Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Respect.

Good morning. I'll call to order the Thursday, November 13, 2025 meeting of the plean Queen Ans County Planning Commission. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for stands one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Good morning. Are there any public comments uh Mr. Shelton from that you have listed for just generic public comments? Do you have anybody listed? Yes, sir.

Anybody in the room want to speak before we move on? Fantastic. Staff, legislation, legal matter matters and miscellaneous staff items. And I think it's worth mentioning, madame director, before we get started, we have a our sixth member of the commission is for join us virtually. Um, so it doesn't it's it's not a man's show today. We're represented online virtually and certainly by the rest of you. Go ahead.

Good morning. Uh, Amy Murdoch, planning director. I'm going to uh with your permission flip the order of our um staff updates and legal matters and defer to our colleagues from uh DPW and parks and wreck. You had a couple months ago asked for an update on the trails and I'd mentioned that I would reach out to um our friends in u parks and wreck and DPW and ask for this update. So, it's on our agenda this morning. Once they're through with their update to you, uh, I'll give you some, uh, planning and zoning updates. Fantastic. Thank you, team Steve. Steve C, no less. Thank you, gentlemen.

Good morning. My name is Steve Chanley. I'm the director for parks and recreation. And I'm sure you guys Steve Cahoun with uh Queen Anne County Public Works, a public facilities planner.

Good morning. So, we wanted to uh first of all, thank you guys for giving us a few minutes just to give you an update on where we are with trails in the county. Um, with the trail projects, you know, our main concern is what we're trying to do is combine and connect the Cross Island Trail and the South Island Trail. Uh, right now we've got, you know, a nice big gap between there. Um, for the past couple years, we've been working to go ahead and construct um the the trails. Um, so we've been working on the extension of the the South Island Trail. Uh, we're also talking about um the Cross County Connector Trail. We've got a feasibility study for that. Um, there's also been a public meeting about a US uh 5301 overpass study to that would be the true connection um for the two trails. And then also we've got a a slide about trail um improvements and maintenance. As you can see up on the map, we've got several different phases. We've got about um six phases that are going on. Um if you look at phase one, which is red, um that's near Waterman Joe's. That's kind of a an easy landmark there. That is constructed. And phase two, which is the other red um uh trail line map, which is at Matip School Complex. Both of those are completed and construction. Uh right now, we're working on phase three, uh which is the blue, which runs behind Mobrey Park. Um if you want to go ahead and switch over, Steve. Um so again, phase one and two are constructed. Phase three is currently being um constructed right now. Um phase four, which is um across the street, which it goes from Matape Peak to uh Christ Church, um that's in design and engineering right now. We're hoping to um get that under construction relatively soon. Phase five is uh to be construction with uh with the Thompson Creek um connector road and phase six is the pedestrian

overpass. Um just to give you some idea, this is a bid that we put out for um for phase three. Um our bids were received on August 8th. Um the cost you can see there is about 593,000. We've got one contractor that's doing everything from clearing to putting down the trail base and also paving. Um, this is a little bit different than how we've operated in the past and it seems to be working out quite well right now. Uh, construction right now is only able to be performed between September of of this year up through March 26 or March of 2026, I'm sorry. Then we have to wait again until September because we ran into some um um areas which have um forest interior dwelling species. So there's kind of like a freeze where we can't do any type of construction. So we're hoping that it'll be a nice winter, we can get a lot of it done and you know with any luck um you know if it's a good winter we could be done by March. Um but we're anticipating that we're going to have to have that little break and then come back in September and then go ahead and pave that. Go ahead. Um this is a Oh, go back. This picture right here is is phase three. Um, this gives you an actual shot of um of the trail that's been cleared through so far. Um, it's actually Blunt Marsh Road. If you look to the left and to the right, those are the views that you see. So, it's going to be a very picturesque trail. It's going to be really nice and we're looking forward to that. Uh, we're anticipating that the um tree removal uh should be done this week and then they should be moving into the next phase of putting down the base of the um trail. Um, as I mentioned before about um, phase 4, um, this is the part where we we actually cross from Matapi Elementary School over to Christ Church and then we run it all the way down to um, to Matapi

where our trail head is. Um, so again, that's in uh, design right now and we're hoping again to um to get a bid out relatively soon. Um, and again, just as I said, design and engineering, the bid to go out late spring. Um, and again, we're going to go with the um, uh, the current situation we did with one contractor to do it all. Um, it's a lot, I'm thinking it's a lot easier to hold one person accountable as opposed to working with three different contractors and getting on their schedule. So, if you got one primary responsible person, um, it, um, I think is going to move really well for us, Steve.

Okay. So, um, we have that, uh, South Island Trail under construction, under engineering. Um, but now we're switching to planning, uh, transportation planning. And last year, um, the county commissioners with the help of parks, the parks department and the bike and ped advisory committee adopted a bike and ped master plan. And as a result of the bike and ped master plan, we have two feasibility studies currently in process. Now, uh, the first feasibility study we're going to talk about is the Cross County Connector Trail feasibility study. You remember, uh, about five, six years ago, we had a trail that ran from the Kenton Arrows all the way to Graysonville and and ended up at the Royal Farms there and Jackson Creek and and, um, Longpoint Park. And so this feasibility is start uh, study is looking at extending that trail all the way to the town of Queenstown. So, uh, we were fortunate to be able to get a grant to hire a consultant to do a feasibility study. And that feasibility study is looking at, um, extending the trail starting at the Royal Farms, following pretty much the the road network um to the golf course property um, the Queenstown links golf course property and then work we're working with them to get through their property actually to the town of Queenstown. So, the feasibility study will lay out a preferred alternative on where we would um put the trail and also what issues we'll we'll need to be aware of moving into engineering and design. Another key part of the feasibility study is trying to get across the overpasses. There's two existing overpasses in Graysonville and trying to um see if we there's room to get across those overpasses to link everybody in Graysonville to our trail system. Um it would be great to have those um thousands of residents there on

Main Street in Graysonville and the connecting communities to be able to um safely cross those overpasses to use the trail system. Um so that's part of the feasibility study as well. Uh next slide. Um we received a grant of $80,000 from the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board to do the study. Um it's a direct result of adopting the bike and ped master plan. Um, you know, it's from Longpoint Park. We were looking to go to Nesbbit Road, but but we decided and because of a conversation with the golf course to actually extend it to the town of Queenstown, and they are interested in working with the county on that. Um, so um, and it includes the overpasses as I mentioned. Next slide. Uh the other feasibility study, the second feasibility study that's underway right now is the pedestrian crossing of US 5301. Uh for about 30 years, the county has had an adopted goal of connecting the Cross Island Trail and the South Island Trail. That's been in multiple comprehensive plans recommended by the planning commission. Um and we're trying to implement that. Uh the feasibility study is the first step to do that. and we hired a firm RK to look at four potential alternative crossing locations. Of the four, two have been eliminated as not really being feasible. Um and um two are moving forward uh for further analysis and those options are option one which is shown there in the purple and option four which is shown there in red. Um, and a huge part of a pl a feasibility study and a planning process like this is getting the public comment and public outreach on what the community wants or what their concerns are. And we held a meeting on October 23rd to do that. Next slide.

Can which which two options are you are you looking at there?

Um, so if you want to go to the next slide. Um, option one. So, it goes from uh where currently there's a segment of trail at Bay Bridge Cove. Um, and we're each of these options is connecting to that existing segment of trail. Option one is looking at continuing up Route 8 heading down Pier 1 Road and crossing US 53301 into Terapin Park. Um, option four is a little farther east. um going following where the Thompson Creek connector road is to be constructed, crossing the headarters at Thompson Creek to the Cracker Barrel site, crossing over to the middle school property and to ultimately to the library. If you could go back one slide, the two options that did not move forward, one was using the existing Maryland overpass. We felt there were safety concerns and that was not feasible. The only way it would be feasible is if through the Bay Crossing study um the overpass was reconstructed and we have no idea of a timeline or even if that's going to happen. So that that option was eliminated due to safety concerns and unknowns. Uh the yellow option, option three, was crossing um from the Target shopping center, Kent Landing, over to a piece of property, a park property owned that was donated to the um county by the Eisinger family. Um that option was looked at. There are some utility issues with high power lines there that make the crossing difficult. And then also um with that connection, it really doesn't get you to the cross island trail. So it it's kind of it gets you across 50, but then the next connection it was very difficult to make the next connection. So th those

were the two options eliminated. So um so a little bit of information on each option. They they connect to different locations, one to a park, one to the library. um they're different um distances and lengths. Uh so where we are in the feasibility study is we're taking a little bit more uh detailed look at both of them. The the options will be presented to the county commissioners um for for their input and with the public comment that we received during the public meeting next. So on my perview here, but what what do you anticipate those crossovers costing? Uh significant amount. Um, who pays for that? What's that? Who pays for it?

It It would be a county commissioner decision. It would This would be a county project. Yes. So, so this is a county project and part of the feasibility study is getting that cost. You know, with these two different options, we're talking two different costs, but that's a big part of this feasibility study. It'll provide a an kind of a higher level cost estimate, but it will drill down based on the design. I'm sorry, I I jumped, Mr. Chair. Sorry. But it is a county project. It would have to go in the capital budget, move forward through the capital budgeting process, and the commissioners would have to allocate the funds. Okay.

And as I have to say, they have me aggressively pursuing grant funds any anywhere, any place to see how uh we can help with the funding of moving that forward. So, Uh moving forward, um this is a slide of a crosscount connector trail improvement. Again, over the course of time, the the asphalt sunk a little bit, so there was a lip and you know, again, that made for a potential trip hazard or a dangerous um ride experience where you can pop a tire. So again, we just added that um that asphalt uh ramp there just to uh continue to make sure everything's safe. We also have been having um our staff walk walk the um bridge because there have been some boards that have deteriorated over the course of of time. So that's an that's an ongoing process and we've I think to date we've probably um flipped out probably close to 300 boards and again we've run into some concerns and I think it's I think it's the process of how boards are now preserved. They're not preserved the way they were in the past. were before in the past the boards were dipped and the materials were were soaked up in there. Nowadays they they spray it or they mist it. So you really don't get that absorption to protect the bridge the bridges and the boards. So again that's something new that our staff is taking care of whether it be the rangers or whether it be general park maintenance staff that is taking care of it. Um, so we'll we'll continually walk it and you know we'll try to minimize the amount of closures or try to do it when it's um in a non- busy time, but you know, we're out there, you know, maintaining those and keeping those safe. Next slide, please. The other thing that we uh have been uh taking care of is invasive weed management. Um, as you can see, we've cut this swath. Um we had a contractor cut the swath to keep the weeds back off

of it again just to you know have a nice clear um um walk that goes through and as you can see along the fencing you can see where some of the vines you know they they grow up quick through there and there's you know one invasive species called mile a minute and it truly is a mile a minute. You cut it and the next day it's another you know three feet high up there. So, uh, we've been working to keep, um, those, uh, invasive weeds, you know, at bay and again keeping the whole, um, trail experience, um, nice. And it's not only done at this one. We, uh, went through and we did the Cross Island Trail and, uh, cut back, um, a lot of, you know, dead and dying limbs as well as invasive vines that were through there. And then just kind of really opened it up and really made for a better experience. And you know, the hard part is just like anything, you know, it's the pain and suffering of having to close the trail for a little bit because people want to walk by you while you're doing the work, but in the end, you know, that one day or two day closure is well worth it because again, it gives you a better experience as you're, you know, traversing the trail. Next, and that's it. If you guys have any any questions uh for us,

thank you very much for bringing that. I think it's uh as you point out obviously you're worried about a one or two day closing and that's certainly uh I think sensitive in my perspective. Uh but I think you know the public doesn't always understand that uh you know the one day that they may have gotten out or want to go stretch your legs on a nice spring day and and you're out there with drills and hammers and heavy machinery with the trail closed. So thank you for explaining that to us and to the public and uh clearly uh we're happy to work with you on working to get these connections made. Right. We talk often here about the the sidewalks to nowhere, right,

that developers don't want to build, but sooner or later in the aggregate, we get them all connected slowly and patiently. Uh so we appreciate your persistence and working with staff here in planning and zoning to to connect these disconnects uh and fill in those gaps. uh because I think at the end of the day, the end of the year, the end of the process, it's it's a real gem for the county, I think, and for the residents that uh that not only front this, you know, with the residences, but use it to get back and forth to school or parks or to exercise.

And and on that same note again, and that's, you know, where the bridge crossing comes into play, you know, do you want, you know, one is all about experience, option one, you know, because it takes you down by the water. option four which you know brings you directly to the schools and by the stores and stuff like that that's about connectivity. So it's really a kind of a matter of you know what is the the end goal you know what do the commissioners want what do you know you guys also um prefer as well as you know having our put our input as well as the citizen input as well and so you know the good thing is there's two opposite views so you know you can really um you know come up with a right there's no wrong answer in this situation so that's that's the good thing but again just keeping in mind what do you want to do you want to have the experience or do you want to have the connectivity that goes with it. So

trade-offs for every it is for both of them. It is. Do you have any feel for uh traffic? In other words, how many people are using it? Any statistics on that?

Um we did at one time we had some counters that we placed on the trails. Um and then through some software issues, it's kind it has stopped. I I have to go through like several different hoops to be able to recapture that. But we we do have the ability to get some numbers. Um but the Cross Island Trail, I mean, is is highly highly used. It's one of the most popular um amenities in the parks. And I know at one time um there was a a heat map study um that that went along and showed how busy that the Cross Island Trail was. And I mean, it was it was red the entire the entire time. Um, and you can see it, you know, from as early as, you know, six in the morning to, you know, uh, dusk uh, at night. So, you know, you get everybody on there. We and we also have a lot of events that that take place on there. Uh, we co-sponsor a lot of um, uh, walks that that take place or races that take place. Um, so again, you know, we get a lot of people out there. We have bike clubs that have come from uh, V as far as Virginia to come and ride our trails. And you know, the great thing about our trails is it's they're long and they're flat, you know, so you can't you can't go wrong with that.

They pay to use it. Um, some do and and and the reason I say some do is if we don't charge them, uh, we are put on as a co-sponsor. So, we can say that we're also sponsoring that event as well because I think it's important to get, you know, the county parks and recreation department out there, their name out there so people know exactly, you know, who's responsible for this. good, bad or indifferent. They need to know who is, you know, who's the owner of that and that seems to to work out and, you know, it's a good um, you know, it's a good PR tool for us. So, you're doing phase three, I think you said, on the interconnection building in $537,000 contract, correct?

How long is that? That is uh phase three is about 3,800 ft. 38. Yeah. If you look on um this map here, the color-coded map, each phase has the um length, that's $734,000 a mile roughly. And that's cheap to be honest with you. Whose world is that cheap in in the trail building world? Well, how many more miles is there to build? And you're doing this on a no bid contract? My purview, I get it. But I'm a citizen, right? I can still ask.

Well, State Highway puts out a um a program which you can punch in all the um all all the data as far as the length and the width and um so forth and it calculates what the cost of a trail is and it shows and it's not always right, but it kind of gives you a ballpark and it shows you know the current cost of a mile of trail is about a million dollars. Um, but you also got to remember when you, you know, you paved that trail, you know, for the most part that that paving is going to last probably 20, 30 years. Um, if it's, you know, if it's all asphalt and you don't have any bridges and things like that. So, you know, when you amateurize that over the course of time, it, you know, it does bring it down. But you also have to look at the amount of people that come in. you know, are they going to spend extra money, you know, at uh restaurants and gas and and things like that. So, you know, there there's a benefit not only financially, but there's also a benefit as far as what people like in their county, you know, where they live and where they want to come to. So, you know, there's, you know, like anything, there's a cost benefit to it.

What's your long-term view of where these trails are going? Well, first and foremost is to be able to get the connection between um that's an intermediate or short-term view. I'm talking long term. Long term. I I think the idea is also to be able to to spread our our trails throughout the county. Everything shouldn't be through farmland too. What's that?

Through farmland, too. if that opportunity prevails itself. And and you know, again, that's part of the the difficulty that Queen Ans County has because the roadways here, the ditch is there, the farmlands there. There's not a lot of play in in some of those areas. Some of the trails are going to have to be probably on road, but again, it's, you know, the trails can be different for each person. You can have a trail like the Cross Island Trail or the South Island Trail that can have everybody on there, but then you can have another trail that's an on-road trail which is more for the bikers that, you know, want to go that long distance and, you know, are speeding down. So, you have a little bit of everything.

Where your future plans include the use of uh railroad rightway easements that go directly through the middle of many farms in this county, right? Absolutely. That have been abandoned for decades. I'm talking decades. They weren't they haven't been used since I was a little boy. That's a long time, right? And you're going to you're going to go through the middle of arms.

Let's take a step back. What what we've done is we created the bike and ped master plan and we went out to the public and asked them as a community, as a county, where do you want your trails? And then what we found out is they wanted trails everywhere, honestly. And um a lot of it crosses farmland in the more rural areas. But what happened crosses through um the rural areas of the county which goes in front of farmland um mostly along state highways in those areas. But with that, we can't do all that. You know, all the all the trails that were listed out in the bike and ped master plan, we're never going to get to all of them. So, we had to prioritize um what we can do. So, the top priorities were making connections between the existing trail system so we can create one larger trail system. The second priority was extending from our existing trails and one of the main things we heard from the public is they wanted to get our towns connected. So our top tier priorities are these feasibility studies and trying to get the trail from where it is today to the town of Queenstown and to the town of Centerville. So, if you look at the bike and pet master plan, those are the top tier priorities for the most part with each one of those trails, we'll have to do a feasibility study, see where it will fit, where it can go. It'll be a public process, and then that would turn into a public budget process and capital process with the county commissioners. So, um, and one of the things we're doing during the feasibility study is is m seeing where we can fit in the existing rightaway with state highway and where we would have to go talk to a property owner about whether it's possible to use a portion of their road frontage or if they're interested in us coming through the property. So, uh, we are very conscious about um,

when do you perceive surveying those those folks those property owners? What's that? When do you perceive yourself going to those property owners and asking them their opinions about whether they want to trail through their property? I'm not trying to be argumentative. I can tell you right now, Talbet County is working on a trail peers from from Easton at least to Cordova. Yes. And nobody's nobody's from you talk to the local land owners, they haven't approached a single land owner whether they think it's a good idea for a trail to come through their property. Not one. Yeah. Um, we're with during the feasibility study, that's when we're dealing with those issues. Um, so

I would suggest at least talk to the Farm Bureau. Not that they're going to do much, but you ought to talk to them. Sure. Sure. We have we haven't hit a farm between Well, our our priorities and what we're working on now. The feasibility study is the area where we identify those issues then and try to get a budget. I mean that's there there's steps in the process and people are involved in the public process in all those steps. That's all I you know it's not we're we're not out there doing this. You know this this has all been very public and and out there for anybody to participate in the process starting with the comprehensive plan and and getting all that feedback. You good Bill?

No. You can go on. Well let's we can stay here for a while. So I think your your your concerns are very much more property specific than what this discussion is. And I'm happy to meet with you and talk with you about them and happy to go. I would say property rights specific. I would argue with your terminology there a little bit. I think that you know uh the constitution grants citizens rights that are property. Yes, they need to be compensated. I don't know if you're compensating them fairly. Darn. I look at this thing with these railroads. It irks me to no end that those railroads weren't reverted to the to the original property owners and I think we were given the short end of the stick on that deal. Good. Yep. Thanks for coming in. Thanks for your time. Thank you.

Thanks. Um, thank you very much to both of the Steves. Um, I told them it was going to be a 10-minute presentation. So, thanks to both of them for um, fielding all of your questions. Some of the conversation really did go beyond the scope of what we asked them to present. And I don't want anyone to think that there are more um substantive pieces of the planning process process in place than there actually are. So some of this conversation was very broad and what they're working on right now is uh very focused. So I just wanted to make that clear and I will be very quick um to get us back on track. I just have a few notes and they are more of um uh staffing level updates and county business. So, I just want to let you know that our department is fully staffed. Um, Hope Trentley is the most recent member of our staff. She came on board at the end of September and I think I may have mentioned at a previous meeting that Sarah Rondo came on board in July and that brings us to a full uh staffing level. And so um we have a really good team and we're all working hard and as as you know um we have been transitioning into a the electronic era and our materials, our letters, our staff reports, our presentations are all being uh made available online in ways that they haven't always been. Um, so in light of that and as just good good professional practice, our staff is uh going to undergo a training session on Tuesday the 18th of November. I just want to announce that publicly so that

you're aware and the public is aware that we have two training sessions offsite. Um and our department will be operating at half staff uh in waves and a morning session and an afternoon session. So we'll be you know putting up signage to let people know but it's very valuable training um professional training for our staff and the office will be open but at a reduced staff. So I wanted uh to let you know that. Um, another initiative that, uh, the county commissioners are taking on, uh, it's kind of a second town hall meeting. They, uh, the commissioners held a town hall to discuss the pedestrian overpass. Uh, they're also, uh, we've been working together, uh, to put forward a town hall that explains the development review process in the county. So, um, our staff, uh, DPW staff, um, the QACV staff, we've all been working hard to put a town hall together, public service announcements, which have been a lot of fun and I think will be informative for the public. But that town hall meeting will be held um, at the Kent Island Library on Thursday, the 20th of November. you'll start to see um some press about that town hall meeting. Uh feel free to attend and uh the commissioners are basically hosting the town hall, but staff will be uh present to answer questions that the public might have about our process. It is development review specific and not a general town hall meeting about uh county business. It's specific to development review because as everything is available online um there are questions about the process and about

who plays what role in our process. Um and I think the only other um update I want to give you is we're in the middle of conference season. So, um, I've attended and presented at the Maryland Association of Storm Water and Flood Plane Managers meeting last week and, uh, staff will be, uh, Vivian and I will be attending, uh, Winter Mako, uh, representing our department. I'm the, um, planner, um, the Mako planners affiliate president. So um I will be directly involved in some of the panel discussions and some of the meetings that go on at Winter Mako. I don't really have a legislative update for you right now other than to say that there are a lot of drafts floating around uh specific to um housing initiatives that uh the governor and the um department of housing and community development are promoting. And obviously um not there's not a heavy lift on solar energy this year, but we are looking at fixing some of the previous legislation. Some of the implementation of Senate Bill 931 needs a little help. So uh we've all been engaged in reviewing some drafts that have been floating around and providing comments to make. I don't have anything substantive yet, but in the coming months we will. So,

thanks much. Congratulations on being fully staffed. Yes, thank you. While coming. All right. So, first and foremost, starting with our projects, uh, major site plan SP 2410141 Eastern Shore Exodus LLC proposing an administrative subdivision and a major site plan to develop a two-story mixeduse building. Proposed structure will be 3,800 square ft of commercial space on the ground floor. Six one-bedroom commercial apartments on the second floor. Applicant is requesting major site plan approval. DMS and Associates. Welcome. Good morning, gentlemen. Morning.

Right. Well, Mr. Lee, thank you so much for doing my first slide for me. I appreciate that very much. I'm Rob Gunter, Department of Planning and Zoning. And before I move in any further, if you'll note on here, the uh floor area, the square feet is 3,84. If you flip to your staff report on page three, I made an error. The second table down for floor area, I transposed the 8 to zero, it says 3084 when it should be 3804. I blame Steve. He reviewed this and didn't catch it. All right, so The project is located on Ken Island south of Route 50 in between Shamrock Road and Dundy Avenue. The existing site is approximately 344 acres. And as mentioned, there is an administrative subdivision component of this project. These two areas shown in white will be transferred from parcel 311 to parcel 93 making the boundary line of parcel 93 consistent with previously approved growth allocation and you'll see that area um in a couple slides I'll point it out. Um the site is currently improved with an existing single family dwelling and associated outuildings and all existing improvements uh will be removed. Project is zoned town center. It's located within the Chester Stevensville growth area as well as the enterprise zone and priority funding area. The proposal meets all applicable chapter 18 landscape requirements. Storm water is obviously being provided. It has been reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The site is not located within the 100red-year flood plane and there are no natural resources on site. It is entirely within the Chesapeake Bay critical area with a

designation of intensely developed area or IDA. Um, and because it's in the critical area, force conservation is not applicable. If you look at the dark solid line here, that's the existing boundary line of parcel 93. on parcel 311 is this rectangle and this triangle. Those are what's being administratively subdivided into parcel 93. The intent was to do that. It just never got done when the growth allocation went through. So in 2014, the project was awarded its critical area growth allocation, changing it from limited development area to intensely developed. That approval included conditions from the county as well as the critical area commission and that award of a critical area growth allocation included parcels 90, 91, 92 and 93. In 2018, there was an amendment to the growth allocation concept plan that was approved by the planning commission and that approval also included shared and reduced parking as well as reduced setbacks. Uh parcels 91,2 and three have already been developed. Um applicant has submitted a narrative addressing each condition of the growth allocation approval and upon review of the growth allocation conditions, the current site plan and the applicant's narrative um staff believes all the conditions will be met with the current proposal. So shown in black here is the proposed two-story mixeduse building again with commercial on the first floor, apartments on the second floor. And as everybody is probably aware by now, there is a moratorum in place for projects with residential components that require at least 1,750 gallons of sewer per day. This project only requires 753

and has an existing 250. Therefore, the moratorium will not affect this project which is why you are seeing it currently. All town center district development standards are met with this project. Um they are proposing again 3,84 square feet of floor area, 10,786 square feet of imperous surface. There is an additional amount of imperous surface on um parcels 91 and 92 that's minimal, but it's right here for access and parking improvements. Um they are still below their maximum amount permitted and that information is in your staff report. Additionally, there are six one-bedroom commercial apartments proposed and the code requires 50 square feet of balcony space and one additional canopy tree for each unit and the proposal is providing those as well. Previously mentioned, there was a parking reduction for the overall development for these four parcels um taking the required amount of spaces down from 56 to 51. And this table um shows you how they're distributed on the site. Um there are additional 45 spaces being provided on parcel 311 here and the applicant has provided share parking agreement for all the sites um to share parking and access. So parcel 93 and 92 have no direct access to main street which is located right here. To get into the site, you can enter and exit via Shamrock Road here or here or on Dundee here and here. There is internal vehicular access provided throughout as well as pedestrian access. The project proposes a roadside sidewalk

that will connect to the existing sidewalk on Parcel 92 and the existing sidewalk across Shamrock Road. There are internal connections as well that will connect the two buildings as well as connect to the roadside sidewalk. This is obviously the architecture. Um number one and number three are the are the west and east side facads. Image number two here is what you will see from Main Street and number four is the parking lot side or internal side of the structure. This design is similar to the previous developments um in this growth allocation which was a condition and it meets all town center design standards. So if you have any questions for me I'd be happy to attempt to answer them. Otherwise I can turn it over to the applicant.

Any questions from staff from the commissioners? Thank you Rob. Floor is yours. Mr. Sha Walter.

Good morning. Uh for the record, Ryan Shoalter appearing on behalf of the applicant, Eastern Shore Exodus. To my right, uh Brandon Davis of DMS and Associates, and also Chad Henbine, uh the um as is always you're very fortunate to have the staff that you do. You got a great staff report, uh very detailed and thorough. So, I don't know that we have a lot and we're not going to repeat anything that's already been covered, but I think Brandon has a couple of points we'd like to address. Um you have a submitt that that we believe addresses all outstanding county comments. uh and documents compliance with all of the relevant design standards. We appreciate your support.

Thank you, Ron. Um again, Brandon Davis with DMS um was highlighting the items that I had prepared to talk to you about as Rob already said them and I have a lot of items highlighted. So, thank you for that extensive report. Um just wanted to touch on a few uh I think key points of the project that hopefully Rob has not already mentioned. Um, this is just the final phase of I've been I think I've even used the word campus so to speak of the parcels 311 and then parcels 90 through 93. Um, you know, I've I've called the job the final phase. Um, anyways, but uh, you know, it completes the master plan so to speak or the concept plan that associated with that growth allocation that was approved in 2014. Um, I think, uh, one large safety benefit to the project is we're the existing house at does access Main Street with a gravel driveway and we're taking that out. We're closing off the frontage along Main Street to mimic what has occurred in front of Parcel 92 and also what has occurred with the apartment building on the um, across Shamrock Road. I guess it's technically to the west. Um Fiser Architects has been work we've been working with them. Um they were also the architect behind parcels 90 and 91. Um so that helps with creating that consistency of architectural style uh between the properties. Um which was also again a growth allocation condition. Um, one of the other growth allocation conditions that wouldn't be a normal requirement any anyways was um, extra screening with landscaping. So, we calculated that extra landscaping um, as a providing a similar percentage of extra trees and shrubs to what parcel 90 and 91 did uh, three or four years ago. Um, so we've been providing that in addition to the regular landscaping

requirements. um the stormwater management um that was shown on the site plan. We have permeable pavement out front for the 11 new parking spaces. Um that is to address the IDA pollutant reduction requirement which is required for the IDA and also was um specifically noted as a condition of growth allocation as well which we've continued to address with um also address with parcels 90 and 91. um the overall parking now that we're including parcel 311 into the entire revised parking agreement. Um the the parcels 90 through 93 and parcel 311 all combined require 95 overall spaces and when you add up what's provided uh we're we're exceeding that by one. So uh the overall proposed is now 96. Um, I believe anything else I had I believe Rob already touched on in his report.

Any questions of the applicant? I've got one for Brandon and one for staff. I look on the one of your final sheets of the landscape plan. It suggests that you will be relocating four trees. That's something unique. Is that you're transplanting them? We're going to try to transplant them. Um, they were planted within the last two years probably relatively small. Yes. Gotcha. And they were planned for addressing the requirements of parcels 90 and 91 and they're just very tight to where uh R cover is.

I appreciate that. I think a lot of people overlooked that opportunity. So fair enough. Uh just wanted to get a better understanding of that. Second, Mr. Gunter, um when this came this topic came, maybe it was concept plan approval or something. I forget which designation it had. several years ago, the residents of Dundee Avenue, I don't see anybody here from DPW or Mr. Kahune. Perhaps I don't want to necessarily put them on the spot, but perhaps you could speak to it. Um the the residents of Dundy Avenue had some traffic concerns, some also sort of some other community concerns that don't come to mind immediately in detail, but we had talked about this at the time that and DPW was to look at the dig once philosophy of addressing the construction that was ongoing here at this campus. Um and the residents of Dundy extended to the I guess north of the picture here we're looking at. Do you have any I do reference the com the comments I do recall the discussion. Um we have not heard from anybody with regard to this project.

Um and there are two folks here from DPW Steve Kahun and Eric. Eric your last name escapes me so I apologize. Um I don't know if they have any information on that further. Yeah. Uh what I can share is after the last uh site plan submitt uh Shane Moore roads engineer did go out look at the situation. Um I think it was more concerns about speeds and and cutting through there.

Um the roads are of a size and and um pavement that can handle the traffic. There's not a question about the roads handling the traffic. They are you know this is a segment located um in a growth area between Maryland 18 and US 5301. It is a end on an exit ramp. It is an area where we expect to see that kind of traffic. So,

understood. I just I couldn't remember the details. So, thank you very much, Mr. And I greatly appreciate that. I I would also suspect that most of the traffic vehicular coming into this uh campus. I can't I love that term. Um will be coming off of Main Street probably rather than off the highway. Um just sort of optimistically thinking. Um but thank you. Just want to make sure that comment was addressed during this process. Unless you have anything to add to that, Brandon. I I think the connectivity that we're creating from you have the entrance from Shamrock Road into the parking lot of parcel 311 and now we're combining our proposed parking lot with that. I think that will alleviate because they can come at from two different sides. Is what you're saying?

Right. and and just my from my perspective driving down Route 18, the Shamrock Road intersection and just the width of that road is much more inviting for me to turn down that and Dundy Avenue kind of is a sure a hit. I mean, if if I'm not going to one of Eastern Shore Exodus's buildings or one of those um dwellings that are there, it usually doesn't make sense to go down Dundy Avenue because if I'm trying to get out to 301, I've done it much more of a local Yeah, I've done it at the Canaros already. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, one quick question. I'm proceeding on the assumption that small retail businesses are not going to generate a lot of vehicular traffic. Is that a good assumption?

The uh the traffic in um we we were received a an exemption to adequacy of public facilities and the traffic input that was uh provided in that you know meeting the traffic standards. It was a very minimal trips generation more so due to the apartments upstairs but it was still quite minimal and in the single-digit numbers where with the threshold being 25

any anticipation of what types of businesses might find this attractive? Uh the current approach with the first floor layout was potentially to relocate the flower shop that's currently next door into that and that would have taken up the entire first floor with our current plan. A flower shop. I love it. Any question? It would be available for rent. So I mean it could the user could change. Sure. Sure. Of course. We are our we coined it retail commercial as our approach when we're parking calculations and everything floor area. Any other questions for the applicant or staff? All right. Public comment.

Yeah, absolutely. All right. Is there public comment on this application as it stands? Do we have anybody signed up, John? I'm sorry. He said no. Okay. Uh that being said, I will entertain a motion.

Mr. Chairman resolved that the planning commission regarding the request by Eastern Shore Exodus LLC for major site site plan approval for the redevelopment of tax map number 57, parcel 93 to include 3,84 square ft of commercial space on the ground floor and six one-bedroom commercial apartments on the second floor and is more particularly described in the Department of Planning and Zoning. File SP number24-11-0141 hereby finds that the site plan does meet all the requirements of chapter 18 will not substantially increase traffic hazards or safety concerns due to traffic generated by the proposed use. The location or orientation of curb cuts or the layout of internal circulation does contain a layout of buildings, parking roads, parking roads, and utilities that does not substantially increase fire health or other p public safety hazards is adequately buffered and screened to minimize potential adverse impacts to neighboring properties and rights of way. will not substantially increase storm water drainage or pollution. Will not have an unreasonably adverse effect upon property values in the vicinity of the site and will not adversely affect the public welfare and will provide for public safety through the compliance of the state fire code and with any applicable county or municipal fire codes. is compatible with the general character of the surrounding neighborhood and is consistent with the purpose, goals, and objectives of the 2022 comprehensive plan. Hereby grants major site plan approval subject to the

following conditions. Any remaining edits or documents required by the reviewing agency, the Department of Public Works or Planning and Zoing Zoning be reviewed and approved prior to final site plan signature. Any remaining edits or documents required by the Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration must reviewed must be reviewed and approved prior to final site plan signature. The architecture, lighting, and overall design must substantially reflect the documents provided. The administrative subdivision must be approved and recorded prior to the final site plan fig signature. Any required legal documents must be approved, signed, and recorded. Any required bonds, shies, review, and inspection fees must be submitted to the Department of Public Works and the Department of Planning, Zoning as appropriate, and all required signatures must be obtained.

We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Any further discussion? Commissioner Dotus, do you have anything to say? No. No questions for me. I have a motion. I have a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? I any abstensions? Congratulations. Um chairman, if I may, just because this um project also includes conditions with the growth allocation. Um I think that if you find it appropriate, you could find that the application meets the conditions outlined by the commissioners for growth allocation as supported by the applicant's narrative. Accept that as part of your motion? Accepted as part of the motion. We need to second that. Yes, please second. We have a motion. We have a second. We need to vote on that then as well.

Yes. We have a motion and a second. Do we have all in favor of uh council's um offered amendment? I I Kathy. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. Whoops. That's good. All right. Second item for discussions. Minor site plan SP250154. Waterman reality. I won't steal your thunder, Steve. Please do. That's got recommended the last time. You can go through the whole thing. You guys work hard to put these staff reports. You should, you know, be able to wave the flag.

A little overzealous. It's been a while since I sat in the chair. Morning. They are quite the partaking sometimes. All right, Stephen. The floor is yours.

Okay. Thank you. Um, good morning. I'm Steve Johnson, senior planner with planning and zoning. Um, as Mr. Lee stated, we're here to discuss project number SP25-05-0154 for Waterman Realy Company Incorporated, who is proposing to construct a 2,144T commercial use building and is requesting minor site plan. Again, yeah, this is a minor site plan. This is in front of you due to the fact that it's adjacent to Route 50. Project's located in Graysonville, north of Route 50 and west of Hissy Road. But it's directly west of the Waw Wa there and directly adjacent to the JPN storage facility, self- storage facility on 50. More specifically, tax map 58F, parcel 12, totals.585 acres and is located at 600 Winchester Creek Road in Graysonville. And as you can see by the area on your screen, it is currently vacant. Property is zoned urban commercial and is located in the Graysonville growth area. It's also located within the enterprise zone and the priority funding area. This property is completely located within the LDA designation of the critical area. All critical area requirements are met with this proposal, which includes mitigation for tree removal outside of an on-site woodland, which will be met by the planting of 14 trees. All chapter 18 landscape requirements are met with this proposal. That includes on-site parking and street buffer landscaping. Storm water management has been provided on site. Those are the areas delineated in green on your screen. That has been reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. There are no wetlands, steep slopes, streams, erosion hazards, or endangered species on site, and it is not located within a 100year flood plane. Again, there is a 0.21 acre woodland on site. It's kind of to the north of your screen there. Um, no disturbance is proposed in that area. and forest is not forest conservation is not applicable again

because the property is entirely entirely located within a critical area. All urban commercial district non-residential development standards are met with this proposal that includes setbacks height floor area and impervious. Again the applicant is proposing 2,144 square ft of floor area and 5,424t of square feet of imperous area. Eight parking spaces are provided on site. That's one more than required. The property will be served by a private well and public sewer and is exempt from APFO. A copy of that exemption was included in your packet. Uh and finally, there is an easement provided along the road frontage for a future sidewalk which is shown in dashed orange. The easement is provided on this site. I think there's a little bit of um they haven't quite determined which side of the road the sidewalk's going to be on or the trail is going to be on in this area. So uh we figured the easement was the best way to go at this point.

Meaning nothing will be constructed at time of construction. No. Right. No. Here a look at the renderings. This is the north facing side of the building. This is the west facing side. This is the east side of the building. And finally this is the south view which would be facing Route 50. Um and with that I'll try to answer any questions you may have or turn it over to the applicant. Any questions of staff from the commissioners? Kathy's shaking her head. All right.

Morning. Thank you. Uh Nate Hawker with Lane Engineering with um Barry Waterman and Kevin Waterman, the applicants. Um Steve, thanks for the report. Sure. So, uh the only thing I kind of really want to mention is the sidewalk easement. Um, that's for the the county the CCTV, I think is what it's called. County connector trail. No V.

Oh, sorry. Just T. Um, anyway, so yeah, that's undecided. Um, talking with Burl, uh, it's more likely on the, um, west side of Winchester Avenue. um just because of the you know the stretch down further Winchester Avenue where those the the boat dealer and all is. It's just there's no room for a trail to proceed that way. So it makes more sense on the west side. But um it's pretty much the only thing that we're doing there is just providing the easement and then the trail is most likely going to go in the public rightway anyway. So, um, and then the storm water features, they're, uh, two just microbio retention. So, that's the only thing I really have to say. Uh, this has nothing to do with, uh, my request for approval, but it does speak to the process in Queen Ants County. with a cooperative planning staff, a good engineer, it has still taken me two years and $60,000 to get here to ask for permission to apply for a building permit. There's there's got to be some way that we can streamline this process and uh reduce the excessive costs assuming we want in essence for a 2,000 foot building. It's not a big deal here. This is a difficult property had a lot of issues. Um, so you know, fully expected that it would take longer and be expensive, but it just seems to be out of line if we want to encourage people to build commercial buildings in Queen County.

Appreciate your feedback, Mr. Waterman. You of of many in the c of few in the county understand both sides of this having sat on this commission and work with staff. So, appreciate that and I'm sure madam director heard you and she's taking notes. Uh, I have one question. It's It's not necessarily impacting this development, but that that empty lot 635, Steve. Yes. Is are we landlocking that? I mean, it's already landlocked whether Waterman's move ahead here. How is that property accessed the How do you access that property if I own that? Frankly, I'm not. I I I can probably answer that.

U right now they drive across my my property. There's no permission or anything to do that. That's they just come in there because I I let them. uh they have access off of 50. The only thing on that property is the um billboard. Yeah.

And uh under county ordinance, if they want to uh do anything on that property, the billboard has to come down. And so that's why nothing's ever been done there because the billboard makes more money than a building would. Um, so they either are going to have to, um, if someone wants to develop, they'd have to seek it right away across my property or the neighboring property or they'd sell it to one of the other of the adjacent properties or they convince the high state highway to give them access off of 50. So that's that is all there is. We we didn't do that. I mean, their access was from 50. Um, and why they didn't do anything about access is because they just didn't need it. Yeah. Yeah, cuz you're not moving any lot lines for this proposed development, right? Not at all.

Yeah. Interesting. There's a jersey barrier wall on that side, too. There is. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Just curious. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant or staff? Yes. Go ahead. I have one. So, you made the comment about the cost. Uh, but you made no recommendations and this probably isn't the time or place for that, even though I would have loved to hear at least one. uh because that is a lot of money and that to me that's too much money if the if the building is allowed to be there shouldn't have to spend that much money to get it done assume a fair amount of it was lawyers and engineers but I'm sure price is very affordable but most of it

most of it does go to engineering and a lot of the problem is u state regulations that have to be met and proven in the files but I I think the only way that we could possibly address that would be to put a work session uh group group together of people in this business and staff and see if we can figure out how we could streamline and reduce costs. I I don't know what other options there would be because you're talking to farmer here. You know that I don't I don't understand it. I I think that's appalling that it takes you that much money to get a building built. It's a lot. It's a lot damn near get a free lot with it. Madame Director. Yeah.

So, I I would like to address Mr. Waterman's comment. Um, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I I do want to go on the record to note that had this this proposal been brought forward several years ago, you would have seen this project several years ago. It has taken several years and I can't address the expense involved but it has taken several years to get to this point because working with uh Mr. Waterman, we explored means of addressing some of the state requirements because this property is a limited development area. Even though that limited development designation is overlaid in our commercial zoning, uh at the time of mapping of the critical area program and even the mapping update, that parcel did not meet the state threshold to receive an intense development area designation and seeking growth allocation uh wasn't a viable option because the property didn't meet the minimum growth allocation adjacent. decency standards. So the delay really was a delay in exploring options that would have required changes to our program. So I I just want to note that had this proposal been brought forward as you see now that does comply with the existing standards um and also there was an update to the woodland provisions that uh made this project easier um that there wouldn't have been such an excessive delay and that is often the case with some of the last vacant uh parcels. um are more complicated with uh

environmental features and uh other state constraints that sup that must be layered on to our review in addition to the the zoning code. They're vacant. They're vacant still for a reason because of those constraints likely.

Yes. I'd just like to go on the record that I have never had the opportunity to correct Amy and that Amy is Amy and Stephanie were both extremely helpful in trying to make this project easier to do. The delay has nothing to do with staff. Has something to do with engineering uh and that the market will correct that over time. Engineering, there aren't as many engineering firms and people as there used to be and it and just getting that work turned out takes a long time. Um so the delay had nothing to do with staff. um much of that um period was working with them trying to come up with an easier route than we had to go for a better project. I mean originally we I had hoped to be able to put a building of this size with four affordable apartments above it. Can't make it work because of the um lot coverage requirements. So instead we have just the commercial building and we don't get to contribute to uh more affordable housing. So anyway, those are all things the staff worked with me on trying to do and um the just the whole process overall um once we knew this was the this was what we were going to have to do that process still took almost two years. Are you looking at office space primarily in this or

I think we're looking at more um a small office and warehouse type business. You know, somebody who distributes something. We got a few people who are interested in the site, a pool guy, a coffee guy. So, it's not necessarily associated with your real estate business. No, it has nothing to do with us. It just just it seemed like a good place to put a small commercial building with some apartments, right? And so, this is this is the best we can do. Understood. Thanks for laying that out. And just to support um Mr. Waterman's comments, if you do look at the project history dates on your staff report, that is clear because that came in in May and it didn't come back for 25 days submitt until October and we put it promptly on your agenda.

Thank you. Any other questions of commissioners to staff or the applicant? Kathy shaking her head. No. All right. I will open the floor for a motion. Mr. Vice Chair. Yes, Kathy. Go ahead. Um,

may I offer the motion um be it resolved that the planning commission regarding the request by Water and Realy Company, Inc. for minor site plan approval for the construction of 21,144 square foot commercial use building and is more particularly described as Department of Planning and Zoning File SP 25-05-0154 hereby finds his site plan does meet all requirements of chapter 18 will not substantially increase traffic hazards or safety concerns due to traffic generated by the proposed use the location or orientation of curb cuts or the layout of internal circulation does contain a layout of buildings, parking, roads, and utilities that does not substantially increase fire, health, or other public safety hazards. Is adequately buffered and screened to minimize potential adverse impacts to neighboring properties and public rights of way. Will not substantially increase stormwater damage or pollution. will not have an unreasonably adverse effect upon property value in the vicinity of the site. will not adversely affect the public welfare and will provide for public safety through compliance with the state fire code and with any applicable county or municipal fire codes is compatible with the general character of the surrounding neighborhood and is consistent with the purpose goals and objectives of the 2022 comprehensive plan and hereby grants minor site plan approval subject to the following conditions. Any edits and or documents required by the Department of Public Works, planning and zoning or any other reviewing agency be reviewed and approved. Architecture and overall site design must substantially reflect the documents provided. All required legal documents must be approved, signed and recorded prior to obtaining final site

plan signatures. and all required bonds, shies, review and inspection fees must be submitted to the department of public works and the department of planning and zoning as appropriate. Second. Um, chairman, if we could just pause on the motion for a moment and make sure there's no public comment. Thank you. Pause made. Is there anyone John that's signed up for public? Anyone in the gallery wish to comment publicly? All right. Thank you. Proceed with your motion. We have a motion. I had a second. Let's There's a second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? I That was an in favor, Kathy. I'm assuming you made the motion. Yes. All right. Yes.

Any any abstensions? All right. Motion carries. Congratulations. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Might I suggest a short break? I was about to suggest the same thing. Uh we will go into a fivem minute break. Let's come back at 5 after 10, please.

We'll bring the uh meeting back in order. We will transition now into citizen sponsored text amendment application. I will now open a public hearing regarding county ordinance 25-12 submitted by the Gunston School Incorporated. I will ask Lindsay Ryan to verify that the proper procedure for advertising the uh public hearing uh into the record, please. Yes. The notice for the November 13th public hearing for the text amendment 2512 ran in the record observer and the bait times on October 24th, October 31st, and November 7th. And a copy of the advertisement is included in the file. Fantastic. Um we'll start with staff and uh Miss Jones, you have the floor.

Yes. Good morning. Um so the amendment before you is a citizen sponsored text amendment. I just want to put this out there that you're not generally used to seeing them this time of year, citizen sponsored, but when it is a critical area text amendment, they can submit them in August as well as February. So, just to so that you are aware of that that nuance because you may have been wondering why we have a citizen sponsored now. So, the amendment before you um is to allow for growth allocation within the RCA for the award uh for uses that are existing as of June 29th, 1988. And those uses must be nonprofit institutional uses. Specifically must be secondary education and youth camps. Um within the critical area growth allocation is specifically so that someone can go through the process of changing their designation. Um we don't see that application very often. Um but that is at least the process in which they can do so. And then there are uh standards in which they have to address whether they are adjacency or non-adjacency standards. Adjacency standards are when that property that's in question for growth allocation is either LDA or adjacent to an LDA or an IDA. When it comes to the application before you, this is a non-adacency standard. Therefore, they do not have to be adjacent to what would be an LDA or an IDA. So, generally, this is you're looking at um the RCA in question here. Um the annotated code does give the county the authority to put forward amendments that are non-adgency, but they must be specific. Um not they must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Um the amendment before you is consistent with the comp plan. Uh obviously the comp plan does support education. Um as well it doesn't address youth camps um in that specific use, but it does address ecourism. Um and that's just looking at, you know, the nature-based um existing uh ways that the county has and youth camps are generally nature-based um outside oriented um waterfront. So it does address um that portion but not

specifically in the nature of a youth camp. um when you're talking about the RCA and how it is protected essentially through requirements already, this amendment um does put limitations on the expansion of that uh use as a youth camp or a secondary education specifically that it's only for those two uses. The um use has to be prior to June 29th, 1988. Um, and the it does allow for expansion of that existing use, but it has to be for the same property owner and for the same use. So, they can't be proposing a different use in the expansion um portion of it. Um, so those those do kind of assist with uh so fostering the intent of the RCA. Also, it is limited to 150 acres of our remaining 458 acres of growth allocation. So by um basically saying we only limit that throughout the entire county to 150 acres. We can't use any more of our remaining growth allocation than that than what it's is allowed. Um we do have an existing non-adjacency standard uh within the county code. It is specifically uh for public need for emergency and medical services. Um so we do have one that is existing. This amendment did go forward to the critical area commission um for anformational only uh meeting in October. They did address comments. Um the applicant has provided um answers essentially to those concerns um and staff has as well. Um based on this uh county has proposed or does propose you know that we send a favorable recommendation to the county commissioners specifically based on you know that we can propose an alternative growth allocation standard. There is um remaining um acres of growth allocation and the fact that it is supported in the comp plan and the applicant has addressed the concerns of the critical

area commission. Um, if you have questions, I'm more than happy to address them, but the applicant is here to address them as well. Any questions for Stephanie from staff? Kathy? Uh, one question. Uh, if ownership changes or this ceases to function as an educational uh institution, does all this remain in effect? So basically if the the youth can like after are you saying are you asking if if there was a buildout through the grow growth allocation what would happen if the land owner was to change change usage basically what I'm saying they can't

they can't they can't yeah they could change land owners but they would not be able to change they'd still be bound by the regulations another camp right essentially so your growth when you award growth allocation is it is specific to the use that is proposed at that time. Okay. So, it would have to be consistent with what was proposed with the growth allocation. Any other questions for Stephanie? Are you legal counsel? Mr. Shelter, I'm at comment today. Wearing another hat. Well, not really. We're on the same side though. There you go. Uh, so I I think Stephanie did a great job summarizing this application. Gunston, as you know, has Introduce yourself, please.

I'm sorry. For the record, Ryan Sha Walter, 100 Northwest Street East in Maryland, appearing on behalf of the Gunston School. Uh the school, as you know, has been uh an active participant in the uh educational space in the county for a very long time. Uh sits on a beautiful campus on the Corsica River and uh recently purchased additional land and has a desire uh both a long and short-term plan to expand the educational facilities of the campus. The the campus has grown and evolved organically over time and uh right now is a is a compilation of a number of different parcels of varying size. Some of which have no impervious surface on them. Some of which exceed the lot coverage limitations. Um but the the campus as a whole requires growth allocation for additional educational buildings uh parking lots. And so we've we've had discussions with the county staff now for several years about this process. And I know that the uh the county's critical area comprehensive rewrite uh contemplated sort of a placeholder to address this issue, but that that process is moving more slowly than than Gunston um he was able to wait. So we we initiated this text amendment and the the bulk of what is before you is actually language that the county staff and critical area commission staff had had worked through uh as part of the overall uh rewrite of the critical area regulation. So we we were provided by that by the county staff had a couple of refinements and then submitted the application. Um as noted the the growth allocation if awarded would be specific to the use. Um so this this is not the camel's nose to you know convert to a hotel or something else. This would be for youth camps um or for uh educational facilities. I've talked to the directors of camp Pakoma and Camp Wright. Um they neither of them have uh immediate expansion plans, but both support uh the application and and

desire to see that flexibility in the county code. And the critical area commission met and discussed this uh two weeks ago. They had just a few minor concerns or questions uh and those principally related to, you know, what happens if if the use is sold um and seeking one or two minor clarifications. So, we've addressed those, I think, to the the county staff's satisfaction and be happy to answer any questions that you have. Any questions of Mr. Sha Walter from staff? Kathy, any questions? No, no questions. All right, John, is there anyone signed up for public comment? No, sir. Is there anybody online?

Your choice. All right. Thank you. A little easier to see you all. Good morning, commissioners. Joe Stevens, um, Centerville, Maryland. I represent the um hole-in-the-wall gang camps. Um and as you know the hole-in-the-wall gang camps um acquired through mostly through donation the Aspen Institute properties along with the University of Maryland and um several a couple of years ago we took them through a conditional use process after they acquired the property um to turn the H Hotton House and the Riverhouse that were formerly um institutional conference centers um into the camp and they received that approval from the board of appeals. So they'll be operating I think this summer will be their first summer operating in those facilities. Um they had anticipated and always have anticipated expanding the facilities particularly the H Hotton House facilities and portion of which is in the critical area and as you know is RCA way down there towards Y Island. Um and uh uh and and we met with critical area commission and county staff probably three years ago and had discussions about how all that would come into play and and some of the nuances associated with that. would we need growth allocation? Wouldn't we? I think the determination was in all likelihood we're going to need growth allocation down there. Uh we have no issue with the substance of this amendment. I I have spoken with both Amy and Ryan as well as Lindsay and provided them with an important um and significant um clarification though that needs to be made. And um and I think that when you look at the staff report on page two, they they the staff considered that this amendment would be covered would also cover the hole-in-the-wall gang camps that reference specifically down at the bottom of page two. Um and what the what what the clarification we'd like included and the reason is is that this would apply to as it's written to any institutional use that was a youth camp or a um school as of uh 1988 June 30th I think it is 19 June 29th 1988 the date

the critical area program was adopted locally uh Aspen Institute was an institutional use down there on that date on both properties approvals. They had all those zoning approvals and so on and they were operating at that date, but they didn't convert and and transfer to the hole-in-the-wall gang camps until around 2021 or so is when hole-in-the-wall gang camps acquired it. They then got all the proper approvals to change to a youth camp, another institutional use that was considered permitted. So, the the nuance in this and the language that I've provided both staff and and and Ryan and Lindsay is that uh we would like it to be clarified that um that if it was an institutional use in 88 and was a lawfully existing youth camp or educational facility, same language as of the date of enactment of this ordinance that that also could the adjacency rules would also be um loosened for for growth allocation. It's really that simple. Um, and uh, without that, it's it's almost it's almost contradictory to what I think everybody's been operating under, and that is that the Hole-in-the-Wall Gang Camp is an institutional use growth allocation will be applied for sometime in the relatively near future for an expansion of that facility. If you don't know what Hole-in-the-Wall Gang Camps is, is they provide a camp experience with full medical staff for seriously and and in some cases terminally ill children. And it's so it's the Paul Newman charity. They started up in Connecticut. They just acquired their their Mid-Atlantic facility, which is this, you know, for hospitals like Hopkins, University of Maryland, so on. Um, so it's it it's you received a really great welcome from the county and and and we're excited to help them down here. So we hope that you'll include this language in. I don't think it you can ask staff. I don't think it's contradictory to anything you're trying

to do otherwise. We have no objection. Staff have any comment on Mr. Stevens? No, it it does address, you know, hole-in-the-wall gang and the intent um with them already being included. So it does um meet the intent and no concerns. Um and chairman, Mr. Stevens provided copies. Would it be helpful if I passed them out that has the additional amendments in red line? The I it was part of my packet. I don't know if it was part of others. I think the additional edits that you received were staff edits in response to um critical area comments. So these are two new additional edits to

I have one sort of observation and that is I have no problem with what you're suggesting at all but um it can only go one way as far as I'm concerned. In other words, if we make this decision and hole in the wall gang becomes a I don't I don't know what the proper word is a charitable use under this. Once again, I'm thinking about subsequent owners that they don't get to revert to institutional use and it goes back to what it was before. Is that correct? thinking that I I I think that that is correct that that that whatever is approved and conditions of approval on this site will remain on the site unless they come back to you and ask for something different under whatever the laws that exist at that time are.

Okay. I also think it's important to note that that this would only allow those that qualify to apply for growth allocation. So you're not um by right expanding a use. They would still have to come through the growth allocation process which we all know is a relatively simple process. and quick and cheap. Quick and quick and easy, Kathy. Any questions? No. No questions for me. Thank you. And any public comment? I'll step down. Thank you.

Thank you. Hearing no public comment, I will now close the public hearing on this application and reopen the planning commission's regular meeting session to hold discussion and conduct votes. Any further discussion from commissioners on this topic? Questions for staff and applicants? Seeing none, hearing none, I will entertain a motion.

I guess the question is what form should the motion take? In other words, uh I I move in favor of the change. Uh what do I need to read into the record? So I I think first you all need to decide whether you um if if there's a majority in favor of the recommended text amendment with the recommendation as proposed by Mr. Stevens. Um and then the motion would be to approve the ordinance with the changes from Mr. Stevens finding that the text amendment is consistent with the um Queen Ans County Chesapeake Bay critical area chapter, the critical area act, the annotated code of Maryland, and the comprehensive plan.

I'm never going to remember all that. I think I think Can I ask one question, Mr. Sh? Yes, sir. Yeah, go ahead. I I think you've already addressed it, but I just missed it. But you do approve of the text amendment changes that Mr. Stevens has. Yes. Yeah. I have no objection. Okay. That's all I wanted to hear you say. Absolutely. That was it. Stillman. Are you finished? Yes, I am. Mr. Chairman. Yeah. Don't ask me twice. Resolve that the

Hope I get this right. resolved that the planning commission makes a favorable recommendation to the board of county commissioners regarding citizen sponsored text amendment number 25-12 to amend the existing growth allocation standards within the Chesapeake Bay critical area to allow for the award of growth allocation within the RCA nonadjacent to existing LDA or IDA for the expansion of nonprofit institutional uses that provide secondary ary education or youth camps that have existed as of June 29, 1988. The planning commission provides the following findings. And what do I need here? So, um, first I would back to your motion that that you recommend the ordinance with the amendments and then you can make the findings um consistent with the ordinance and those amendments finding that it is consistent with the Queen Ans County Comprehensive Plan, the Critical Area Act, the land use article and Queen Ans County Critical Area Program. recommend that the county adopt the motion as written and further find that the motion as written is consistent with the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Act annotated Code of Maryland Natural Resources and Land Uses article and the comprehensive plan.

Would you like to include Mr. Stevens provision and includes a recommendation that this motion further addresses an issue regarding the hole in the wall gang in the former Aspen Institute property on Y Island and Queen Anne County. That satisfy your Yes. And that language would be as proposed by Mr. Stevens in the um draft amendment by Mr. Stevens in the draft amendment brought forth in today's meeting. Thank you. Are we good with that? Yeah.

All right. We have a motion. We have a second. Uh Kathy, any questions, comments, concerns? All right. I second. Anyone else? All right. Um all those in favor? I. Any opposed? I You're in favor, Kathy. Just confirm. Yeah, there's a delay here. I'll speak slower and maybe you speak faster. We'll meet in the middle. Um, we have a motion. We have a second. We have all in favor. Uh, unanimous. Uh, congratulations. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. All right. Which one were you? Is that your Are there any other questions from staff? Are we satisfied with all the commentary that was made earlier? Any further comments?

I know you were sort of trying to cut your abbreviate your opening statements your in interest of time. I didn't know if anything came up. No, just um I know that there was a conversation and I don't want to belabor the point, but there's been some criticism of county process and expense. And I do just want to clarify that the comments that were made were not specific to county staff and to county uh process, but to expenses related to meeting state provisions. And I just wanted to clarify that uh for the record. Yes. I think Mr. Warman said that as well, but I think you said that. Okay, you could it. Look, it you can say it again just to make sure everybody heard it.

I wanted to say it one more time. All right. Thank you so much, Amy. Appreciate you, Stephanie. All good. Yep. Fantastic. Uh, no more public. Motion to adjurnn. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? Thank you so much. See you next month.