorry that better usually loud enough I would interpret it as for the zoning district as a whole not a particular property unless somebody else here has a different opinion I saw him standing up.

Rob Gunter, Department of Planning and Zoning. Two things. I'll speak to that. I think it could be interpreted both ways, property specific and zoning district specific. You would have to holistically look at the entire zoning district to determine how much residential use there is because if the majority of that has been developed as residential and you've only concentrated on individual developments, well now you're not limited anymore. So this zoning district's small. It's these parcels here and Slippery Hill. And there may be one other. So this very well may be limited. That's for you guys to decide. But I think it can be done both ways. And should be done both ways. With regard to the parking, Typically, residential developments, if a single-family dwelling or a townhome, in this case, has a garage, we count that as at least one space. If it's a two-car garage, we count it as two. Admittedly, most people won't use that as parking, and then they end up parking in their driveway. If the driveway is at least... nine by 18 that will count as one spot. But if it's 18 by 18, um, it would be two spots. Um, our parking spaces are required to be nine by 18 and we don't want them parking on the internal streets if we can at all help it. So we typically ask, where's your overflow parking? Um, a lot of times we ask for trailer parking. People have boats, especially in this community, not this, but our community as a whole. Um, I don't know how many extra parking spaces are here, and I don't know what the number is to make it appropriate or not to have. How many extra spaces you actually need? Personal experience, my mom lives in a town home community. I gotta park. I have to go drop my wife and kids off at her house, go park, and then I gotta walk back. Kind of a pain in the neck. She lives in something very similar, and there are three visitor spaces in her court. And what we find is that the residents park there. Somebody will have two cars and they just go park there and they are never empty. So staff will typically ask for some overflow parking. In this case, I don't know how many was asked for, if it was just proffered to begin with. So for what that's worth.

thank you thank you thank you rob bill yeah so with regards to parking i'm this is completely new to me i've only ever been part of discussions where we've been asked to waiver for too little parking you know so i'm this one's new to me but i just want to make three comments one is you made a comment about property rights and i believe you right you're right there 100 you have rights Number two is in our packet that's prepared by the staff, who I lean heavily on to help me through this job, as the conclusion, no agencies that have reviewed this concept plan have offered objections to its approval. so you've met that standard now that's an early standard right but that gives you some idea that if we vote to approve this concept plan uh you have a you can have a reasonable expectation that you're going to be able to get it done soon and you can follow all the right rules and regulations of which there are many too many And then the last thing is, this is just a concept plan. You know, this isn't the final approval, you got a lot of steps go through yet. So, you know, Tom's Tom's issues with parking, I mean, maybe that maybe they're legitimate, maybe they're not, you know, but everybody gets to have their finger in that pie. You know, your your buildings probably aren't going to look the same at the end of the process as they are at the beginning of the process. But it's just a concept plan. So you know, that's all I want to say.

Okay, any other questions?

I've got one olive branch to extend to the applicant. And that is while you're considering all these feedback, comments and questions and homework that we asked of you is would you please consider look at options for permanent permeable pavement in your development plan that would make me feel a lot better about the over paving for parking?

Look into that.

oftentimes, you know, there's opportunities. Like I'm looking at the artist rendering again, right? You've got some stippled parking in front of the various garages. Or maybe you make the visitor parking that is prior to that four bay stormwater treatment down that center aisle as impervious, as a pretreatment to your various practices downstream from that.

Thank you.

Amy, do you have a number?

I have some numbers. So for this year, 2026, for a two-bedroom, three-person dwelling, the max mortgage for an MPDU unit, so the MPD unit price, $231,855. For a three-bedroom, a four-person, 257,528. And then a larger home, four-bedroom, five-person, 278,226. Thank you, Amy. You're welcome. Any other questions? Yeah, who said that was moderate?

compared to that 500.

Actually, I looked at a little harder. There's actually another company that does these valuations. It says the median price in this county is $631,000. Now that $278,000 is looking real good. Yeah, it's looking pretty good. What was it, actually? Hold on. Now I'll never find it. Yeah, I'm sorry. I can't find it now.

Okay. So can I get a recommendation? Yeah, public comment. Amy.

I do have median prices as well, fair market prices, if that's what you're looking for. So for the two bedroom, three person, the median price for a similar unit, $368,000. For a three-bedroom, four-person, it's 441,000. And for a four-bedroom, five-person, it is 579,000, all of those with some change. Interesting. I can give this to you after.

I got an idea.

All right, public comment? Thank you. Yes, sir, Mr. Fawcett.

Good morning, commissioners. Jay Falstead, Queen Anne's Conservation Association. I just wanted to latch on to a couple of things that both commissioners have already raised. One was the impervious services. I brought this up to the county commissioners. Couple months ago, I'll be happy to provide you a document, I didn't bring it with me today, that shows that pervious surfaces are less expensive than impervious surfaces because they act as the stormwater feature. And it is beneficial for the environment and is something that we should pursue. So I'll make sure that I get that to you. The second thing that I just wanted to mention to the applicant himself.

Can you repeat that one more time?

Sure.

What is more expensive?

the impervious surfaces are more expensive than the pervious surfaces. Did I say it wrong?

Oh, okay.

And the reason that is is because what happens is, to the extent I understand it, and I'll be happy to provide this to you, is all of these applications on these types of developments require a stormwater pond and require maintenance of a stormwater pond. And the pipes and everything that go to it are a huge expense. by creating a pervious surface that acts as the stormwater feature. So it's preventing stormwater runoff from reaching these creeks, and it prevents the maintenance from these stormwater ponds. There is a little bit of upfront cost on the parking lot itself, but in the long term they end up being less expensive and more beneficial for the environment. To the applicant himself, I just want to emphasize the importance of, as part of your landscape, PLAN TO PLANT NATIVE SPECIES, TREES AND SHRUBBERY. IT'S CRUCIAL FOR OUR GENERAL ENVIRONMENT. IT HELPS SUPPORT BIODIVERSITY AND IS SOMETHING THAT WE MUST DO. AND THEN VERY LASTLY, JUST AS THIS IS NOT A QACA MATTER, BUT SOMETHING THAT COMMISSIONER SYLVESTER BROUGHT UP, I would love if we could find something where we can get better architectural standards than what we have. Because right now, some of these developments that have been approved look like they belong more in Montgomery County than they do in Queen Anne's County. And there are a set of architectural standards Other counties around the country have them. They're typically in the northeast. I think Vermont is famous for having some architectural standards where buildings that are built there, they even have a great example of a McDonald's that looks like a barn and looks like it belongs in New Hampshire or Vermont or wherever it is. We should do something similar because we are starting to get off the rails where a lot of these developments are starting to look like they don't belong in Queen Anne's County. And with that, that was all. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Any other public comment? Okay. Is there? Aren't you okay with everything? Okay. All right, can I get a recommendation, resolution?

Madam Chair, 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 Paquin Design Bill for concept plan approval for major multifamily development that includes 46 condominium townhouse units, the associated infrastructure and required open space, and as more particularly described in Planning and Zoning File SP, Hereby finds the concept plan is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Queen's County 2022 comprehensive plan. The concept plan is consistent with the Queen Anne's County zoning and subdivision regulations. At this point, I'd like to incorporate staff findings in their staff report and the Planning Commission hereby grants concept plan approval subject to the following conditions. Any remaining edits and or documents required by a reviewing agency, the Department of Public Works or Planning and Zoning be reviewed and approved, and that the architecture and overall site design must substantially reflect

the documents provided I get a second all in favor aye opposed all in favor we're gonna take a five minute break or ten minute break thank you thank you Let's go back in the, in the session, um, citizen sponsored text amendment applications. Let's go with county ordinance 26, a five first.

Good morning. Uh, Stephanie Jones, long range principal planner. Um, just as a caveat. So these first four citizen sponsored text amendments you have given recommendations on, uh, prior to in April and may. Um, so they were obviously sent with your recommendations to the county commissioners. And the commissioners introduced an amendment to all four of those. So with that, they were considered substantially different. And the reasons are they were sent back to the Planning Commission. So that's why you're kind of seeing these again for a second time, including an amendment. So just to give you that as a heads up. But this first one, 2605, yep.

Go back with what happens if we approve today, what happens to them?

So today you will make a recommendation just as you would with any other text amendment and then it will go back to the county commissioners with your recommendation and they'll continue to go through the legislative process. They'll hold a public hearing and then a vote on the original amendment and then also the amendment to the original citizen sponsored ordinance itself. So it'll continue through the regular process essentially. All right, so 2605, like I said, was submitted with citizen-sponsored text amendment applications in February, and this is specific to the measurement point in which a distance is taken from the entrance and exit of a gas station, essentially something that can fuel pumps, underground fuel storage tanks, islands, and including those canopies, and the distance in which they are from an intersection. So currently in the code, the code requires through a supplemental use standard that the entrance or exit to what would be a gas station be 100 feet.

Is Art with us or do you know? Art, are you with us? I'm here. Okay, because we have you bent over the computer.

Yeah, he's kind of frozen.

It's a frozen shot.

So the code currently requires 100 feet in order for a gas station the entrance and exit of the gas station from edge of pavement to edge of pavement from the entrance and exit to the intersection. The citizen sponsor text amendment in February requested that that measurement be reduced from 100 feet to 75, and then the measurement to be located from center line of the entrance and exit to the center line of the closest intersection. So that was the amendment in February that was submitted. Then following the commissioners, after your recommendation, which was an unfavorable recommendation to the county commissioners, The commissioners introduced an amendment, and the amendment is specifically to keep the 100-foot distance and the measurement method from edge of pavement to edge of pavement, but to allow for a process in which an applicant could submit a variance application to the Board of Appeals, but that variance could be no less than 75 feet. So what it does, it allows this specific property owner to go through the process of a Board of Appeals variance. They would have to meet the unwarranted hardship or practical difficulty test. And basically what you're looking at with a variance request is the specifics of that property. So they have to identify what might be different on that property compared to others also the unwarranted hardship is basically saying that they're denied reasonable and reasonable use of their property so the board would make that ultimate decision essentially then giving the applicant the lesser of the distance of a hundred feet so the department of public works if you recall back when we looked at the original amendment said that If there is an avenue for a variance process, they would be unfavorable of it. So this is in line with what DPW had recommended back in May. Also, it is consistent with the measurement methods that DPW and State Highway utilize. So it is keeping consistent with that method of measurement and not changing it.

When you say that, are you talking about the 100 feet or the 75 feet?

So the 75, are you talking about the amendment?

You just said it was in line with the state.

So the method in which is being measured, the center line to center line is not technically how the state measures distances between roads. Um, they measure more of a edge of pavement to edge of pavement. So that's, um, it's keeping consistent with how others do that measurement. The amendment is, um, based on this, the fact that, you know, it's going to look at these properties individually and not allow, um, you know, by right, essentially the reduction of that distance, um, or the changing of the method, uh, staff is giving a favorable requesting a favorable recommendation of the amendment, um, to be set to the County commissioners. Um, I don't know if you have any questions specific to the amendment. Um, Also the applicant of the original citizen-sponsored text amendment is here. So if you have any questions, they are here as well.

I don't know if this is a question or not, but I'm kind of uncomfortable with this concept of unnecessary hardship. I understand it if you translate it literally. My concern is mischief. That's why I say it's more a comment than anything else. Really what we're doing is bucking the decision to the Board of Appeals.

Essentially, it does give them that the availability to do so. So that is a standard. If you look in the zoning code, the Board of Appeals obviously gets there can be variances to setbacks, you know, district setbacks. So it's not the only application that they would see that would be altering a required setback.

Is a Board of Appeals decision a recommendation to the commissioners, or is it final?

That's a final decision.

Okay.

Okay, you're on.

Sure. I'm going to be short and sweet. Um, I belabored the point the last couple of times I was in front of you, I think so. Um, yeah, as you all, you're familiar with this request, the text amendment was, uh, was originally, Oh, I'm sorry.

You have to introduce reintroduce yourself.

Sure. Brendan Mulaney with McAllister detour show, Walter and Walker 100 Northwest street, um, here on behalf of the applicant for the original citizen led text amendment in this matter. 2605 and the original proposal was to reduce the setback from 100 feet to 75 feet when I came in front of you earlier this year I talked about alternatives and you all were directed by staff not to consider those which I understand the policy decision there we went to the commissioners and had not exactly the same but pretty much the same discussion with them and uh... they recognize the problem and that right now the code does not have any mechanism where it may be appropriate for property owner to have this use on a property that is within a hundred feet uh... so i think what this proposes is a really stringent, under the legal variance criteria that have to be considered by the Board of Appeals, a really stringent avenue for a property owner to pursue approval in a circumstance where there's a unique hardship. And those legal criteria have to be Demonstrated and met it is property specific. And there is a process, uh, that that will have to go through the, the applicant for this citizen led text amendment is supportive of this approach because it does create an avenue for somebody to, to seek approval. It is not a guarantee of any kind of approval, uh, and the, the maximum reduction that the board of appeals could approve based on the text amendment that's before you offer a recommendation today. is a 25 foot reduction. So it couldn't be any closer than 75 feet from an intersection. So I'm happy to answer any questions that you have about what's before you today, but we're supportive of this approach and ask that you send a favorable recommendation to the commissioners on this text amendment.

Okay, any questions?

I'm still having trouble with this concept of hardship. this is a gas station we're talking about. So what could be the possible hardship involved in not being able to put the gas station on this property?

So everything is property specific and it has to be property unique. Um, I mean, I can sit here and conjecture about what the Board of Appeals may determine to be unique, but ordinarily it is a parcel configuration is one pretty common hardship. Another example of a hardship are... How is that a hardship? because it isn't a situation that was created by the applicant. It's an existing parcel of record. And the hardship, I think you used a word that's escaping me a couple minutes ago about mischief. So the hardship can't be self-created in Maryland. So if that eliminates mischief. So I think that's already addressed by the law and the Board of Appeals process for a variance. But the so the hardship has to be property specific. It can't be self-created and it has to deprive the property owner of a reasonable use of the property. So the the the. Variance criteria are really specific. They're adopted in state law. They're adopted in Queen Anne's County Code. And the Board of Appeals has to consider an application and find that they're all satisfied in order to approve a variance. So I think that it's a pretty stringent and really narrow avenue in a very specific set of circumstances where this would allow a gas station setback to be reduced no more than 25 feet, no closer than 75 feet from an intersection.

I guess my concern is that if somebody purchases a lot intending to put a gas station on it and then discovers whoops all of a sudden they don't meet the zoning criteria that's not a hardship that's a poor purchase decision.

All true. Okay. And the Board of Appeals does not have to approve if they find that those legal criteria aren't satisfied they'll deny the variance application and the gas station won't be installed. Okay, thank you. Yes, sir.

Just to your point, but it would allow then that gas station to go through a Board of Appeals process that they currently wouldn't have the mechanism to do.

Right, I get that. I mean, I think on the whole it's not a bad idea, but I guess I'm having trouble letting go and understanding the Board of Appeals will have to deal with it as they see fit, and that's not our job here today, so... Thank you.

Another thing that might help. So this is only a variance from what's in the zoning code. So State Highway is going to have their own requirements. DPW is going to have their own requirements if it's a county road. So this is only a variance from what lives in the zoning code. So there will be other agencies that will have their own requirements. So if that puts a little bit of a help.

Thank you.

Madam Chair.

Yes, ma'am. So for the staff, I think at the last time we discussed this text amendment was brought up that gas stations and cannabis facilities were the two uses that were not allowed to apply for a variance. Am I am I saying that correctly?

Yes. So at this point, the way the code is written, it gives the Board of Appeals does not give the Board of Appeals the authority to grant a variance through supplemental use standards. So at this point, basically, an applicant cannot go to the Board of Appeals and ask for a variance because the board doesn't have that authority. by adding this code the the change with the amendment it does give the board of appeals that authority to do so but only for the gas station it's not going to open it up for the other uses and the supplemental use standards that have setbacks that's what i see coming down the road so do we anticipate that the other category that that is in the same category as this and of course you can't answer that question right and that yeah that is for those uses so it's going to open the door for okay

Thank you. Can I just clarify that question? Yeah, I understand.

Your concern is that other uses may come to seek a text amendment to allow this, because that is completely discretionary. You all get an opportunity to review that and make a recommendation, and then the commissioners can say, we're not allowing a reduction of the setback for cannabis facilities. Got it.

Stephanie, while you're on the mic, for clarification, please. This is across the county zoning districts.

Yep.

So only impacts gas stations.

Yes.

So, but it's across the whole width of where gas stations are permitted. Correct. So that only impacts gas stations and therefore only impacts the districts that allow gas stations.

Now, if it is, for some reason, how it's described in the supplemental use standard, it'll say properties that contain fuel pumps, underground fuel storage tanks, and islands, including cabin. It doesn't say gas stations, but the way they describe it, it's a gas station. Right, understood. So it could, if there is a gas... pump somewhere a fuel pump somewhere else it could fall into this but generally that's not maybe their primary income right for that particular property it could be a convenience store or generally it's going to be a gas station that's the yeah right and then those um those are permitted in suburban commercial ken island suburban commercial urban commercial town center and village center right as a uh conditional use okay so so it's only those whatever four One, two, three, four by right and then one by conditional use.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

There we go. Sorry.

Public comment?

We have two people for public comment.

Okay. Let me. Let's do them in the room first. Okay.

All right.

Can you guys hear me okay? My name is Katie Anderson and I reside in Price, Maryland. I respectfully submit the following comments regarding the Ordinance 2605 Amendment Number 1. I'm asking the Planning Commission to maintain its previous unfavorable recommendation and recommend against Amendment Number 1. I recognize that this amendment is an improvement over the original proposal. It retains the existing 100-foot standard but would allow the Board of Appeals to grant a variance reducing the distance to no less than 75 feet. My question is simple. Why should this longstanding safety standard be made varianceable at all? The staff report acknowledges that gas stations are high volume traffic areas and that the required distance from an intersection serves safety and traffic control purposes. The 100 foot requirement has existed since 1994 and Public Works previously characterized it as a reasonable standard. If 100 feet remains a reasonable safety standard, what planning or public safety evidence demonstrates that the county should now allow it to be reduced by as much as 25%. The circumstances behind the amendment are also relevant. Although this would be a countywide change, it originated from a proposed convenience store and gas station at 1104 Price Station Road. The applicant previously sought a variance because the proposed entrance is less than the 100 feet from the intersection, and after that request was unsuccessful, the text amendment was put forth. The proposed development is also very near US 301 and Maryland 405 intersection, which has a serious and well-documented crash history. Queen Anne's County itself has sought state intervention to improve the safety there, citing 66 crashes over approximately five and a half years. Unfortunately, those concerns remain relevant and current. On September 4th, not even a week ago, another significant collision occurred at this intersection. Four patients were involved and according to the responding local fire department, Bing Church Hill, three of those patients were flown to shock trauma in Baltimore. I do not mention this accident to suggest the proposed development caused it. I want to be clear on that. I mention it because it demonstrates that the safety concerns in this immediate area are real and ongoing. I recognize that the proposed gas station entrance is not within 100 feet of US 301 and Maryland 405. The dirt road between the proposed development and US 301 is what is triggering the 100-foot requirement. But the dirt road may be what triggers the requirement. But US 301 and Maryland 405 are part of the real world traffic environment in which this development would operate. A convenience store and gas station at this location would introduce additional traffic very near an intersection with a documented history of serious crashes. This is why the broader safety conditions surrounding this site matter when considering an amendment that could ultimately provide the relief necessary for this development to move forward. A countywide zoning standard should be changed because evidence demonstrates that the existing standard no longer represents sound planning policy, not simply because it creates a constraint for a particular development proposal. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that the Planning Commission maintain its unfavorable recommendation and retain the existing 100-foot requirement. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Next. Any other public comment in the room? Okay. Do you have anyone there?

Hi there, can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes, we can.

Okay, sorry about that. Little technical difficulties here. Um, my name is Laura Davis of Churchill, Maryland, and I'm a lifelong resident of Queen Anne's County currently residing, like I said, in Churchill, uh, near the 301, 405 intersection. And I do travel 301 daily. I'm here to respectfully ask the planning commission to give ordinance 2605 and even as amended and unfavorable recommendation. I've been advocating for safety improvements at the 301, 405 intersection for some time because I see firsthand the challenges and dangers there. This is an intercept on our families, school buses, young drivers, farmers, commercial vehicles, and neighbors navigate every day. And time and time again, we have seen that mistakes along the corridor can have devastating and deadly consequences. That is why I struggle to understand why we are considering creating an exception to an existing standard at a location that already desperately needs additional safety improvements. The county's existing requirement is 100 feet. The amendment may technically preserve that number, but it creates a pathway for an applicant to reduce it to 75 feet through a variance. and we cannot ignore why we are discussing this in the first place, a proposed gas station at the 301, 405 intersection. If a particular property cannot accommodate a proposed use while meeting the county existing standards, perhaps the proposed use simply does not fit the property. The answer should not be changing the code to create a pathway around the requirement. I also continue to ask, why 75 feet? What independent traffic engineering analysis Our safety data demonstrates that 75 feet is appropriate. If 100 feet was established as the county standard, what has changed from traffic safety standpoint to justify allowing less? A variance process does not answer those questions. And this amendment will not apply only to this property. Once this mechanism is written into county code, it can potentially be used for future development elsewhere in Queen Anne's County. I support responsible economic development, but responsible development means finding projects that work within reasonable public safety standards, not lowering those standards until a particular project works. I would much rather see the time, energy, and influence of our local government focused on working with the State Highway Administration and asking, what can we do to make 301-405 safer? Instead, we are discussing how to reduce an existing requirement from 100 feet to 75 feet to potentially accommodate additional development at an already dangerous intersection. That feels completely backwards. As a lifelong resident and a mother, I want to know that when my children, my neighbors, and everyone else in this community pulls out on 301, our government has done everything reasonably possible to protect them. Please focus your efforts on making 301, 405 safer, not creating exceptions or loopholes to existing standards. I respectfully ask you to give Ordinance 2605, as amended, an unfavorable recommendation and preserve the existing 100-foot requirement. Our community needs higher expectations for safety on roads, not local ones. Thank you. Thank you.

And you still have another one?

Good morning, my name is Heather Mowe, M-O-W-E-L-L. Good morning, I also live in Churchill and I'm a lifelong resident of Phoenix County. So I first and foremost, I just wanna echo the sentiments by Ms. Davis and Ms. Anderson. I share them all with respect to the amendment as a whole and also with respect to a specific intersection. So I also am requesting an unfavorable recommendation 2605 Amendment 1. So first off, what sticks out to me was also alarmed or created comment within the Planning Commission itself is that this variance creates the opportunity for people to purchase land knowing that it doesn't meet their requirements and then claim a unique hardship for the situation that they created. And then in doing so and creating this unique hardship and speaking about the actual purpose of the land, they speak very clearly and openly about what the public would like, that this land should be developed to serve the public. And the three of us here are a very small segment, obviously, of the public, and we cannot speak for the public, not only in this area, but otherwise. But what it does is that it creates under the guise to serve the public, and then almost shifts the onus the responsibility to the public like us to go up and speak and try to protect the general safety of an area rather than be able to rely on what the county has already dictated to be the safety threshold, 100 feet. This is not acceptable and it should not be permitted. And again, we understand that this applies to all intersections and not just Price Station, But if you think about the facts that have led us here, this exemplifies why this should not be permitted. That a person purchases land knowing that it does not fit, tries to shove down the throats of the county to be able to approve it at the cost of the safety of the people who live here and commute around here every day. Ms. Anderson spoke to the crash statistics, that those are real. continues like people can talk, but numbers speak. If those numbers do not move the threshold here, where will they matter? We live next to one of the most dangerous intersections that will be maybe the first and most directly impacted by any variance permitted or if this amendment is passed. So that is why the numbers don't speak again about how dangerous this consideration is. how 25 feet may not seem like most, but it may be the difference between life and death for a lot of people, including the fact that this intersection is incredibly dangerous to cross directly over. And if you have southbound traffic now making a left into an intersection that the state wants to shut down and convert to a J-turn, it will further reduce visibility where all the accidents occur. So again, I understand this amendment is not only directly related to this intersection, but if you think about the specific circumstances of the land purchase and the trajectory of what has happened with one person wanting to amend this, it really speaks to the dangerous nature that this amendment can permit here and in the future in other areas of the county. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other public comment?

That is it.

Okay. Can I get a recommendation?

Karen, just a quick question. With this, since it's a universal amendment, would this have any impact on the Dunkin' Donuts intersection that we discussed and voted against before? Would this in any way permit that? to subsequently move... No, because they're not a gas station. Oh, that's true. It's not a gas station. Okay, accepted. Thank you.

Could I just say a couple things in response to the public comment quickly? The citation about what 75 feet, the 75 feet was specific from DPW comment in the beginning of this process and is a minimum clearance specified in SHA guidelines. So I do believe that professionals have looked at that.

I thought it was 100.

Minimum corner clearance, and this is provided in the staff report, as Maryland State Highway Administration Access Management Manual Guidelines, that 75 feet is specifically cited as the minimum there. So I think that's where that 75-foot reference came from.

So that's not specific to gas stations. That's general and general development.

Is that correct?

There's not a specific one for gas stations, so that's why this was created within the zoning code to establish that standard.

So the 100 feet is for gas stations in Queen Anne's County? Yes, correct. Not anywhere else in the state?

Can't answer to anywhere, but specifically yes for Queen Anne's County.

Also, it was a question of where the measurement was taken from. Isn't that curb to curb versus center line to center line?

Yes. So originally in the code as it stands now, it's curb to curb. The original citizen sponsor text amendment was to go from center line of the entrance and exit to the center line. But now what is the amendment from the county commissioners? Is that the edge of pavement to edge of pavement measurement stand as it is in the code now? Okay.

Well, and just so I can be a hundred percent clear for my own edification. I don't think that the draft that's been put back in front of the planning commission addresses that. So there's a policy determination right now in the county that it is curb to curb consistent with SHA determinations. We, we offered a centerline to centerline measurement because I don't believe that the county code specifically imposes a measurement specification. The, policy will continue to be curb to curb consistent with SHA in the county, but I don't believe that this text amendment specifically addresses the measurement, but the applicant for the citizen-led text amendment doesn't have any issue with that. We just want to make sure that it's clear for everybody moving forward. Um, and then the, the last comment is, you know, we understand and, uh, respect and appreciate the safety concerns about the intersection on three Oh one, that intersection is well over a hundred feet from this. Applicants property and really has nothing to do with the, uh, tax amendment that is before you, the site plan process, the use approval process, everything else that a project would have to go through and a use would have to go through to be approved on a property. That property-specific process is where those concerns, the safety issues, et cetera, are reviewed by approving authorities, and that property-specific discussion is more appropriate. So we'd ask that the Planning Commission, consistent with the staff report and consistent, I think, with the request from the commissioners, move this back with a favorable recommendation to the county commissioners.

Before you make a recommendation...

I was just going to say, can you go over this wording again? Because it...

You could probably recommend that it include. But our policy is as it stands. It wouldn't change.

It says 100 feet from any intersection. That doesn't say anything about.

So generally, when you do a measurement in the zoning code, it's property line to property line. Because it says intersection, we would be edge of pavement to the edge of pavement of the actual entrance or exit.

Okay, with your pleasure, guys.

If you want me to read the standards for a variance, would that be helpful? The unwarranted hardship and practical difficulty is the biggest test of it all, I would say, but there are four other standards that the Board of Appeals has to find. Would you like me to read them to you so that you know them? Okay. so a variance may not be granted unless the board specifically finds that one literal enforcement of chapter 18 would result in necessary hardship or practical difficulty as the result of the specified conditions two those conditions are peculiar to the property involved three those conditions are not the result of any action taken by the appellant four the variance will not be contrary to the public interest Five, evaluation of alternatives proves variance is required. So those are the five findings in which the Board of Appeals would have to make, which they do have to make now for any other variance that is requested by them.

Just out of curiosity, if they don't pass one of the five tests, does that mean the variance fails?

Do they have to meet all? All five criteria?

Okay, so I will pass. All right.

A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE FACT THAT THIS SUGGESTED AMENDMENT DOESN'T ADDRESS THIS CURB TO CURB CENTERLINE QUESTION. OKAY. CAN WE COME UP WITH LANGUAGE THAT MIGHT MODIFY THAT OR, AMY, DO YOU HAVE THOUGHTS?

SO IN TERMS OF THE WAY THE CURRENT REGULATION IS OUTLINED, IT ADDRESSES A MEASUREMENT TO PROPERTY LINES. um when there is a project that is under review we look to our department of public works the roads division to make that interpretation based on county road standards so every county road standard or other applicable standard is not necessarily outlined IN ZONING STANDARDS. SO IN THIS CASE, IN THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT CHALLENGED THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS INTERPRETATION OF THEIR COUNTY ROAD STANDARDS AND THEIR METHODOLOGY. So the conversation that we're having is more in reaction to the proposed language in the citizen-sponsored text amendment, which was a challenge on the Department of Public Works' road standards and their applicability of those standards. So it isn't necessary that this language reflect the county road standards. IT WAS MORE IMPORTANT THAT THE COUNTY ROADS TESTIFIED AS THEY DID AT THE INITIAL HEARING TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THEIR STANDARDS TO THEIR REVIEW AND THEIR CONCERNS WITH CODIFYING IN OUR ZONING LANGUAGE A CHANGE TO THE WAY THEY WOULD APPLY THEIR STANDARDS. If you want to get specific, you could do that. You could specify the County Roads Division's methodology in our zoning standards, but I don't know that that's necessary. I don't Lindsay.

No, I agree and I will just point you to the language specifically in addition to County Road standards. It does say within the current ordinance entrances and exits to streets shall be at least 100 feet from any intersection. And so the practical reasonable interpretation of that is consistent with the Public Works Department in that you take the closest measurement from the entrance exit to the closest measurement of the intersection. which is that curve to curve rather than center line of that entrance to center line of that intersection, which is not done, I don't believe, in any application of measurement throughout the code.

Okay. Okay, guys. Did we get a resolution or no?

I'm sure we did.

Certainly.

Having considered the testimony presented and having reviewed the findings outlined in the staff report, be it hereby resolved that the Planning Commission makes a favorable recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners regarding amendment number one, the citizen-sponsored text amendment 26-05 to amend chapter 18-1-58.b, additional uses and regulations, which proposes to retain the existing required distance of 100 feet and the existing means of measuring the distance, but allow the opportunity for an applicant to seek a variance from the Board of Appeals to reduce the required setback to no less than 75 feet, no less than 75 feet, from an intersection as established in the supplemental standard found in chapter 18-58.b. And I would submit that we need to put the findings from the staff report in the letter.

I get a second. Teddy's a second. All in favor. Kathy post post post did not pass. Okay, next text amendment is for the Suburban Commercial District, Impervious Surface, and Teddy's going to recuse himself. We'll call you when we're finished.

Should I recuse? I have my family owns some suburban commercial. I just realized that. Thought about that.

You have a what?

My family owns some suburban commercial real estate in this county. Some farmland, but it's suburban commercial.

Do you want to have the discussion on the record? I guess we can't. Your family, would you stand to gain financially by your family's property,

What Larry Hogan did to root for for just speak plainly. It's doubtful that the property will ever have any value besides farming, but it may become, you know, it could become solar panels, uh, or something else. But I can't see into the future to say that we couldn't come up with an alternative to access the property. That's the problem. It took away my access. So what do I do?

You don't own this property, particularly it's a family member of yours.

No, it's Sylvester farms. I am Sylvester farms.

Okay. I thought initially you said it was a family member of yours.

I said my family, I'm sorry. I miss her too.

Um, so I think if you think that there is a possibility that this amendment could have a financial impact on your property, it's a feasible, um, alternative or you feel you can't be impartial, then you should recuse yourself.

Does mean being impartial, I haven't already made up my mind?

Yes.

Because we discussed this at the last meeting, or maybe not the last, or maybe it was the one before. But I think I was vocal in my support for what the commissioners have come back with. You are. I wasn't doing it then because I thought I was going to make a buck off this property because I can't even do that farming these days. You take that literally. There's nothing in the works anywhere that I see that the parcel is ever even going to be developed.

Okay. And I think being impartial means that you can hear, review the staff report, hear comments from the public, and still take those into consideration in your determination. I always do. Yes. Yeah, I always do. And so I'm comfortable with you continuing to hear this text amendment. Thank you for raising that concern.

Ms. Vail, let's proceed. All right. So this is an amendment to the original citizen-sponsored text amendment 2606. The original amendment as the citizen-sponsored text amendment was to alter the non-residential impervious surface standards in the suburban commercial district. from 45% to 80%. Planning Commission did review this back in May and did give an unfavorable recommendation at that time. Following this went to the county commissioners and then following a public hearing, they did decide to introduce an amendment. And like I said, these are I'm coming back to you for another recommendation. The amendment itself essentially will change the 45% to 60%. And then it does, or 65%, sorry. And it does remove what was in the citizen sponsored text amendment that made it applicable to those properties that were developed as of December 31st, 2025. So what this amendment does, it is allow non-residential impervious surface of 65% in the suburban commercial district. And this is essentially will be to all properties then, not those that were just... essentially in business as of the December 31st date. So it's a level playing field across the district. 65%, we did talk about this a little bit during the first time you reviewed this, 65% is consistent with the suburban industrial district. So there is consistency found in the existing zoning code that can be found itself. With that and based on most of that consistency that can be found, staff is giving a favorable recommendation, recognizing that there are the 80% was not consistent with the zoning code. And if you have questions, I'm happy to answer.

Any comments or questions from the, or you're on your back.

Uh, just for the record, again, Brendan Mullaney with McAllister, DTAR show, Walter and Walker, 100 Northwest street, East of Maryland. I am, uh, before you again today on behalf of three businesses that are impacted by the 45% limitation, uh, on. impervious surface in the SC zoning district. We like the last text amendment had discussion with you about alternatives earlier this year. We took that discussion to the commissioners and they reviewed that. I believe that they analyzed the additional information that we provided demonstrating that this is a practical problem that property owners and businesses in the SC zoning district are dealing with. the staff report that is in the record today has attached to it a table if i can find it has attached to it a table that really demonstrates that there are a significant number of properties that are over the current 45% threshold. While the change from the requested 80% to 65% doesn't address all of those properties, it does address a significant percentage of them and I think is a move in the right direction. The 65% middle ground is also I think alleviates or addresses the potential concerns that were raised by staff and DPW related to the other practical design and site development requirements like landscaping and stormwater and open space and sewage disposal areas and septic system location, et cetera. So while this is not the 80% that was requested, the middle ground of 65% does help address many of the problems in the county and the SC zoning district and the businesses that I represent that brought this initial text amendment forward are supportive of the text amendment as it's been revised and ask that you send a favorable recommendation back to the commissioners.

Okay, questions? Comments from the commissioners?

Are you have any comment or question?

Hey, any public comment? Yes, ma'am.

I'm with Corsica River Conservancy. We have submitted written comments both on the original amendment and the amended amendment. I just wanted to make one additional point here. The staff report goes into great detail about the comparison and you've heard the applicant also talk about fairness and finding a middle ground. I would say consistency is a great goal to strive for but when it's consistently lowering standards that I think needs to be paramount and you've heard a lot this morning about impervious surface with the Nesbit project, the damage that it can do and once it's in there That's it. You can't take it back. So I would just like to again request respectfully that you not approve the amended amendment to send forward. Thank you.

Any other comment?

A question in regards to her comments about lowering standards. Are we not raising the standards on the industrial

side of this with this amendment so this isn't changing the requirements in the suburban industrial it is changing those standards in the suburban commercial

I thought it was raising one from 45 to 65. Yeah, it is.

It's raising the suburban commercial from 45 to 65, allowing them to have one that was at an 80.

I thought that.

Yeah. So the original amendment itself was to 80. So it went up and then came back down kind of.

Additionally, the suburban industrial district allows 65% consistent with this revised text amendment or 80% in certain circumstances. That's already in your code for that district.

Any other further comment? Can I get a recommendation from one of the commissioners?

Madam Chair, having considered the testimony presented and having reviewed the findings outlined in the staff report, be it hereby resolved that the Planning Commission makes a favorable recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners regarding Amendment Number 1, to citizen sponsored text amendment number 26-06 to amend chapter 18-1-21.E2A1 by increasing the maximum non-residential impervious surface ratio from 45% to 65%. We'd like to incorporate the findings from the staff report in this motion and the zoning and subdivision regulations, annotated code of Maryland land use article, and the comprehensive plan.

You get a second. Bill, you gave second? Yes, ma'am. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Opposed.

I'm opposed.

We got four ayes, right?

No, you have two ayes.

You have three ayes.

Oh, I'm sorry.

All right. Yeah, go ahead.

So currently there were three ayes, and then there were two no, and then you added a third no. So now there's a tie.

I back up my vote. My vote doesn't count unless there's a tie.

You do have the authority to vote. Are you going to revote or are you going to abstain from voting?

I'm going to abstain.

So it's a 3-2.

I'm going to stay consistent. You're welcome. Okay.

Are you done with me, Madam Chairman?

Unless you have something on space administrative subdivision.

Thank you all for your time.

You're welcome. Transferable development rights.

Can we do that?

Teddy. What?

I'm asking for a point of clarification from council if we can – vote and then rescind our vote.

So, um, she put it on the floor and then she took her vote off the floor. She put it on the floor and then took it off the floor and decided that she was abstaining from that.

You're comfortable with that. That's yes. Okay. Just that's the answer. I just need an answer. Yes.

I just want to be consistent in how I think okay transferable development rights

All right, so this is another one with an amendment. What the original 2609 did essentially was to allow those parcels that are in a transfer development right that are the sending areas, that open space, to be administratively subdivided, essentially not creating new lots and not reconfiguring the open space. Sorry, lots warning. The intent is the change in ownership. That was what you gave a favorable recommendation on back in April to the county commissioners. Then based off the public comment and a concern that one, an administrative subdivision is to occur through the open space, Those uses that are permitted in open space in 181-12, there are some uses that you would deem as non-agricultural. Shooting clubs, minor extractions, and also outdoor recreation. The concern was that those uses essentially might get greater within the open space. Essentially, if your open space was all owned by one person, and then administrative subdivision occurs, it's owned by two. two people at that time, then each owner of the open space could have a minor extraction or a shooting club. So that was the concern. And due to that concern, the commissioners introduced the text amendment, essentially that after an administrative subdivision that occurs on a TDR sending parcel, those non-agricultural uses would be prohibited. So essentially, it's taking away... allow not allowing the owner to not have a minor extraction, a shooting club or an outdoor recreation in that open space once an administrative subdivision has occurred. I know that's a mouthful. Basically, this just really further alongs, you know, the intent of open space. Um, and due to that staff is giving a favorable recommendation on the amendment, um, that unless you have any questions about the amendment or the original citizen sponsored text amendment, um, I don't have any other, any other comments. I guess one would be that the, after the administrative administrative subdivision, um, those uses in 18, one dash 12, the ones that do remain the property owner could utilize or have on the property. So it's just those three that would be prohibited.

Okay, you're on. Good morning.

Jeffrey Thompson, 124 North Commerce Street, Centerville, Maryland. I'm actually here on this 2609. I'll be here for my family and as counsel for Shirley Schaefer. And I am going to be quicker, much quicker than Brendan. I'm in support of the amendment. When you think about it, the TDR open space is really open space that's been pulled off of lands that are in a critical area. We would have no reason to have non-agricultural uses on our property or any of my clients' properties, nor should really anyone else. I'm going to give you the same answer for 2610. The only difference is, is in that case. We're only talking about this one right now. I'll stay on. It's not muddy the water. I'll stay on task. I'm fully supportive of it. It allows all the agricultural uses to continue. We're dealing with farms here. We don't need to have recreational uses and the like on our property.

Any questions from the commissioners? Any comments? Public comment?

Morning, commissioners. Jay Falstad, Queen Anne's Conservation Association. When the commissioners made this amendment, this is a good compromise, and we urge a favorable report to the county commissioners on this amendment. Thank you. And just as an FYI, I'm gonna repeat the same thing on 2610, but, because there's some similarities. I know, but I just want to give you a heads up. I'll have to say the same thing, so thank you.

Can I get a recommendation or resolution? Any other public comment? And you have nothing on art?

Please do it.

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 makes a favorable recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners regarding Amendment No. 1 to Citizen-Sponsored Text Amendment 26-09 to amend Section 1801 1-12 permitted use in open spaces, in addition to the proposed amendments to the transferable development rights standards found in 18.1-101 and 18.1-104 . The overall amendment would allow a transfer or parcel which is designated as open space following the conveyance of development rights to be subdivided through an administrative subdivision process to accommodate lot line adjustments, no new lots within that open space and would prohibit non-agricultural uses. As stated in the staff report dated September 10, 2026, That's it.

Second.

I'm a little confused.

Did I read it correctly?

Yes. I think you did. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? So.

2610 amendment yes ma'am all right so this one the amendment I should have outlined this first before 2609 but the amendment to 2609 and 2610 are the same but we do have to give recommendations on both to the county commissioners so the application of this is essentially the same as it was to the TDR in 2609 This is just specifically to the non-contiguous development program in which this would allow this on your what is your non-contiguous parcel and your developed parcel. It will allow the subdivision, the administrative subdivision, but the amendment is then to not allow those. not agricultural uses that I specifically listed the outdoor recreation shooting clubs and minor extractions basically the staff report is identical for both so I don't need to go through it all again but staff does give a favorable recommendation for the same reasons yes sir Thompson 124 North Commerce Street Centerville Maryland

My hand was slapped, and I'm staying corrected. But initially, we were talking. 2609 was all about TDRs, transfer of development rights. And 2610 is about NCDs, the non-contiguous, which moves us into the upland. So the one covers critical area. The other covers upland. There's no reason to distinguish between the two. So I'm in support of the amendment.

Other comment?

Commissioners, once again, Jay Falstad, Queen Anne's Conservation Association. We recommend a favorable report on 2610. Thank you.

Any questions or comments from the commissioners? Can I get a resolution?

Madam Chair, having considered the testimony presented and having reviewed the findings outlined in the staff report, being hereby resolved, that the Planning Commission makes a favorable recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners regarding Amendment Number 1 to Citizen Sponsored Text Amendment Number 26-10 to amend Chapter 18-1-12, permitted uses in open space, in addition to the proposed amendments to non-contiguous development standards found in Chapter 18-1-98.b2 and Chapter 18-1-98.f4a. The overall amendment would allow a transfer or parcel which is designated as open space following the conveyance of development rights to be subdivided through the administrative subdivision process to accommodate lot line adjustments, no new lots, and within that open space would prohibit non-agricultural uses. And I'd like to incorporate the findings from the staff report in my motion.

Is there a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Thank you very much.

You're welcome. Cottage industry.

All right. So this amendment is a commissioner-sponsored text amendment in which they are looking to FOR A RECOMMENDATION ON THE TEXT AMENDMENT ITSELF. THIS AMENDMENT IS TO ALLOW WHAT WOULD BE A COTTAGE INDUSTRY IN THE AG DISTRICT ON A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 5 ACRES. IT WOULD REQUIRE AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF A MINOR SITE PLAN AND ALSO A USE CERTIFICATE FOLLOWING. The ordinance itself does put limitations on parking, the type of business, size, screening. So there's a plethora of items it does limit, which I'll read through in a second here. But a cottage industry essentially is a small-scale, low-impact business, which is generally a trade that offers a service. production of handcrafts or processing and production of goods to be sold off site. So the county currently allows home occupations. Um, and I think majority of all districts, but this would be the next step above a home occupation. Essentially it allows, um, a property owner to have a residential accessory structure or, um, accessory to a farm. that they can utilize for the cottage industry they are currently existing in the county after looking what that would look you'd be looking at your contractors you'd be looking at electricians also plumbers any of those types of businesses so it is something that is existing it is a Use that can be found throughout rural counties if you look to the north in Kent County They have it as a permitted use in their AG districts and also in Caroline and Talbot They have the same use so it is something that is very common Another definition that is going to be added to the the code is artisan shop And this is you're looking at basically your woodworkers, you know your wood carving glass blowers so those are That's a definition to be added in the code. But the code itself is rather lengthy, but the reason for that is so that you can still have that role district itself that it's supposed to be so it puts limitations on the use so that essentially if someone has a cottage industry once they reach the threshold of the what's required in the use they'll essentially have to find a commercial or industrial site so it's a reason it's a way to safeguard the ag district and the purpose of the ag district um within the code itself it does give a list of what could be considered a cottage industry also it does indicate what would not be appropriate as a cottage industry indicating essentially if it's something that's going to cause a nuisance you know there is a way to deem it not appropriate currently in the code it says it's for the zoning administrator but I think it would be best if that's changed to planning director. The planning director is the one that usually does a use determination. So in your motion, if you want to include that as a change, that would probably be be appropriate the basically the property owner does have to reside on the property and then as far as standards for the size of the property like I said it's a minimum of five acres and then there is size limitations on the size of the structure and also your outdoor storage areas so for a property that's less than 20 acres they would be able to have 4,000 square feet That would be including the structure and any outdoor storage or assembly areas. And then if it's greater than the 20 acres, it would be 6,000 square feet. The applicant or the property owner could request a variance to those standards if they would like to do so. And also there is a standard that does allow for existing buildings as of the date of which the code is adopted to utilize an existing structure, essentially not permitted. increasing your impervious surface if there's a structure that's already out there. Also, there's setbacks required for the cottage industry structure itself. It's 50 feet from the property line. And then for the outdoor storage and assembly, it has to be 100 feet. And then that storage and outdoor assembly area must be to the side and rear of the building. there are screening standards so when you're going through the site plan review process they would have to meet screening requirements there's outline for parking requirements and also loading then also it does address the number of employees and this is really the means of establishing like I said putting that threshold on the business itself you don't want a business that's going to be causing you know traffic in and out all the time in the rural district because that's just not consistent so at this time it says it can't be no more than eight full-time employees on site at any time but then it overall it can't be a total of 15 full-time employees that essentially work for the business they do they are permitted one sign and then also The hours of operation are from 7 a.m. to 4. So that's kind of the highlights of this ordinance itself. I would say that staff is giving a favorable recommendation, essentially based on the gap that is within the zoning code itself that would allow this use, but yet honoring the ag district itself and putting the limitations and the caps on the standards that are included.

So if it's woodworking or glassblowing, they're not allowed to do it in the evening or after 4 o'clock?

It would be essentially that time frame in which they would be permitted to have the business itself, if it is a cottage industry.

They could still do it. They couldn't be open for business.

Right. The way the code reads – hold on one second. So this wouldn't be, it wouldn't be the way the definition is crafted of the artisan shop. It's not for the sale on site. It's just for the production and the creation of those goods, but then for it to be sold off site. So it's not for someone to come essentially there and purchase the product. They would be taking it elsewhere to sell the product. But then the hours of operation, essentially your operation is the key word there. you know, 7 0 AM to 4 PM. So I, it would be interpreted that they are seven to four as to how they operate or when they can operate. Sorry.

So if it's a plumbing company, if it's a plumbing company and is, is trucks are out and they come back, they're not supposed to come back after four o'clock.

If you see that it's appropriate to make a change or recommend that the hours be altered. We can put that in your recommendation.

I'm trying to get the thought process of coming up with 4 o'clock.

Well, it seems that most of those businesses do operate during those standard times. We spoke with one of the local contractors, and that seemed appropriate for them. But like I said, if you've seen that it's appropriate to increase that time itself, we can do so.

Does this include things like fresh market produce?

No.

Where does that look at?

So that's not going to be a cottage industry itself. So your fresh market produce, you're looking at the sale, like a farmer's market? Yeah. So that's a whole separate use. It's not a cottage industry. Yeah, we're not looking at sale of produce or food.

Why is...

large lot agricultural subdivision in there what is the purpose of that what does that mean so that was included so the 20 acres there's a threshold for the size in which they can have the 4 000 square feet or 6 000 that's where the 20 acres came from a large lot subdivision parcel is to be 20 acres so that's where the 20 acres is being pulled from the existing zoning code

So just in that vein, you also have whoever has it has to live on the property. If they pull out a subdivision but still live on the original farm, do they still have that right?

The property owner does have to reside on the property itself.

What if they don't reside on the actual farm but on the farm next to it? That's where they live. It butts up to it and touches it.

So they could do a lot line adjustment? in order to incorporate that location in order for it to be on the same property. Really the intent of that is to have it. So that if an owner's living there also, it does give a little bit of, you know, a surety, um, that they're there all that going to be there regularly, I guess is the intent. Um, you know, if they don't live on the property, they might not be visiting all the time. Um, so that was the, the other reason us for it.

You got all these exclusions, but then you allow effluent disposal. Are we taking guesses what effluent is?

He's looking at the general permitted uses in the Ag District.

Oh, okay. Sorry. I know that's not in his code. Where are we?

I'm like, don't hold this thing up for me making silly remarks. That's what that is.

Are there other questions for the commissioners?

Presumably then the business could not be sold to a third party Yeah, I mean it would then not meet the requirement of owner Occupied correct.

Yeah, the property used for the cottage industry shall contain the primary residents of the proprietor So if that answers that question and the other question is a building that they'll put up but now that's going to be a real building with sewer and water and Generally septic probably in the ag district. So they'll have to meet all those standards.

So they'll have to meet all those standards, yeah. And this is manufacturing only, not retail, basically. Yeah, correct. No retail.

Stephanie, question? Sorry, you finished, Ben?

No, I'm all set. Thank you.

Referring to the Economic Development Commission's support with amendments, do any of those suggestions give you pause or that we should discuss here with respect to their suggested amendments?

Um, yeah, we can go through those. Uh, they, they basically address, you know, the number of employees. Um, I think the number of employees should stay as it resides in the code. It does give a threshold, um, in order, if a business is looking to grow past a cottage industry, they're gonna look for a commercial. Um, and also the, the comment about the the cottage home that is a permit that's through the health department so that is a whole separate health department code that their language yes and then what about the critical area question oh yes so the ag district is generally outside of the critical area in the critical area it's going to be your countryside district this would be borderline a commercial use and that would not be permitted in the RCA which is generally your critical area designation of the countryside.

Any other questions from the Commissioners? No. Public comment in the building? Do you have something?

Hi, Mr. Aaron. I'm Skip Ward with Ward Plumbing. How are you doing? I wanted to comment about your hours of operation that you said. You said a plumbing company, yes, of course. You said no more than 4 o'clock. Okay, that is an issue that I would like to discuss a little bit further because, God forbid, one of you all come home and, heaven forbid, got a leak or a plumbing issue. and you need to call us, is will my employees be allowed to come and get material to come service your homes?

After hours in an emergency situation? Heaven forbid, yes.

I mean, our normal operations are seven to four. That is our scheduled work. But there are instances where, in effect, on a Saturday or Sunday, holiday, weekend, whatever it may be, that unfortunately plumbing is unpredictable. So would that be an issue at the 7 to 4 when it came down to a plumbing company?

I'd like to see the time changed in the first place because with Thursday being the new Fridays, 4 o'clock isn't, to me, reasonable. So I think 6 o'clock would be more to the...

don't have like what's it for so don't you know exactly um and that can we can propose that in your recommendation also something you could consider in the language would be in the case of an emergency situation if you have an office they're normally there until five so you could include that as a part of your recommendation i would like to see that part of the recommendation that language stems from where originally So that was pulled from one of the adjacent counties. So a lot of this language, because it is permitted in a lot of other counties and jurisdictions, I did pull a lot of it from other locations.

Yeah, it's not. It's relatively just incorporated because others have done it.

Yes.

And that's fine. It's valid. But just to figure out why.

Yep. Nope. That's what we're trying. Some of it is from obviously.

So are there provisions in those other ordinances that have language associated with after hours, emergency calls? I don't recall services that are that that that provide businesses that provide services after traditional hours like the gentleman just spoke to.

I don't think it got to that. I don't want to specificity. Obviously, if someone's

know plumbing needs to be fixed at six o'clock on a friday afternoon or midnight on a wednesday that we're not putting those people rendering those services in a bad spot by passing this yeah no i don't think they got to that specificity in those codes that i recall looking at um but yeah this is like they all have time limits

I think two did. Really, it's just that same idea as putting a cap on the number of people and the number of employees. It's just for those properties, if it is a five-acre property because that's what the minimum acreage, the neighbor next door if there's you know, eight or nine cars going in and out. Um, it's to real still hold the trueness of the ag district and not having a lot of traffic back and forth. So that's, that's the intent of a lot of these standards that might seem lot but also there's locations in which there's consistency in the code based off acreage or size or those indicate specifics but if you yeah if you do see that you know the hours of operation need to be you know altered that can be included in the recommendation back to the county commissioners or anything else that might see fit okay quick question for council

if we wanted to incorporate a change in this recommendation with regard to after hours operations is there something that you could help me with language wise as far as covering that without

leaving it open yeah i mean so so part of the issue is if you say um that the hours of operation are limited to and say 7 a.m to 6 p.m outside of an emergency the issue is going to be who's going to determine what an emergency is and who's going to regulate that You could say general day to day operation shall be from seven to six so that generally it remains within those hours and then if they exceed outside of that general operation it becomes an issue. That word generally. I think then you get to talk to Stephanie and see if that becomes an enforcement issue and a determination of what is generally operating within those hours. It gives a little more flexibility. Go ahead. No, I think. But you could limit it to specific industries and a determination that that industry has a necessity to operate outside of the general day-to-day operation. I think it might require some more discussion on that just to make sure it doesn't become an enforcement issue between the planning department.

Yeah, that's my concern. Okay. And I just, I wanted to add some context to the conversation. So we are looking to support an industry that we know is already out there and that we know is permissible in adjacent jurisdictions and in a lot of rural communities. But what we don't want to encourage is a commercial development on an agricultural property. So Some of the limitations are very prescriptive to support the intent of the agricultural district, but also to support reasonable economic development in a way that is consistent with the purpose statement. uh... i think that addressing general day-to-day activities because we are looking at artisan shops we're looking at tradesmen and so those are those are going to operate differently And I think the intent of the language and the language that you see in other sections of the code is meant for general operational purposes. So if there's a staff of 15 employees, which is the max limit, the idea is that that business activity with the potential of all employees have a definitive end time to that activity so that adjacent neighbors aren't impacted during evening hours from the uses that they're accustomed to. And that also includes agricultural uses which often run into the night, but that's a part of a right to farm use that is codified. A quasi, you know, a commercial use in an ag district does need those parameters. So I think if there's an emergency or if there's a delivery after hours and you have one staff member coming and going, that's not a huge enforcement issue. And we kind of, we try not to regulate down to that level of detail. that language is in place to address the general operation. So I think that extending the hours is probably appropriate, that four o'clock might be a little too early because a crew could be coming back and unloading materials obviously after 4 o'clock. You might close up from the site and then come back to the shop at around 4 or 5 o'clock or 6. The intention is that nighttime operations aren't occurring on the property because that would be a conflict. So I think that there's a lighter way to do this rather than worrying about emergency situations because we're not going to worry about taking an enforcement action if there's an emergency and one or two staff members or tradesmen are ENTERING AND EXITING THE SITE. IF THAT BECAME A REGULAR OCCURRENCE WHERE THE NEIGHBOR SAID THIS IS HAPPENING ALL NIGHT, ALL WEEK, CLEARLY THAT WOULD BE OUTSIDE OF THE INTENTION OF THE LANGUAGE, BUT I THINK WE CAN TAKE A LIGHT APPROACH TO QUANTIFYING WHAT THOSE HOURS OF OPERATION ARE WITHOUT GETTING TOO WORRIED ABOUT ONE-OFF EVENTS, IF THAT HELPS.

While you're there, Madam Director, where's that line drawn? I'm thinking of in this theoretical we're discussing about plumbers. or any tradesman, right, that let's say there's a situation and a contractual obligation to be finished or completed a particular job by date X, and they're running behind. They have to work, send that late-night shift to that property to either get out of the way of other contractors as an order of operation standpoint or to meet a contractual obligation deadline that they're painting at night because the business is open during the day or they're plumbing after hours. because of reason X. That's not the one-off emergency call, I gotta go fix someone's toilet, but it's for a week, three weeks, we're gonna be plumbing outside of these general operating hours. I don't wanna go too far down the hole, but where do we define that limit?

So, I mean, from my opinion on an enforcement standpoint, I think it has to be routine and it has to be consistent in order to take enforcement action that is worth, frankly, the county's time and effort to go through it. I do think there's also some onus put on the business or cottage industry owner to ensure that they are largely complying to the extent practicable with the county code. And that if there are going to be these overnight jobs, they might need to pack up their truck in the morning and not return to the site until the next morning. There's some onus on them to make sure they have the materials that they might need so that they can remain in compliance. I don't think that the hours of operation would prohibit that circumstance provided that they undertake the efforts.

It would change their behavior in order to become compliant. It doesn't say they can't work at night, but instead you don't bring the truck back to the shop, you take it home for the night.

You don't need the 15 employees to show up at 8 p.m. to respond to the next day because they were running over. They need to plan for that in the morning as much as they can. Or the property owner needs to pack a truck themselves and go meet the crew.

Versus the whole crew going.

Right.

Gotcha.

Yes, sir.

Yes. With that being said, as far as our operations, I can't speak for everybody, obviously. But, yes, if we do have a job that's after hours, which doesn't happen very often, obviously we're not on site. But my guys do stay within the parameters of within those hours. We can still manage with that. A lot of my guys take their trucks home, so they're not even on site during the evenings. If I can dispatch them from their house, I do so. But occasionally they maybe go to someone's house and say, Well, I need this, this fitting or this well pump or whatever it may be. And then you might have to come back to the shop after hours. But scheduled work is controllable during time in time out. So regardless, wherever the job are, your normal hours. I'm sorry, Sharon.

I'm sorry. I said seven to four.

Our normal hours are seven o'clock to four o'clock. Yes, sir. And then, of course, anything after four is after hours. But My guys will typically come back. They leave the job, like you said earlier, 4, 4.30, clean up the truck, and then they'll come back. Most of them were clocked out by 4.30 at the latest. It's hard to find people that want to work more than eight hours anymore. Unfortunately. Amy, a question for you. You're trying to clean up an existing issue in the county.

So how many of them would have something like road graders or road work equipment that more and more were doing the work at night than daytime?

Stephanie did that research, I deferred to her.

You're talking about your contractors, your excavation, that's what you're getting to.

Excavation, like me, a pavement marking contractor.

Generally, those, Those which would qualify under this home occupation, they probably have a larger scale business. They're not going out and paving the roads here. They might just be doing something on site of a single family dwelling. So it's a smaller scale business usually that's located in the AG district. They haven't gotten to that capacity yet to really be doing those operations that would be conducive of that. I feel like that's kind of the way I see it, looking at the business, the names and operations.

So my guess here is that you don't know where the line is until you've crossed it. Is that right? It's kind of like my cop friend was telling me, I asked him once, do you have a quota for tickets? And he says, no, there is no quota. He said, but try writing too few of them and see what happens. You know, and you know, so what I'm saying is, is that we have this, it's, it's a nebulous line that you can't define. I'm not sure we want to, but at some point you've crossed it, you know, particularly with what Sharon's saying. construction. I mean, I can see, you know, in our operation, we own an excavator, we own a bulldozer, we actually own a scalper and something else, like anything, a wheel loader, you know, and this thing, we could, we could, if we could ever get it right together, we could morph this thing into something where we could be another business for us. We just use it in all that stuff internally right now. But we do retail topsoil and other things. but uh you know it's it's a it's not a it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things but it could be so but at what point does my operation go on from being legal to illegal and i'm using that word probably not fairly but in the essence in which you've described it well yeah i mean but that's you know that we're talking that it's no longer a cottage injury industry right oh so yeah so yeah right right so you're no longer a cottage industry when you can't meet those standards that are outlined in the code

So if you need to increase the size of your building or increase the size of your storage area because depending on the equipment that you use.

You've got the number of employees. You've got the size of the building.

Those are the thresholds as to which if you surpass them, you have to find another commercial or industrial.

We don't need to make it all complicated.

Does that help?

yes I got one question about enforcement so if if this body were to recommend an amendment to the recommendation to change the app the general day-to-day operations from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. if that was done Would this protect someone like this gentleman whose neighbor of 20 years moved, someone new moved in, they already hate they live next to a plumbing company, and they see his truck coming in there at seven o'clock to pick up materials? From an enforcement standpoint, because we've all sort of been through, people don't like what our neighbors are doing, From an enforcement standpoint, and when he's explaining this is an emergency situation, I'm just questioning whether that language, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. for general day-to-day operations, would protect an emergency situation like that.

So I think kind of how Lindsay described it, the general, you know, it has to – There has to be multiple instances. One property owner calls, the inspectors might go out and take a look. But you know, if it is occurring multiple times, I think that's when there would be very much that answers my question. There is one thing I did forget when we were going through the whole code. I did mention the change of altering it from the zoning inspector to the planning director. that makes the determination on the use but also there is a standard in there that says that cottage industries can be of multiple structures not just located in one structure but it should be it would be good to clarify that the basic cumulative of those structures can't be more than what's described in the code already so they can't have if the limit is 6,000 square feet and it's all indoor they can't have multiple 6,000 square foot structures they could have you know two three to 3000 square foot structures. If they're looking to have a multiple buildings for some reason, based on their occupant, the type of business, and that's listed on page three under the recommendation. If you're looking, um, for that wording when making the recommendation,

What place are you on? Where are you talking?

Madam Chair, could we possibly look at taking a few-minute break to make sure that we get this?

We'll take a five-minute break. Okay. Can I get a resolution?

Okay. Madam Chair, having considered the testimony presented and having reviewed the findings outlined in the staff report, be it hereby resolved that the Planning Commission makes a favorable recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners with amendments, those amendments being the Hours of operations to read. Hours of operations shall be 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. for general day-to-day operations. That the planning director have the authority to determine if the cottage industry use is deemed incompatible with the residential or agricultural area, not the zoning administrator as proposed. and further clarify that a cottage industry of multiple structures may not exceed those standards outlined in Chapter 18.1-58.P.5 . And then this would be regarding County Commissioner sponsored text amendment number 26-14 to amend 18 Appendix A glossary and Chapter 18.1-14 . 18-1-49, 18-1-58, and 18-1-141 to allow for cottage industry as a supplemental use within the agricultural district on parcels with a minimum lot size of five acres and to include affiliated definitions and to require a minor site plan and use certificate. And I would like to incorporate the findings from the staff report in this motion.

I get a second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Art, you with us? Maybe not. Art, are you still with us?

I think he had switched to phone.

Is there a way to send him one? Just to get his vote.

We have enough to pass it, so you have five.

Yeah, you do.

OK. Soviet. Next is the accessory dwelling units.

Stephanie? Yep. Give me one more second. We've got to find the next file.

Mary Ellen's not here.

Yes, so she's out on some leave right now. She did do a lot of the work for this text amendment, but I am the one presenting at this point in time. So this amendment is a planning commission sponsored text amendment. It's to meet state legislation, House Bill 1466, Senate Bill 891 for accessory dwelling units. The intent of this bill is basically to set a blanket standard across the state for accessory dwelling units also to be sure that there are by right use some areas require a conditional use or. Other other standards so basically it's to allow you know less regulatory barriers and a blanket standard across all areas in the account of the state sorry so currently we do allow accessory dwelling units. We allow them in three different instances, but the one that's most similar to what's proposed in the bill is accessory apartments. So we're going to be removing the accessory apartment standards and replacing it with accessory dwelling unit standards that have been drafted and included in that bill that was passed. So this is essentially straight from the state, just like forest conservation and others that we've seen recently. But what it requires is that the accessory dwelling unit be secondary to a single family dwelling. The unit itself can be detached or attached. Um, also the single family dwelling unit has to provide complete living facilities. So it has to have a kitchen, a means of cooking, sleeping, eating all of the parts for basically the, uh, dwelling unit would have. Um, and also it does have to meet our residential accessory structure standards. Uh, that includes setback standards. It can be three feet from the property line. But like I said, that is consistent with our existing residential accessory structures. The building height standards are consistent with our accessory residential structures. Anything less than two acres has a 20 foot limit. If it's over two acres, it can be 20 feet or the height of the primary. So this is one of the biggest changes that we will see. The size of the structure itself cannot be greater than 75% of the area covered by the primary structure. So at this point in time, we allow 1,500 square feet for an accessory apartment. So these could be substantially larger depending on the size of the primary dwelling itself. It will be excluded from density calculation, which that is the case now for accessory apartments. Um, if it is in the resource conservation area of the critical area, there are separate standards that they have to meet. Um, and also they have to meet any sewer or septic standards that would be required. Uh, there is a provision in the bill that was passed that says if a county is to require parking standards for these accessory dwelling units, we had to complete a parking study. That parking study is attached, um, with your staff report, but in the end it's, we're going to require one additional parking. a spot for an accessory dwelling unit. And then if it's more than three bedrooms, uh, two on that primary, there is a parking waiver process. Um, and this is basically would be property specific. A person, a property owner could ask for the waiver. Um, and basically that waiver would go to the planning director. They would be able to, uh, basically work with DPW and also state highway, depending on the location of, the location of the dwelling. And then the planning director can consider three factors when reviewing the waiver. It's whether there's sufficient curb area exists on the front line. So essentially you're part of the property that's along the main road. the increase in impervious surface due to the creation of new off-street parking in relation to any applicable stormwater management plans, and then variability due to the size of the lot. So some of these are NC district is our properties where you have your old subdivisions, very small lots. You might consider because variability of the size or the location or how it's configured itself to grant the waiver. So that is... The ordinance in itself, pretty much the standards come straight from the state. Some are pulled to be consistent with our residential accessory structure standards, but that is the accessory dwelling unit ordinance itself.

So, Madam Chair, so Stephanie, the letter from Economic Development supports this. as a reasonable approach to addressing affordable housing needs, but they bring up the short-term rentals and whether those would be permissible. and that stating that they would negate the affordable housing benefits. So it looks like you can use it as a short-term rental.

So at this point in time, the way our short-term rental code was crafted, it was for any dwelling. So this is a dwelling. So it would be permitted. It's currently permitted. Also, they would be able to rent it more of a long-term, not just short-term. They'd have to meet any other standards. What's the definition of short-term? Are you talking 30 days or less?

My concern is more with the short term than the long term.

So those, it would be able to be rented, whether it be someone rent it more on a monthly basis to the same person or as a short term rental.

Or they could do it three days.

Yes, as a short term rental.

Or like they could do an Airbnb.

One question. I have a house, for instance, that is a pre-existing non-conforming use, the accessory dwelling unit permitted or not permitted?

So it would, as in, would you, you already have that, you're saying you already have what would probably be an accessory dwelling unit, correct?

No, no. I have a house that is pre-existing non-conforming.

Okay.

It's in a critical area. There's a whole bunch of reasons why. So is an accessory dwelling unit a way I can get myself a

little apartment probably not because if you're in the rca their specific standards for an accessory dwelling unit it has to be a hundred feet from the primary and no more than nine hundred square feet so there's that's a separate set of standards that live specific to the rca accessory dwelling unit standards this uh... you would not be able to have the 75% size of the primary in the RCA because there is a stricter standard that lives within the critical area regulations.

I understand that. I'm just a little bit leery of these things springing up all over the county.

So that was kind of something...

It was an income stream.

that has been contemplated, I think, throughout the state. One thing we looked at, we looked at the number of permits that do exist because we do already allow the accessory apartment. We allow farm employee dwelling units and also a caretaker dwelling. So the options are out there now for a property owner, but really in the numbers that were pulled from permits from Let's see what it was. From 2000, there were 14 accessory apartments, five caretaker dwellings, and two farm employee dwellings. We pulled from the permit. So if it stays on track for how it's been as of now, I don't see there being a big boom per se, but that's not saying that that wouldn't. Yes, because allowing 75% of the size of the primary, that could be a substantially larger structure than your 1500 accessory apartment. So.

This is sounding a little bit like Pandora's box to me. Yeah.

It's the short-term rental permission there that concerns, I have concerns about.

Well, one thing, anyone with an Airbnb has to register now. They have to be permitted. I understand that.

Yeah, I know. I do understand that and remember that. I just still have concerns. Can I ask a question?

I really don't know. I'm just wondering. Because I've heard this concern before. You know where I live.

Oh, yeah. And they probably – these are – I mean, my concern stems from a lot of people come to this area to recreate water sports, et cetera, weddings, and a lot of people are looking for more affordable alternatives so that you say, well, I have an apartment I can rent out to you for three days. just have concerns about this this is taking place in my neighborhood which is a neighborhood but there are a couple of Airbnb short-term rentals within my neighborhood that it just I do have just have some perspective safety and and also traffic and noise because many of these are rented out for a lot for weddings people are recreating so they're having a good time they're partying they are in and out late. I mean, I hate to sound like my grandmother, which I am sounding like, but it's an opportunity for people to make money. People are buying homes in this county as LLCs to do this. So I just have a concern about that. That's my concern.

The short term rental code does have a very strict enforcement section in regards to complaints being filed. They do have to get a zoning certificate every year. The county has the authority to withdraw that zoning certificate as in they would not be able to operate as a short term rental anymore. depending on enforcement actions or complaints that the county may receive at this point in time I don't I'm not in enforcement but I don't know of any that we've received that have been To that degree, but the county does have the short term rental hotline that someone can call to file the complaint at any point in time, even on the weekend. So it's not obviously when the action is probably occurring is could be on the weekends, but there is the ability to do so.

through that process of the short-term rentals that gives a little bit of help at least on that use specifically okay thanks any more questions from the commissioners right quick following up uh you know we've had problems in mulcombe county howard county where to the point of parties 100 people may show up it gets totally out of control so Right here in Queen Anne's County. Some concept of being an attractive deal in the future for people who may be attracting people that was not the original intent of the ordinance. You know, it should be a concern to look into the future and not necessarily to the past because the situation didn't present itself in the past with Reynolds. And we're opening up the opportunity for those rentals to perhaps get out of control. So it should be sensitive to it ahead of time.

And the intent was to provide, think outside of the box for more affordable housing in the county, not short-term rentals.

This amendment is to bring us in line with the legislature. Yes. And we can be more restrictive, but not less?

Correct. In certain components. So you do have to allow accessory dwelling units on any property that has a single family residential dwelling or any property where single family residential dwellings are permitted. And there are other limitations as to the ability to regulate the size. So the 75% is in there. And the parking standard, you wouldn't be able to fluctuate from unless you have that parking study, which you have.

Can we just limit it that it's not short-term rentals?

That would require that we look at the short-term rental ordinance. So all this is doing is permitting accessory dwelling units on properties that have a single-family residential dwelling and must have a single-family residential dwelling. If because of this you want to re-look at the short-term rental ordinance, I think you could do that, but that would be outside of this ordinance.

if they're gonna be a short-term rental, it's gotta be registered as a short-term rental facility. And then subject to some pretty strict, subject to some stringent regulations that are painful, sounds like, right?

If they're enforced. I mean, we've had the problem with the parties here in Queen Anne's County. It's not just Montgomery and Baltimore for real.

Were 18-year-old boys involved?

I'm just curious. Not, no. Never tell. And question for council. So could we amend it to read the rental has to be 30 days or more? It can't be less than 30 days?

I still think it's going to require a short-term rental ordinance because of the way that it's defined within that ordinance. So we could look at it comprehensively. I don't think you're going to limit it in the way that you want by just amending this ordinance. Understood. Thank you.

Yes, ma'am. Again, I want to contextualize. Just a few years ago, I was appointed to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Task Force. So I was a part of this conversation where eventually this legislation was put forward. I didn't draft the legislation, but I did sit on the task force that looked at this issue. And what I learned was that there were many counties in the state that did not allow accessory dwelling units or were very restrictive. So this legislation was focused on communities where short-term rentals, where accessory dwelling units were not permitted by right, but I do want to clarify We have always allowed them. This is not a new land use for us at all. We are just changing the nomenclature from accessory apartment, but accessory apartment did mean accessory dwelling unit. It allowed for an apartment. It allowed for a detached or an attached accessory unit. We allow for accessory farm dwellings. cottage homes, so we already allow accessory dwelling units. So the fear of opening a Pandora's box is not really applicable to our county and to our zoning code. WHAT HAS CHANGED IS WE DID HAVE A LIMITATION ON THE PERCENTAGE OF THE SIZE OF THAT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT THAT WAS 60% OF THE PRIMARY AND NOW WE ARE REQUIRED TO MAKE THAT MORE FLEXIBLE AND HAVE AN ALLOWANCE FOR PARKING. TO NOT REQUIRE THE PARKING UNDER THE STANDARDS THAT STEPHANIE HAS OUTLINED. BUT THIS IS DEFINITELY NOT A NEW LAND USE FOR US. SO I JUST WANTED TO CONTEXTUALIZE THAT AND ALSO THERE ARE SHORT-TERM RENTALS THAT EXIST IN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ALREADY. We're really commingling enforcement issues with the short-term rental provisions and updates. Really, this is an update to our accessory dwelling unit provisions that are already on the books.

Madam Chair, I don't have a problem with anything else that's here except for this allowing this short-term rental as you are formalizing this and i agree with art that i think that it's our responsibility to look into the future because i am personally aware in my own neighborhood and other areas and and people who live in other counties this is the way that people make money this is a thing that is occurring in the future and i i would like to respectfully request madam chair that we table this so we can get a little more information on how just specifically this short-term rental plays into this text amendment whose intent is to provide more affordable housing options to county residents.

I'm curious if it's possible to move forward with the ADU, and then if you really are contemplating the short-term rental. we can take care of that in an update with the short-term rental code. Because the legislation that's proposed with the ADU does not really talk about short-term rental at all. We could put it in there that it can't be a short-term rental, but then we have to go back to the short-term rental code and change it. So they wouldn't be following the same at the same time but if that's what you're interested in doing you could propose that staff look at that and bring that forward to you next time but allow the ADU to move forward so that it gets through the process and essentially becomes the accessory dwelling unit standards for the county I don't know if that helps or Moving it forward is going to include what I'm having an issue with

but it's already permitted in the short term rentals are already permitted in accessory apartments that might be that might all be mute because we have a motion and i have a second okay from art to table this

I think Stephanie was just adding a clarifying point. I think the concern is that the legislation requires that jurisdictions be compliant with the legislation by October 1st of 2026. So the only concern would be that... By tabling it, you wouldn't necessarily meet that deadline. And as long as you're comfortable with that, you can continue to table it. Or the alternative that Stephanie was suggesting was that you forward this as making a recommendation, but don't then limit the ability at your next meeting or after that to look at short-term rentals and whether there would be an ability to limit or regulate short-term rentals within these accessory dwelling units. And what mechanism would you need to amend the code to do that and that might be another amendment to this or it might be just another amendment to the short-term rental ordinance um

So we're out of compliance. I guess I wish I had known that. We would still be required to apply it.

We would still be required to apply it as of that date. Even though our code has not changed, we still have to be consistent with the state law. But the intent is to get it there, obviously, as soon as possible.

Right, so essentially what would occur would be that if an application, a building permit application came in for an accessory dwelling unit after October 1st and our code somehow prohibited it, you would not have the authority to actually prohibit. But correct, it sounds like the code doesn't anyway. They'd have the authority. You just wouldn't have these additional provisions within it. Does the code currently limit heights of accessory dwelling units?

No, so the bill does not address specifically the heights. but it does give recommendation that you should look at your accessory structure standards and i think that was just a recommendation from dhcd or department of planning because there was nothing in the bill that spoke specifically to those standards of a height um that was the one thing that they were so i guess my question more so is if an applicant came in for a an accessory dwelling unit essentially it's an accessory dwelling unit but not as defined in our code wouldn't this actually be more prohibitive if adopted than what exists today because there are additional standards within this that don't currently exist so in regards to the accessory apartments yes I think yes I think Vivian may apply those standards though I'm not that certain I can't speak to that specific to the height because there's no height requirements that live in all the accessory structure standards themselves there's just an overall accessory structure kind of blanket section.

So there's been a lot of talk about these dwelling units being built for for profit. I have no doubts about that. But I will tell you a personal anecdote, my brother in law and built an accessory dwelling unit and We didn't build an accessory dwelling unit, but it became an accessory dwelling unit for us when my wife's mother came to spend her final days with us, and it was the same thing with my brother-in-law. And that is the case with people. I'm more aware of that, I think, where family members, particularly older ones, need to be looked after, and they don't want to be in a home. So I'm just going to say that. I understand where you're coming from. But I think she's got a plan. Sounds like. She's a dairy farmer. They don't ever lie.

You're never going to live that with them.

I'm glad I don't.

Just procedurally, you currently have a motion and a second on the floor table.

All in favor of the motion?

To table this.

To table it. As they said, we're already in compliance as far as putting in an accessory. And this is, the one that's being proposed is more restrictive than the one that is currently available. I see no reason why it can't be.

What?

The wait and get it right. Can I have a vote? All in favor? The table.

Just to clarify. Okay. The table. The table.

Okay.

In favor?

Aye. Bill?

No.

No.

No.

No. No.

All right. He was the second.

I was in favor of tabling, but if we have to move it to clarify and comply with the state, I guess I have to withdraw the second for the table.

We don't. So at this point, the motion to table was voted on and it failed.

Okay, so now I need a proposal or a resolution. Someone want to put that forward?

So is that the one we wrote all the notes on? That was the previous one.

All right, Madam Chairman, if I may.

Having considered the testimony presented and having reviewed the findings outlined in the staff report, be it hereby resolved that the Planning Commission makes a favorable recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners regarding Draft County Ordinance Number 26-15 to add and amend Chapter 18-1 through 48, Accessory Dwelling Unit-Based on house bill 1466 slash Senate bill eight 91, and that we include all the findings from the staff report in the, in the.

You get a second, second, all in favor. All right. Any opposed? No. Okay. So moved. Uh, public comment. Yes.

All right. I have to jump off.

Okay, we understand. Good luck with your issues. Any public comment?

Just to clarify, do you want to look at something with short-term rentals and not allowing it? I know you didn't make that in your motion, but if that is something you want to do.

I would like to see that. I think we would all like to do it.

Does that work for everybody? Yes, it does.

Thank you for the clarification.

And just a note for next month, we will be at the Liberty Building for the October 8th meeting.

Send me a text. I will.

Text and remind me. I'm talking like 15 minutes while I leave home.

Thank you for all the time and effort today. We stand. Can I get a motion for?

Motion to adjourn, please. Move to adjourn.

Second.