Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. We'll call to order, please, the Queen's County Planning Commission for Thursday, December 11, 2025. We'll begin with the pledge of allegiance, please. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Good morning, Mr. Shelton. Are there any public comments generally listed? [clears throat] All right. Seeing none, we have uh legislation, legal matters, miscellaneous staff items.

Good morning. Uh Stephanie Jones, long range principal planner. I just have one update for you. Um the text amendment that you did here uh last month specific to Gunston and our growth allocation process, the commissioners did convey that to the critical area commission this past Tuesday evening. Um that process from there goes everything goes to the critical area commission. Their program committee will hear it at the end of February and then their full commission will hear it then at the beginning of March. Following that it comes back to the county commissioners and they go through their public hearing process and final decision. So it's still some time out but I just want to at least give you guys an update as to where as to where it stands. So without that just happy holidays and I hope you guys have a merry Christmas. Same to you.

Anything from counselor on legal? I have nothing today. Sorry to catch you mid mid chew there. [laughter] That's okay. I have um bronchitis, so I'm trying not to cough on everyone and everything. Yeah, thank you.

All right, we'll start off then with our first project, major site plan SP25-08-0158 Hingley Yachts. Uh Steve and John, point of [clears throat] contact for staff. Okay. Um good morning. I'm Steve Johnson, senior planner with planning and zoning. Uh before I start, I do want to thank my supervisor, Rob Gunther, for helping review this project. Um so, as stated, we're here to discuss project SP25-08-0158 for Hank BB Holdings LLC, uh who is proposing to administratively combine three lots to construct a 47,67 foot addition to an existing boat storage and maintenance building and is requesting major site plan approval. project's located in Stevensville, south of Route 50 on Pier 1 Road. It is part of the Bay Bridge Marina Complex. More specifically, the site is comprised of three lots totaling 28.54 acres. To support this development, the applicant will or has submitted an administrative subdivision to combine all three lots, which will create resulting lot. Uh this subdivision must be recorded prior to final site plan signatures. Property zoned airport protection and canal gateway. Uh it's located in the Chester Stevensville growth area and it is also located within the enterprise zone and the priority funding area which are not shown on your screen. This project meets all chapter 18 landscape requirements. Uh the property is partially located within the 100red-year flood plane. There is no development proposed within the flood plane. Typically, there'd be a 300 foot shore buffer on site. However, the planning commission reduced that to zero in August of 1989. I believe you may have heard this with the other three projects

that we had on on the site. Um, storm water has been provided on site. DPW has reviewed and approved these facilities. They're shown on your screen in bright green on the left. Um there are no steep slopes, streams, woodlands, non-total wetlands, erosion hazard areas or endangered species on site and forest conservation is not applicable as the entire property is located within the IDA designation of the critical area. Um there is modified buffer area on site. This is everything kind of to the north of the red and white dash line on the left side of your screen. Uh no development is proposed within that area. However, there is a net increase in lot coverage outside the modified buffer area in which the applicant will plant four trees to address that increase. All critical area requirements have been met with this proposal. All airport district non-residential development standards are met with this proposal. That includes height, setbacks, floor area, impervious. With regard to floor area, the applicant is proposing a total of 66,678 square feet on site. This includes three existing standalone storage buildings which you can see on your screen there. Uh the existing boat storage and maintenance building and the proposed addition. No single structure on this site will exceed the maximum of 65,000 square ft. The applicant is proposing 7.317 acres of impervious and all chapter 18 parking requirements are met. Projects required to be served by public water and sewer. uh a total of 1,66 gallons per day of water and sewer allocation is required. Uh they currently have 564. Uh they must acquire an additional 502 gallons per day and that allocation may be approved administratively. Based off the current review, this project does rem uh meet the requirements of the adequate public facilities ordinance subject to the conditions of approval on your screen and that were laid out in your staff report.

With regard to the airport, um the county has filed a petition with the FAA, the Federal Aviation Administration, which asked them to review the project to assist in determining if the proposed new structure will reduce the effectiveness of the automated weather observation system or the AWAS. Um I'd like to note this isn't to get in the way or stop this project. It's just simply a review, an additional review to ensure everything is okay. as the county is concerned that portions of the proposed development fall within the AWAS wind sensor critical areas and this proposed development may diminish its effectiveness. Um to this date uh we have not received information from the FAA regarding the status of that petition. [snorts] With that said, the airport manager does support conditional approval of this project subject condition uh to the conditions that were included in your staff report and within the Yep. just within staff report. This is a look at the architectural rendings of the property. Um these do meet the TCU design standards. I do want to commend the applicant for putting together such a good-looking facade this building. This is this is pretty good. Um what you're seeing here on the top is the front east facing side of the building and the same on the bottom. A little bit more of the east facing side is shown here. Here you can see the front and waist uh west facing side of the building at the top and the bottom uh shows the rear and the east facing side. And uh with that um I will try to answer any questions you may have or turn it over to the applicant.

I have one question. Is this not putting it the cart before the horse not having the FAA approval yet? Ultimately, the airport manager has recommended approval. We did ask them to be here today. Um, they were unable to send or, you know, they were unable to make it. Um, it's it's a fair question. I don't think it's going to be be an issue, but I I you know, I don't work for the FAA. I have flown in and out of that airport, though. But uh just seems like you know we can address we'll be able to address that in our

and I see that the number seven and eight under um the resolution suggestions. Okay. Are incorporating those. I figured it would be okay. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Okay. All we have Steve. Yeah. Any questions from the rest of the panel? Yeah, one question. Um, [clears throat] Maryland Department of Transportation has not objected but has not given final approval. Does that mean that we're thinking about a conditional approval today or are we expected to say go ahead? I I don't see how the project can go forward without that approval. There is there is a condition at the end of the staff report. Oh, okay. Sorry.

But ultimately, State Highway, we don't have jurisdiction over their requirements. I mean, maybe Lindsay can chime in or Robin because that's too far. [clears throat]

Rob Gunter, principal planner. Um, in my time here, I think all of your approvals have been conditional because they all have conditions they need to meet until they get final approval. And technically, final approval isn't until the plan gets signed. Um, so it wouldn't be abnormal to have a comment that says any additional State Highway comments have to be addressed prior to final signature. Um, with that being said, also State Highway did provide a comment two days ago, December 9th. Um, as of the writing of the staff report, they hadn't um provided. Um, so I can I have that here if you'd like me to read it? Yeah, please.

Okay. The the only comment they provided um was this. The previous comment that DMS and Hinckley were to meet to discuss the signal at Maryland 8 and Pier One Road has not occurred. And I guess so if Steve's finished any more questions? Yeah, Kevin, go ahead. Okay. Um Kevin [clears throat] Sharon, DMS and Associates. With me is Andrew Barksdale, uh representative of Hankley. We have uh a number of consultants here as well and online if there are any questions about different aspects. One of which is our FAA consultant. So we can talk about that. But just just to briefly answer your question and your question before we go any further and also Ryan Sha Walter is on his way stuck on 213 somewhere.

[snorts]

Um, we prior to submitting anything to the county for this project, um, we hired David Perry, who's an FAA consultant and former FAA employee, and we went through the forms and submitts to FAA. Um, they reviewed all those, took several months. They reviewed all those and he can speak to it in more detail, but all of the the structures that are proposed, they came back with a letter of no uh determination of no hazard. So, those have been provided to the county. Um, but even with that, the county then filed a petition and so we're waiting on the petition. That got delayed because of the government shutdown. But from what we've been told in conversations with some of the FAA employees, they still have to do their due diligence, but they don't they haven't seen anything yet that would change their original determination. So

essentially, the FAA has approved it, right? Um and they're just waiting to decide on a additional county petition to review it. Again, understand reason I really asked the question was for your benefit. you know that you you have risk here that even if we approve it, it may not it may not go forward. Right. And that's why we frontloaded that. Okay. Before we came before the county. Yeah.

And then regarding the state highway, um I met with DPW and um they as Mr. Johnson said, it's really not in the county's perview. We're not on a state highway. Um, Hinckley has signed a contract with a consultant to do the design of the improvements that they're that the state is looking for. However, this same issue came up as you recall with the Wal Petri development and we we have reached out to State Highway and trying to set a meeting up. Um, what we'd like to do is if if they want that, it's basically just a um a change of the signal phasing. um if they want that it's from you know design and construction it's about a $60,000 item. So we are be we are going to try to meet with the count or the state and see if we can find a way to get reimbursed for other developments that come through and use that uh intersection rather than just last man through the door. So we will be working on that as well. So with that um I'll go through uh I don't want to repeat everything that Mr. Johnson said, but I just wanted to highlight a couple of things. Um, as as he stated, we are consolidating. So, th this site plan essentially will uh be preceded by an administrative subdivision to combine lots 2, seven, and eight. Um, two is the overall marina. Um, seven is takes frontage off of Pier One Road, and eight is the one that has the uh existing storage building. The intent of the project is to add additional storage um and workspace for Hinckley. Uh it will not operate as a boat. It will just be for storage and working on their customers boats. Um

so storage of boats that are being worked on. Well, not overwintering per se. What's that? Not overwintering per se. Yeah, they will over winter. Okay. Yeah, they will. Traditionally, they come in in the fall. We work on them the entire winter and they launch in the spring. Right. I'm just trying to discern what why you made the comment that it's not a motel. So, it's not a motel in the sense that a customer can't call up and say, "Launch my boat at 8 a.m. They won't be going in and out." They won't be going in and out. They'll stay there. And Yeah. So, this it's not operated like the boat is on K Island.

Gotcha. Thank you. Um so currently uh Hankley leases space in Tulba County and East and that is the purchase of this marina will shift all of that operation from Tulba County and East up to Queen Ans County. So they've made a significant investment in Queen Ans County. It will also so the the boats that are stored in Easton are actually hauled out here and hauled over land over the you know Route 50 corridor down to there. So by changing the location of it and hauling here and storing here each season will will save about 170 trips of tractor trailer and a and a chase car. So, um, so in order to in order to get this use as a marina, we so we originally applied for this as just lot 8, but um because the use of marina, the definition calls for it to be waterfront prompted the consolidation of lots 2, seven, and eight because two is the overall marina. So technically now the property has water frontage and the use is compliant. Um so Dave Perry as I mentioned before he's the former FAA employee and consultant. Um he can he can speak to any of the the FAA uh concerns. Um and then as as noted in the the November 24th 25day comment letter response to our our uh respon response to our 25day submitt a number of consultant or a number of agencies have already approved the project. Uh critical areas has approved it. The APFS has been approved. Uh stormwater management has been approved. Fire marshall has approved it. And then really there are only some minor comments from internal critical area

planning and zoning in the sanitary district. Um and as was shown earlier the uh architecture meets the TCU design guidelines. And that's about all we have. If you have any questions be happy to answer them.

There any questions from the commission? I'd like to ask about that uh weather [snorts] system monitoring station whatever that's AW was and the concerns that are that we have about that that were listed in this staff report is that there are already modest moderate concerns from staff that it's already potentially being interfered with existing and I'm curious as to why moving forward with this wouldn't exacerbate that concern. Let me bring Dave Perry up, the uh FAA consultant, and he can speak to that.

Good morning. Um I'm Dave Perry. Um I'm a former FAA employee. I just recently got out of FA about six months ago working with the Office of Airports doing the OEAA stuff for airports in general across the country. Um so right now there's a current the existing storage building that that's there is is providing shielding from the current uh the the boat the storage facility there right now and with addition to that it'll still provide that uh shielding so there there'll be no issue with that. Um, so that's that's one of the reasons why uh the folks at Tech Ops, which is when a when a notice goes into the FAA, there's 14 different lines of business that look at those uh flight procedures, air traffic control, technical ops, even Department of Homeland Security. Everybody looks at all these different cases [clears throat] and they provide their responses back. So Tech Ops looked at this, looked at the existing buildings, looked at the structure where it's at currently and their evaluation and all their tools that they used to come up with those that you know the either a positive or a negative result. Um they used that and and found that there would be no issues or no no hazards to air navigation for the AWS antenna that it would still work as as described. I'm not at all any more enlightened than I was when I asked my [laughter] question.

So I mean there's the there there is citing criteria. All right. So there's concern that we have internally about its current location. We're about to develop next to it. I don't know why you're bringing tech ops into this, but the concern is that the county has expressed concern that if this weather system needs to be moved because of an outstanding report that's due from the FAA, uh this uh petition [clears throat] says it has to be moved. So now it has to be moved. Where do we move it? Is there potential that it has no place to go and the countyy's on the hook for moving that potentially? Can you address that? But what if

what if we make this let's hypothetically for a second here we we we approve this with the contingency that in in our staff that you have suggest suggested that you will pay for the relocation. Fantastic. That will be a contingency as we move forward. If that's the case, what if that system has nowhere to go and it can't be moved and you've painted yourself into a corner by building this building? So, so based on the the feedback that we've received from FAA to date, we do not believe that that's going to be the case. So, we we believe that the petition will be re-reviewed. They will stand by their original determination and which states that the AWAS can stay where it is and these buildings can be erected with with no um significant interference with the AWAS functionality. So that's a presumption you're making in the absence of that in writing.

That's the condition of the approval. Right. Correct. Yeah. A presumption we're making based on them having already approved it and said it doesn't affect it. They've already done that. Well, heaven forbid the government change their mind. That's possible. Right. Right. Okay. I'm just laying out my concerns and concerns expressed by others up here. Uh Mr. Shaw Walter, you're sitting on the edge of your chair. Would you like to comment? The only other thing, Mr. Lee, just to to clarify for Mr. Perry's comments. Tech ops is the division of FAA that reviews the AWAS and makes that has nothing to do with the next application. Next application. Correct. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying.

And I reached out to the manager at Tech Ops yesterday. We're we're really good friends and we work together constantly for the last three years in FAA and he said we absolutely are going to uphold exactly what we provided in the determination of hazard letter. it the petition has to go through the whole processes and it's sitting in its initial spot where when the airport filed it it's it's taken forever right now for the FA to get the things and and start the processes. So, but they've already done the evaluation again and confirmed that and provided that findings back to those individuals already. It's just now was the time frame to get the petition working through the process and and back out to the airport. And if it has to be moved, any ballpark figure on what that dollar bill is, what that estimate would be?

I don't is it has it been moved before? Has I don't think that's the original spot that it is in right now from because I've worked on multiple projects around here and uh I don't think that's looking back from years ago, [clears throat] it it wasn't in the spot that it was. I think I'm not sure exactly where it was, but it it's it I think it's been position. I used that airport, but I don't remember if that was, you know, like a new spot or if it was somewhere else back in the day. I'm not sure. But no, no, no, no. Not even a ballpark. You can give me. No, sir. Okay.

I mean, I, you know, because the current location of it right now is, you know, 20 30 feet away from a hanger. So, I'm not sure why they picked the spot that they did when they put it there, you know, with with the requirements of, you know, the 500 foot to,000 foot elevations and stuff like that. But again, tech ops looked at that, I'm sure, when they filed for that hanger and they determined where the antenna would be and where it would be located would not cause any issues. So, suffice to say, it's probably not small, right? I mean, it's expensive equipment and infrastructure

millions. I'm I'm not sure exactly how how much it would would be to move the antenna. Again, you would look for a spot and try to see is there a thousand foot circle somewhere that we can go. If not, then where can we go down to and how much how what the height we'd have to make in order to get over top of any existing structures and with inside the area. Are we talking about an antenna or the sensing apparatus? It's the sensing thing on the top, sir. It's the antenna, [clears throat] but it's the sensing on the top, right? That we'd be talking about. Super nice weather station.

Yes, sir. uh measure that you can you can say whether it's functioning now worse than it was three months ago. So I [clears throat] would I would entertain some additional conversation about how we can word that. Just read that real fast. Can you go Can you say that again because it took me a little while to find

looking at number eight number eight. Pending the outcome of the FAA review of county's petition, the developer shall be responsible for all costs necessary to restore full functionality to the AWAS in the event it is impacted. This may include the relocation of system components or the entire system as determined necessary. So I guess it deter it depends on what they come back with from the petition. If they do not stand up to their original determination and they want it moved, then that would be Hinckley's call whether to move forward with the project. If they say we stand by our determination that there's no hazard um and Hinckley builds their facility, there shouldn't be a mechanism that's somebody that's not measurable that somebody comes back and says the functionality has been decreased because it's just a it's a it's a weather station that's measuring air speed essentially in direction. But so I would add that the condition is um really refined to the county's petition. So and the way that it's drafted right now, it says pending the outcome of the review of the county's petition. So not after the fact. So they would have to determine at time of reviewing the petition that would have an impact in order for you to have to pay to move

not be ongoing. Correct. Okay. The way that it's drafted as I read it. Well, and so the only other clarification is you [clears throat] to the extent there's some determination impacted. Sorry, Michelle. Can you get on a mic? They're gonna Thanks. So, the only other concern I would have is to to the extent it's determined that it is impacted today, if the existing building impacts it, we don't think it should be our obligation to move it today um to restore its full functionality. It's only if this building, this project causes an impact that requires it to be moved.

So, you're forecasting possibly this determination says it's already impacted. Well, I mean, what a possibility what the FAA told us before was it didn't have to be moved. And I think Mr. Perry's testimony was tech ops has already confirmed that determination again to him verbally and said we don't require we won't require it to be moved. It's even if it's moderately dimminimously impacted at this point, that's fine with us. Is that what I'm I think the fact is they've said it's not going to be impacted at all. It doesn't have to be. Am I correct, David? Yes, sir. In its current location. Yes. So it would would be and that's what the presence of your building that you're proposing would be the therefore the impact if that changed if that changed. That's right.

So again if if it's linked to the petition if they say it has to be moved we understand that condition but but we don't want to be in a position where there's some ambiguity about restoring full functionality and a debate of what full functionality means and whether we're responsible for right it was written and tied to the petition as it states. I mean, it says quite quite clearly um pending the outcome of the FAA's review of the county's petition. If the petition says, "Hey, this new structure is going to cause an issue." Well, then they're on the hook. If it gets built and then there's an issue, well, I don't know what that answer is, but that wasn't with the petition. Okay.

Okay. Uh that's I wrote it and that's the way my intent was written and I think it quite clearly reads that intent. I agree with that. I think the record's clear based on the discussion. So if that's the intent, you know, I think we're okay. And you're willing to take on that risk not knowing how much it cost to move it. Still we're going to have that answer. You're hedging that there will be no change. That's correct. You'll make it a positive determination. Or we could not go forward with the project. You'd pull the plug on the project. Yeah, that's Yeah, that's an option as well. Do we have any sense of how long it turn takes to turn these petitions around? I mean, is it [clears throat] are we waiting months? Are you are you you know, you have machines running waiting for this thing or what?

Well, right now I think everything's about three times as long with inside the FA just to get a normal determination if somebody wants to build a house or or an antenna. Normal normal timeline to get a response back from FA is 45 days. That's up to like 120 days now. That's because of me and tons and tons of other people left the government. And even before that, there was a lot of changes and a lot and a lot of folks gone that just exacerbated the timelines. So to me, I think I think the airport might have filed this probably at least two months, probably three months ago, the petition, and it's still sitting in the same inbox and nobody's touched it. That that's kind of alarming, especially for a petition. they want to take those and that that's like almost number one action. Let's look at these and see if it's first one is it is it a viable petition. If it is then they go out the other the lines of business that would work this which would be tech ops and um and they've already kind of reached out and done that part on the side and they've responded back to them with it but the petition itself is still sitting waiting to be even looked at. So, I would hope within the next uh few weeks that they would actually take action on it and and start the process. So,

but but to answer your question, no, we don't have machines running, but time is very very much of the essence. I'll be looking to start in the spring or something.

Well, fall. We we would like the building to be complete end of November, say. Um our business is very seasonal and we've made a lot of arrangement investment to move employees up here. So, this facility 25 employees who are all you know really skilled craftsmen like highly paid carpenters electricians those people who work on our boats because our boats are is a sort of a high-end luxury brand so we've made a lot of investment in in technologically and everything else HR [clears throat] in getting those folks you know ready to report up here and we really don't want to miss like a whole season you know so time is definitely critical

and your You're moving forward without that in hand already. That's right. Bill, do you you still seem like you have reservations or questions? Are you still I I think they've I think they've done a pretty pretty stellar job and that they're they're awake, right? At risk for them, you know. Yeah, I think so. I have a question for council. So I I understand [snorts] in um in number eight um in the event it is impacted because to to for me to clearly know what I'm voting on or reading here it is impacted by this project.

Correct. So the way that it is drafted it's pending the outcome of review of the county's petition and the county's petition that is currently pending is specific to this project. So really the onus is on the FAA to determine at this point whether it would impact or not. And unfortunately if they fail to do that and there is an impact, we're kind of out of luck with the way this is drafted. But hopefully it's undergone substantial review and they can make that determination at this time. Okay. Thank you. [clears throat] Anything else from the commissioners? Nobody online, right? Um do you have any uh public comment, Bruce? Nobody online. John, nobody signed up online. The only person that had signed up was Mr. Fstead

for this particular application. Anyone in the room wish to make public comment while we're digging up that?

No one else. All right. Is that all from the applicant? Yeah, just in uh as far as the project schedule, um I would like to thank the county staff for moving this along because uh originally we were going to be on a January planning commission agenda, but they worked diligently and we appreciate that that got us on the December agenda. I'm sure they enjoy hearing that though. Thank you. Yeah, that that's correct. I have substantial experience doing this in Florida. Um and the staff was very professional to know [laughter] That sounds like workers comp. Be careful. [laughter]

All right. No other questions from the uh commission. None in the public. I am open. The floor is open for a motion.

Uh Mr. Vice Chair, um it resolved that the planning commission regarding request by Hink BB Holdings LLC for major site plan approval to administratively combined free lots to construct a 47,000 47,067 square foot addition to an existing boat storage and maintenance building and is more particularly described in Department of Planning and Zoning file SP number 25-08-0158 hereby by finds the 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 storm water drainage or pollution. Will not have an unreasonably adverse effect upon property values on 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 major This says minor site approval.

It's supposed to be major sight approval. Okay. Apologize for that.

No, no, that's fine. It hereby grants major site approval subject to the following conditions. Uh, number one, all remaining edits and/or documents required by the Department of Public Works, Planning and Zoning, or any other reviewing agency be reviewed and approved. Two, all remaining comments, edits, and/or documents required by the Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration must be addressed. Three, all required legal documents must be approved, signed, and recorded prior to obtaining final site plan signatures. Four, prior to final site plan signatures, recital within the critical area buffer management plan maintenance and protection agreement shall be amended to accurately reflect the new owners and the revised lot configuration. Um, five, all required bonds, shies, review, and inspection fees must be submitted to the Department of Public Works and the Department of Planning and Zoning is appropriate. Six, the project must adhere to all applicable regulations established by the Maryland Aviation Administration and the Federal AD Aviation Administration. Seven, prior to final site plan signatures, all remaining airport related comments shall be fully addressed to the satisfaction of the airport manager. This requirement includes but is not limited to all conditions identified in the attached airport manager review. Number three, email dated November 24, 2025. Uh number eight, pending the outcome of the Federal Aviation Administers administration's review of the county's petition, the developer shall be responsible for all costs necessary to restore full functionality to the automated weather observation system in the event it is impacted. This may include the relocation of system components from the entire system as determined necessary. Nine, the conditions specified in the

letter from the APFO administrator dated November 21, 2025 must be met. 10, the administrative subdivision must be recorded prior to final site plan signatures. And 11, the architecture and overall site design must substantially reflect the documents provided. Second. Rather lengthy motion. We have a second by that Mr. Tilman. No, that was by Art. Uh, there's a motion. There's a second. All those in favor? Any opposed? Any abstensions? Motion carries. Thank you. Have a pleasant holiday season, gentlemen. [cough]

All right. Next item up for bid, concept plan SP25-08-0159, Reliable Development Company, the LLC, aka Tech Ops Specialty Vehicles HQ. That's also you, Mr. Johnson. You get a full day of me today, unfortunately. Ready? Okay. All right, Steve. Floor is yours.

Thank you. Um, as stated, we're here to discuss uh project SP number 25-08-0159 for R reliable Development Company LLC, who is proposing to construct a 40,40 ft building for the design and fabrication of specialty vehicles and is requesting concept plan approval. [snorts] project is located in Stevensville south of Route 50 and east of Pier 1 Road directly behind the target more specifically tax map 56 parcel 20 lot 109 totals 4.411 411 acres and is located off of Ellenale Farm Lane. As you can see by your aerial on the screen, it's currently used for agricultural production. The target is the large white building that you see on the right. Property zone urban commercial and it's located within the Chester Stevensville growth area. Uh the property is also located within the priority funding area which is not shown on your screen. Property is partially located within the RCA designation of the critical area. This is the dark green sliver of [clears throat] the property on the right side of your screen. Uh that area is subject to an easement that limits its use to passive recreation, planting and landscaping not associated with the proposal. So this proposal cannot appro encroach upon that area and does not. Conceptually all chapter 18 landscape requirements are met with this proposal that includes on-site buffer yard and parking lot landscaping. There are89 acres of non-title wetlands and 0.52 acres of their associated buffer on site. These are the bright green areas at the center of your screen. Uh the applicant is proposing to disturb 1888 acres of wetlands and 435 acres of the buffer. Uh MD MDE authorization for this disturbance is required at site plan. There are 40 acres of woodlands on site in which the applicant is proposing to clear 0.15 acres. Uh those areas of

clearing are delineated on your screen in the hatch, white and brown. Forest conservation was addressed with the original subdivision and there are no steep slope streams, erosion hazard areas, endangered species, or 100year flood plane on site. Conceptually, all UC District non-residential development standards are met with this proposal. That includes height, setbacks, floor area, and pvis area. Again, the applicant is proposing 40,40 square feet of floor area and 107,791 square feet of imperous area, which are well below the maximum permitted on site. All chapter 18 parking requirements are met with this proposal and storm water management will be provided on site. Um those areas are shown in the bright green hatched areas and DPW will continue the review through the site plan process. Again, uh public water and sewer is required for this project as well. Um the applicant must file an application to the sanitary commission for the necessary allocation to serve the project. Um APFO is not required at this time but must be addressed at site plan. And with regard to the airport, there is an overhead flight easement that runs through this property which restricts structure structures and plantings to a maximum of 35 ft in height. Uh this project complies with that restriction as the proposed structure is proposed to be 34.8 ft and all plantings will be below that maximum permitted. Um again the airport manager supports conditional approval of this project subject to the conditions included in the staff report. Here's a look at the renderings of the building. These do beat the TCU design standards. This is the view from the entrance looking southward. [clears throat] view looking towards the northeast. This is a view looking towards the northwest. And finally, this is a view looking

towards the southwest. Um, and with that, I'd like to wish everybody happy holidays. And if you have any questions, I'll try to answer them or I'll turn it over to the applicant. Any questions of staff? There you go. I forgot the slide. There you go. Oh, there you [laughter] go. Rob went all went to all that hard work. I better put it up there. I apologize. [laughter] Any questions of staff before we go to the applicant? Yeah, I ask. How's the farm get access now? You took the lane out right now. I think they come through Ellendale Farm Lane from what I understand. Pardon me. How does a farm get access? How does farm get access? Through Ellenale Farm Lane, I assume. Is that accurate? Yes. Nate or Dorsy? They come through your property to get to the farm. Is that what you're saying?

You talking about the county's property? The county after development. Where how does they access the farm? They have, if you look further to the south in the bottom left corner of that screen, that's the old um Kent Maro Drive road and that's how breeding gets in there to access. There's that little sliver kind of that runs parallel. Sure was thought, but I still wanted to ask. I thought you meant this part. So, why are you taking out the woods right there at the entrance there? That oddshaped piece of woodland. You're talking about the part that shoots in to the left. The hatched part. Yeah, the hatched part. Yeah, the one that goes up like oddly up. Yeah, it's kind of weird. Um, that connects to the water or sewer which Oh, that's your access corridor through that wooded lot to connect to infrastructure. Yeah. Okay.

I was going to ask the same thing, Bill. It's just an odd looking Do you have to mitigate those those trees you take out? Um, no, we we don't. We're just doing the landscaping on site. You know what's required. Forest conservation was addressed. So, they they have no further requirements. Okay. All right. Any other questions before the applicant goes?

Whoever's driving the bus, hop on board. U Nate Hawker with Lane Engineering. Um John and Dorsy. Um Steve, thanks for uh you know, introducing the project and um providing the review. Um, I don't really have much to say on, you know, the project, uh, as as Steve covered a lot. So,

and just to add to it, um, John Bannis here is with Tech Ops president, so he can answer any questions you have about operations and and kind of the plan for the actual building. And then we also have Mark Keelley here from Traffic Concepts to answer any traffic impact questions. And then I'm with the applicant developer um reliable real estate services agent of reliable development company. Questions of the applicant. Uh this is essentially a manufacturing operation. Is that correct? It is. Yeah. So the traffic then would be a shift change employees. We currently run one shift.

Okay. And that would so it would be I was thinking about the traffic trying to get in and out of Target and that intersection. Ironically, across the street is Hinckley. Um, and we're confident that this isn't going to produce any sort of bottleneck or anything. Correct. Bas and Mark, if you want to chime in on that.

Yes. Uh, Mark Healey with traffic concept. So, we did a full APFO traffic impact study. We looked at the um the eastbound and westbound ramps on the interchange Route 8. Uh we looked at Maryland 8 at Thompson Creek Pier One Road. We looked at the roundabout on Thompson Creek and of course the access to Thompson Creek. Um we we utilize the critical lane analysis but also for the signalized intersections we use the highway capacity software which we're not required to do but it it it provides a more detailed analysis of each movement at the intersection and the analysis indicated that all intersections would operate at C or better levels of service. [snorts]

Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Um, yeah, I've got I've got one. So, we got a letter this morning from somebody talking about the historic value of that property. So, I'm going to ask about that. Yeah, I had just gotten a text maybe while Hinckley was going on with kind of a picture of that letter and that was that was news to me um through the county staff review and the historic um what's the department that that reviews historic significance? Maryland Historic Trust, MHT.

Through that, there was nothing brought up. I from the quick reading of that letter, it mentioned that it was a parcel part of an old thing. It's nothing that we've been aware of and really every parcel on Ken Island that's existed has been part of a historic at some point. Um it's kind of in its nature. How many employees will you have? Just curious. Can I ask? Sure, that's fine. Yeah, we're uh we're mid-40s right now. We have remote employees, some of the engineering staff and sales staff. So, if I ask you what you're building, will you have to kill me? Not necessarily. Although there are sensitive projects we can't talk about. What are you What do you build? Uh we build vehicles for the government. It's a variety. Military. We do. Okay. Y All right.

A lot of homeland security think uh you know special vehicles is a broad range spectrum of stuff. We we do very simple things like uh library on wheels bookmobiles um which bring books to you know rural areas and families and kids that wouldn't otherwise have access. We also work on programs of kind of highest levels of national security. And are you relocating from another location or is this an expansion business park in Logan Circle right now? Okay. Um we've simply outgrown it. We're you know [snorts] pipeline of new programs and future projects. Uh we've grown three times uh since it's been there in 2006.

Um and some of the you know upcoming projects just require more space. The the building itself will give us uh you know more than twice as much capacity of production as as what we currently have. We're uh you know didn't get a chance to just some kind of say thanks to the the planners and you know Rob and Steve for up front but you know we're really excited to stay in Queen Ans County. The the business has been there since ' 06. Not originally called Tech Ops specialy vehicles but um uh it's grown throughout the years. It's it's really a great spot you know to kind of service our federal customers um and visits and progress visits as we move through construction of vehicles. Um but then also from a labor and workforce perspective you know we it's a nice central spot close to DC. we pull from the western shore and the eastern shore for our labor force. Um, and we feel like that's important in the long run for the business. Um, and to be able to to find a spot here that's in the county, uh, I think is important for us. Um, and it's uh, you know, KRM has been great uh, in the in the log canoe circle u park, but we're just out growing it.

And we are all Maryland owned. The business is Maryland owned um, veterans as well. Um, so it's uh, you know, that's that's an important piece I think to stay in Maryland as well. Anyone other questions regarding I got a question back of Stephen. Just to be clear about this uh, the letter letter of opposition for Mr. Lind. There were no historic findings from MHT. It's simply the fact like there were no buildings being erased. There's no burial grounds on site. There's nothing odd sticking out that we Okay. Yeah. We um, when we take this for completeness, we bring these projects in for completeness review. We look at that. We take a look at the whether or not it's there's heritage sites adjacent to it or nearby and there were none shown. Okay.

So, it was not even sent for review. I just want to make sure that that was clearly stated. Anything else of the applicant? All right. Is there any public comment online? We have somebody in the audience. Sir, please come up to the microphone in the podium there and introduce yourself, please.

My name is Lauren Mills. I live at 232 Topside Drive. which is within a mile of this location. That intersection between Route 8 and the runoff to Target is a very busy place. There's lefthand turns on that lane coming uh south and the congestion there is significant. Now, it is hard to understand how this is going to be non-effective even at any time. Making a right-hand turn off of Route 8 going towards target is a challenge now. And I question the concept of the road people saying that there is no effect here. It is a significant effect. Also, I'm somewhat concerned safety-wise of storm water management. As we all know and a lot of effort has been put into Kent Island being a very flat area, we have storm water problems. We have storm water from commercial units and industrial units flowing into residential properties. A lot of it is antiquated. It's been put together in a fragmented way. And I believe it's very important for us to do a major review of the storm water runoff, storm water management of this whole area, including the one for the project you discussed earlier. That quadrant between Route 8 West and Route 503301 south is made up of a combination of storm water management concepts that have developed over years and they're out of date. a major effort needs to be applied to that particular storm water management area.

Thank you. Thank you. I'm sure those points will be well addressed as we move from concept into uh site plan approval. But duly noted, sir, thank you for your time. Uh with respect to the comment about uh ingress and egress into the property, I noticed in one of your pictures you said, excuse me, some larger scale tractor trailers. Have you thought about how the movement of these larger vehicles in and out of property may impact and what what are your thoughts on that traffic uh patterns as they leave and come into and and and exit your facility entrance? Like how do you how do you propose a a tractor trailer makes a left-hand turn or are they going to make a right-hand turn going down to the traffic circle?

So the site access will be designed as a commercial entrance. um we can provide autoturn software that shows a tractor trailer um entering and leaving the site. Um so the traffic study was submitted to SHA and we did get comments. Um, so

it's it's more of a question to have solidified by the time you come back in for site plan approval is that, you know, as we look at things like mines, extraction properties, we have a detailed uh routing uh of where trucks are asked or required to to transit the area to avoid sensitive areas or bus stops or other other uh infrastructure. Uh, so if that could be made part of your next submission, I think it would be appreciated that we show that track trucks of a certain size go one way, not this way or at certain hours, it's okay. Whatever that looks like, if you could have something that addresses those concerns that have been brought up by uh testimony and and the commission as well, that'd be helpful.

Okay, we'll do that. [clears throat] Anything else from the commission? Any or more public comments? Bruce, anybody online? Uh, no one's people are online, but no one has told me they want to speak. Got it. Fair enough. Um, all right. Uh, the floor then is open for a motion. Should anyone have one to make?

Uh, Mr. Vice Chair. Um, be it resolved that the planning commission regarding the request by Reliable Development Company LLC for concept plan approval to construct a 40,000 40,040 square foot building for the design and fabrication of specialty vehicles within a 4.411 411 acre parcel in the urban commercial zoning district and is more particularly described in planning and zoning file SP-25-08-0159 hereby finds that the concept plan is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Queen's County 22 2022 comprehensive plan. The concept plan is consistent with the Queen's County zoning and subdivision regulations [snorts] and 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 prior to the submittal of the major site plan. All remaining airport related comments shall be fully addressed to the satisfaction of the airport manager. This requirement includes but is not limited to all conditions identified in the attached airport manager review number three email dated November 24, 2025. And the architecture and overall site design must substantially reflect the documents provided.

Second motion. There's a second. May I also ask right council if we we would probably prefer I think I know the answer to this uh to select any other findings of fact from the report. Do we can we reference that or should I suggest that uh the amendment be amended? Motion be amended that the motion be amended to include specific findings from is that your question? Correct. Um are you are you comfortable with the motion that as made or should we include findings of fact from the staff report?

I would appreciate if you would include findings of fact from from the staff report. Um, you could make a motion to amend finding that you reviewed the staff port report and find that the findings made within it are consistent with um, your review and what's been presented this morning. Like to amend my motion in in the language provided by council. Fair enough. There's an amended motion. Second, we have a second. All in favor? Any opposed? [clears throat] Any abstensions? Thank you. Congratulations. Look forward to seeing you in the future. She's getting paid for it. Uh just real quick, I think we just approved uh two companies going to create 70 jobs in this county. Well, one's moving, so not necessarily creating new, but he's adding two.

You are you're growing. Yeah. Keeping congratulations up to 40. Don't say nothing. Clear some space in the business. Right. All right. Um let's uh tell you what, let's take a five minute recess for a break before we come into our third and final uh conversation topic. Please. I I do want to announce before [clears throat] we get into the next project if we could go back to legal updates. There is one legal update that I failed to mention, but we can take the break. I'll do that when we come back and then we'll add the project. Fair enough. All right. Five minute recess. [clears throat]

We'll start uh with council. Miss Ryan.

Yes. Um so I failed to mention earlier in the agenda for an update on legal matters. There was a pending case an county conservation associates inc verse Queen Anne County Board of County Commissioners. Um, this case resulted from the commissioner's vote to reconsider Chester Haven Beach's comprehensive resoning request to include Chester Haven property in the Chester growth area in 2024. In November of 2024, um, Queen Ans County Conservation, which was later also uh added Critical Area Commission, filed a complaint alleging that the action was illegal. The critical area commission also argued that the action was illegal and void because the commissioners failed to provide notice to the critical area commission before processing the resoning under um some of the provisions of the natural resources article and the land use article [cough] [clears throat] in um on December 5th. The circuit court agreed with the plaintiffs unfortunately and found that the resoning of the property was denied in 2022 and considered again two years later which fell outside the statutory time frame in which the commissioners had to adopt remand or modify the comprehensive plan which provides a 150day time frame from recommendation from the planning commission. In addition, they found that the county failed to provide notice to the critical area commission. So, um that decision has been determined to be void and at this point the county has and um the other party have 30 days to file an appeal of that decision. The county can of course take no action or the county could decide to go through the amendment process all over again with a comprehensive resoning amendment. Um I don't believe any decisions have been made as of right now. Now the decision just came in last week.

You said 30 days from that. Yes. Got it. From December 5th. From December 5th. [cough and clears throat] And is that all you had for legal updates? Yes. All right. Thank you very much. Uh now turning to the next uh item on the agenda, major subdivision amendment to covenants at number 25-10-000013. Uh, parenthetically sub number one 0511 triple07 Meadow Creek. Councilor Lindseay Ryan has the floor.

Yes. So, um, this project is a little bit unique from one that you have seen in the past. Um, this stems from a 2006 Meadow Creek subdivision final subdivision approval that created an 18 lot major subdivision. As part of your Queen Anne's County Code, section 181204, it requires that um subdivisions have covenants that govern the uh uses and lot size and and natures kind of like an HOA. Um so for this project, there are 18 lots. The covenants were recorded in they were approved in 2006 and recorded on the same day. Um, under your Queen Anne County Code and a note within the covenants, these covenants cannot be amended or changed in any manner without prior approval from the planning commission. And so what is in front of you this morning is a request to remove lot six, which is one of the 18 lots that were subdivided as part of this from the covenants. Lot 6 is 32.067 acres. And I I don't know Steve if you can show where it's depicted somewhere on

it's the highlighted red area.

Perfect. Um it is shown in that highlighted red area. The purpose for removing it from the covenants is so that it is not subject to the restrictions that are in the covenants. I believe that the contract purchaser or potential purchaser would like to keep livestock on that parcel which is currently prohibited under the covenants. And so you all have to consider the request to amend the covenants to specifically remove that lot from the restrictions in the covenants. There's no real standards by which you would um review that. But what you should do is consider that it was approved at one time as part of a major so a a major overall subdivision request with covenants and and whether removal of this lot from those covenants would impact you know the over overall major subdivision that occurred back in 2006. Um and I think the applicant is here and can add some more information. I I do want to stress the importance that if this lot six is removed from the covenants, while the intent is to use it for livestock, it could be used for any um purpose that the code currently allows in the agricultural zoning dis district. So, you're removing it from any of the restrictions that are currently in the covenants that the other 17 lots are still remaining subject to. One question u would the abutters in other words the people in these houses that this lot surrounds if they have objections to reverting to agricultural use is that any of our business or is that business of the homeowners association or the covenants? Um, so they could currently they could certainly come to this meeting and um object to this being removed from the covenants, but at this period in time, how many lots are in there that are actually developed?

I don't believe any are at this point. I think they're all still owned by the developer. So at this point, no lot owners would have the authority because the declarant is still the only individual with the authority to amend the covenant. No improvements have been made to the current lots as we're as we see them. No houses, no buildings. Um, not to my knowledge. There there's one model home, but we are the first one to have any sort of uh contract on any of the properties in the development and you're the owners of this lot six

potential owners. I will introduce I'm Genevie McFarland with Stevens Palmer. I'm representing the contract purchaser. I have um Ma Quila who is a contract purchaser of the property. Um, Lindseay Dixon through Meadow Creek LLC is the current owner. Uh, unfortunately, he couldn't be here. I know he had sent a letter in support that should be um, part of your packets. Oh, you're in the enviable position of being there first and subsequent owners either are or not or buyers are not apprised of the fact that there's going to be agricultural activity there. Yes.

So, I would like to add that this is already in the agricultural district. Um it's part of the comprehensive plan. It's you know compliant with the comprehensive plan um as well as the priority preservation area which certainly stresses the importance of agricultural use of the property in the county. I would say that horses are probably a lot less intrusive than a combine doing soybeans for those of anybody that lives next to a soybean field knows. So less dusty. Yeah. Yeah. And I think at least in my mind, it's a little different as opposed to this development being half built. Well, that's what I was trying

people signing on for something totally different and then all of a sudden they get short cheated. If if there were residents, you know, I would like to hear from them, but I also question whether that's really any of our business uh given the covenants. I'm a little fuzzy as to how covenants work in conjunction with the uh zoning code.

Yeah. So, for um some reason, I'm not sure who drafted it, but Queen Ans County specifically has a provision in their code that requires that for um any major subdivisions that there are covenants that are recorded that are approved by the planning [cough] commission and that any amendment has to come in front of you all. Um and I assume that's because at the time of considering the subdivision, you make sure that it's consistent with the county comprehensive plan design requirements. um the comprehensive plan and then those covenants would tie into that consistency. Would it be possible to do a development like this without covenants?

Um I don't believe based on the Queen Ans County Code there have to be recorded covenants. Okay.

Um I would note that the subdivision was approved I [clears throat] believe in April of 2006. Unfortunately, we don't have um I don't have the, you know, minutes from that meeting as to why lot six is so significantly larger than all the other lots. Um I think 16 of the other lots average a size of one and a quarter acre. They're relatively small. Uh as you can see, lot six is [cough] large and kind of wraps around. Um it's still, you know, would be a single family home on that property. um you know with a small farm set up to accommodate horses for their small children um you know certainly adds to the agricultural aspect of the area again in conformity with the comprehensive plan. It's not going to be um a you know a soybean field as you had noted uh or you know large commercial operation. Um, I would also like to note that working with council, we put together a draft deed, which would still subject this lot to the requirements under the platted subdivision, which includes um, I believe soil stockpile areas and required street tree planting. So, it will be subject to the design features in the subdivision lot, just not the restrictions of, you know, no livestock being kept. it require the owner of the parcels, Lindseay Dixon, to rewrite the covenants for everybody else. Now,

um, so we had also submitted an amendment to the covenants. So that would essentially exclude lot six from the covenants. So it wouldn't require a rewrite, just the amendment that we had proposed. We and it's indicated here that from Lindsay's uh Dixon's uh letter uh to the commission that there's only going to be one home built on this 32 acre. Correct. Got a question for council and maybe for the applicant as well. So, simultaneously, you brought up the potential that by removing this lot, we're subjecting or opening potentially other land uses on that lot.

Yeah. I mean, it could potentially be subdivided provided that it meets other requirements. I think there might be some other subdivisions that it would meet given the size of it because it is 32 acres. Um, so if the applicant simply wishes to put livestock on the property, why don't we amend the covenants to allow that instead of opening the barn door all the way to other potential uses in the future? So, I I think this is a question for the applicant, but what they had presented was an amendment to remove lot six. I suspect it's because the size and nature of the other lots that they don't want to subject the entire development to being allowed to have live livestock. Um and but that's my point is why not just do that on lot six. [clears throat]

So you're everybody else everybody else follows the covenants they per they currently have they're bound to lot four lot lot four lot six we remove that one piece versus opening it up to whoops excuse me up to other potential development land uses in the future. Yeah, I think that's a question for the applicant.

Um, certainly, you know, in the covenants there are a lot other additional restrictions. There is architectural review. Um, as well as I, and I don't know this exactly, but we had been talking about, you know, requirements for how short the grass is kept and, you know, those sorts of things that wouldn't necessarily be um, congruent with farm use of the property. Uh, certain vehicles aren't allowed to be stored there. um commercial activities and obviously that's not the intent at this point. Um you know if there's some sort of uh you know horse breeding operation something like that that could be considered commercial just you know looking down the line um as to why it would make the most sense to take this entire lot out of those covenants.

I'm concerned about the precedent we're setting right and that this opens the door to others doing similar things. We've had this analogous conversation around um some other developments and and what they can be used for in the future. And it's the concern that perhaps the rest of the development is unattractive to potential homeowners, lot owners because of that proximity to this proposed use that they don't have any guarantee of what will be put there in the future. Right.

I understand. Um, and so as as you suggest, there are other things that you'd like to exclude. Well, then fine, let's draft a letter that says you can do this. You don't have to file. You don't have to cut your grass for three inches. You don't have to paint your fences white, right? So that we're protected from that becoming some commercial entity in the future or you know a cluster 10 chicken 10 chicken houses or another cluster development without covenants or sim or covenants that are much less restrictive than the ones literally across the street.

Right. I understand um your concern with the president. I I will note that I think this might be the first time that you've had something like this come in front of you because there is the specific provision in these covenants that this must be amended and approved by the planning commission. Uh many other developments have rights for amendment and that um sort of governance within their communities. um this is you know giving that uh to the planning commission to make that uh choice before it is determined by by the community. Well, actually, there is precedent. Not too long ago, we denied an applicant their request to buffer, correct me if I'm wrong, staff, to to install some buffer trees around the property um because some of the existing homeowners liked the open field view, but part of the there was a a requirement or contingency, I don't know the exact verbiage, that required that to be the case. They came before us asking for relief of that requirement and we said no because we don't want to play this game this don't want to go through this exercise of peacemealing and and and customizing in such detail such developments right so so there is slight precedent based on that that we have denied that in the past because we felt that that was a contingency of development therefore it should be placed upon which is where we are here that contingency is on that lot six and If we take that off, we're we're contradicting our our decision several months ago.

I would I would suggest that since there's no lots have been sold, we're not in in your example, there were existing people, Tom, that you know could object. In this case, they'll know what they're buying because this has already occurred. Understood. So, it would be up to the discussion of whether they feel that they want to buy the lot or not buy the lot with the knowledge that that property could become, as you're pointing out, you know, something different than just a onehouse, you know, location.

Well, this this is unique, Art, because I think you were yet on board. So, let me let me back up just a minute to clarify that situation I described, the analogy that I described earlier. There was no requirement to plant the trees at time of development, right? Essentially, it was once the last lot gets developed, this buffer of trees has to be planted. Well, we were at the sale of the last lot when this concern came up. And the people that had moved in liked the un the o open view of the field behind their house and we were coming in to say, "No, you have to plant this buffer developer." And they were looking for relief from that. So, we actually voted against the current land owners, right? it they got used to it not being buffered and then they didn't want the buffer there that was required and they knew about that when they bought.

So it got complicated and we denied that because we were concerned about the precedent that was that that would set. Hence my question for council why not go through surgically and put in language in that and adjust that co the covenants to reflect that. Um and and as I had you know noted um the 32 acres having the autonomy to you know run a farm certainly again subject to the design features of the subdivision plat um it would almost take a comprehensive re rewriting of the covenants. It's um you know certainly a piece of property that would be uh better left to the a zoning um that it is and you know of course if there was any kind of other development at that time or anything you know if there are more homeowners um you know they can come to public hearings and speak out just as we had you know some folks earlier talk about their concerns um and [clears throat] you know the the planning commission or the board of appeals or whatever at that time can take that under advisement. Um at this you know at this point in time the proposed use of the lot uh the contract purchasers and um Mr. Quila could certainly speak more to the plans on that um would be better suited to not have this type of restriction on it.

What's the There's another large very oddly shaped lot on the right hand side. I assume that to be the east side. um what you know if those people wanted to have a farmet as your client does, you know, I I'm not entirely sure about that one. I think and I I don't I wasn't able to print out a plat that came out anyway. I could read because the way I'm looking at there's a really oddly shaped lot on the east side of this development. Yes. Right where the Yeah, you got it. I think that might be open space and and I don't have the plan in front of me. I'm not entirely sure on that. Um is a for sale lot. There's there's there's no open space on it. There's the open space layer on your screen there. Okay.

Sir, you [clears throat] you were standing up the podium earlier for public comment. What if you've got something to add, please introduce yourself?

Yeah, I'm Bruce, president Lacrosse Homes. Um we do have a speck home up on lot 13. Uh currently um all the roads are in um they haven't been final um top coated yet but um we are in um agreement with the proposal to allow these folks to um remove themselves of the um covenants and restrictions. um due to the nature of that lot is similarly lot seven which is the other lot we're talking about um I believe when this subdivision was done in order to get the density um for the number of lots they had to do the two larger lots to get the um smaller lots in. So overall um per lot coverage um those two larger lots were needed to get the the other 14 lots to be developed. So this is back, you know, a number of years back, but I believe that was the rationale to why you have these two larger existing lots.

Very odd layout.

Yeah. And as you see on on this one highlighted, the upper portion of lot seven that kind of sits in between the lots is kind of, you know, fairly barely touching. Um but again that isn't um more than likely will end up being an open space that's not necessarily usable for the person that um purchases this lot. Um if you look kind of in the lower right hand portion of that lot is where the home is cited to go and the rest of that lot is kind of going to be open space. So similarly with lot six um the location for septic field and and well is on the lower leftand corner of this and the remaining port portion of that parcel is kind of you know unusable space for really any development per se. So similar cases for both lots

and all these lots are on water and sewer or septic rather septic [clears throat] and and one more question please to whoever feels more comfortable answering this proposed lot six right the outlined in red lot they will have access to existing roads. Yes. Okay. So there's a as you can kind of see coming into the there's an existing farmhouse that's on on the farm. Yeah that there. So the road comes straight in and then loops around. Basically, there's a short culde-sac in between the um lots six and seven and then um a turnaround at the very bottom of the site. So, there's essentially two two roads in in the community, right? But that red lot number six would have access to that to that road from their property

100%. Okay. So if all the covenants are removed and the lot then becomes subject to chapter or section 18, could someone put a solar array there? Yes.

So from a point of view of the developer, perhaps they'd like to think about that because I think a solar array next door to my house would definitely discourage me from buying a lot. Well, not definitely, but it's worth considering to Commissioner Lelay's point. Um, would a more surgical approach be wise here in consideration of future buyers for the other lots? It's not really our business, but it's a marketing suggestion among other things. Sure.

And I and I would note, you know, to kind of um ease that um concern regarding the solar array, this is under contract. It is contingent on um it is under contract for a single family home to be built for a far a small farm to be built uh contingent on this being removed you know from the covenant. So uh the current contract purchaser has plans to be there long term with um with their family. they have, you know, two small kids that they want to be um involved with the horses and um you know, maybe some goats um and certainly live live the Queen Ans County, you know, 4H kid kind of lifestyle. Um and this piece of property being able to uh have that as an agricultural property would certainly certainly afford them that opportunity. Um I do understand your concern. Uh, I I can say, you know, the size and shape of the lot and the setback requirements for solar probably wouldn't be

I understand that appealing appealing lot, but I I certainly hear your concern on that. talking conceptually and and I said supporting Commissioner Lelay's point of view that something that's more explicit would perhaps serve all parties interest better than something which simply says all covenants are removed. Well, I don't think it's far out of reach, right? Don't those high uh capacity lines literally pass between this lot and the highway or at least in darn close proximity to that?

Uh they do. There's a substation to the right to the north of this and it was the subject of an inquiry about solar but Genevieve is right that conceptually the setbacks probably would stop that but in theory the code doesn't would be small enough it wouldn't be attractive to a solar developer. Yeah.

Certainly wouldn't be utility array but still you know And I think from a perspective of the builder and developer um our perspective clients that are coming and viewing this property are looking at the surrounding area. If you look to the right where the dark green is where the chicken um farm uh is adjacent to the parcel. So people that are coming to this area understand the nature of where they're looking. So in a sense of having something that's you know more agricultural base is not necessarily a deterrent to someone buying in there. Most people that are coming and looking at this uh parcel are looking for something that has a little more expansive space. They don't want to be 40 feet from their neighbor. And so um I don't think that having something that they're proposing would necessarily be a detriment to the folks that we're trying to sell home to.

Not at all. I mean I'm a big fan of agriculture. Uh and to me that's a plus. Uh maybe not downwind from a chicken house, but you know, normal field agriculture, rowcrop to me is a positive point. And having it as a livestock area, horse farm, great. I'm all for it. I like the idea. If they're giving horse lessons uh to the neighborhood, then, you know, maybe that's a selling point. What's your name again? I'm Mel Corilla. Kyle, how many horses you talking about? Um, right now two

for my right now. What's the future plans? You going to have 100? No, I they're for my two kids. Okay. Right. As far as all the other discussion, I'll finish with you. As far as the other discussion with regards to how attractive or unattractive this this development is, I think that train's already left the station. We're not doing that. The only concern I have is uh as a board member, commission member, am I putting this commission and the county at risk by allowing them to change their covenants for one lot?

Yeah. So, um, under your guarantees and covenants within the county code, it does say that for particular developments that require covenants, it has to include language that any covenant may not be amended or changed in any manner without prior approval of the planning commission. And so, um, I assume that that condition within some covenants has been a deterrent for other developments coming forward with an amendment because you all ultimately have to bless it. If you do grant this, it could set a a precedent for additional applicants coming in for you all to remove lots from approved subdivisions that are subject to covenants.

But the inherent in your statement [clears throat] is we have the right to change to grant them the ability to change that covenant for that lot. Yeah. So you don't have the right to grant it. It has to come to you for approval before they could undertake whatever other methods. Right now only the declarant has the ability to amend the covenants with your blessing. If these lots were sold and there was an HOA established, the HOA would have the ability to amend the covenants, but still you all as the planning commission would have to give the final approval of that before it could be done. Everything still comes back to us. Whichever subdivision may make a request, it still would have to come back to us for blessing

provided that covenants are adopted consistent with the Queen Ans County Code. Yes. Right. So we It's not like we're I don't you know the precedent for someone else coming here doesn't change the fact that we already have a president that has to come to us. It doesn't, you know, this is just a oneoff. Yes. But future um I guess there could be scenarios where there are future subdivisions that are subject to covenants and then later uh for inability to build or whatever reason, they then come to you and ask for certain lots to be removed from those covenants.

But based on its facts at that time that's being presented to us.

Right. Right. And I I would just like to reiterate the uniqueness of this particular lot in a subdivision that has a majority of smaller lots. It's, you know, over 32 acres. It's in an agricultural zone within the comprehensive plan prior priority preservation area. Um, which absolutely pushes the use of agriculture to preserve the character of Queen Ans County. Um, I would also note that folks moving to this area probably like the agricultural aspect. otherwise they wouldn't be um choosing to live in such a rural area. So it it adds to the character. It's consistent with the character of the zoning. Um and it again it is a unique lot in a subdivision. It's not, you know, one of the 1.25 acre lots asking to be set aside so [clears throat] that they can keep a horse or two. Um it's, you know, significantly larger than anything else. Um, and you know, worth noting again, it's still subject to the requirements under the subdivision plat. Question for the developer, sir, while you're still standing there. Uh, any re explanation as to why it's been 26 years, you only have one spec house.

Uh, we actually just took control of the property within the last year and a half. Okay. So, we are we are recent um owners of the parcel. So once we had full approvals, did the infrastructure, then we put in the house. So the house has been up for in construction, just finalized. Uh actually I think we're going for UNO here in the next month. So um you know, we'll we'll continue to build in there as we go along.

Any other questions of the applicant or staff? Is there any public comment? Anybody online? John. Nobody. All right. Floor is open for a motion. Mr. Vice Chair, it be resolved that the planning commission has reviewed the request by Meadow Creek LLC for an amendment to the declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions for Meadow Creek that removes lot six from the covenants and hereby grants the requested amendment subject to the following conditions. Uh, lot six must record a superseding property deed within the county land records subjecting lot six to all of the required subdivision elements currently located on lot six that were part of the Meadow Creek Development Plan recorded at SM3714 within the Queen's County land records and they must provide copies of this recorded deed to the Queen's County Department of Planning prior to the issuance of any new building permits for Six.

There's a motion. We have a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? [clears throat] I. Any opposed? Any abstensions? Seeing none, congratulations. Motion carries. Thank you so much,

Mr. Chair. Could I suggest that we review this provision in the county code that gets us involved in changing these covenants? Uh, I'm not clear in my mind. I'm not that the motion carries. I'm not looking to change anything with that, but I am concerned about how this is going to impact our business going forward. And if we're going to get involved in these sorts of discussions for every change to every single covenant in Queen Anne County, I think it's going to be pretty cumbersome. And so I would like to suggest, and I'm purposely willing to do the work on it, that maybe we examine in more depth how this works. would perhaps asking staff when we have time on our agenda to give us a a

work shop work presentation of excellent high level overview of here's what we do here's what you have in front of you right so that everybody's a little bit more wellversed yep staff you're the [laughter] you're the you're the senior most staff in the room say yes

would can we make please that recommendation of staff John you're taking notes um to have at an appropriate time in the agenda a a presentation by staff or the appropriate uh jurisdiction authority on this to give us a a some sort of presentation on covenants in the county and and development concerns that come up as a result based on this example maybe and perhaps the or perhaps the you know and include perhaps this one and the one that we uh denied with the that I used as an example earlier um so that we can sort better understand this this water in which we swim. We can just to clarify what you had denied previously with regard to the buffer is a completely separate code standard

that has was that wasn't a a covenant. So, cluster subdivisions.

This one, this one probably has it, I would assume. I haven't looked at this this plan, but requires a a landscape buffer around the entirety of the community. And there was a a code section that said the planning commission could amend those standards, if you'll remember, um to whatever you see fit. Everybody came in and wanted it reduced to nothing. Um, we would go periods of time where there were no requests and periods of time where there were numerous and it just so happened recently there were several that came in. Ultimately the planning commission decided they wanted to look at the code. The code was changed and now that is no longer available. Um, this is a completely separate section of the code that doesn't get applied often. I've been here 18 years. I've only seen it one time. That doesn't mean that somebody watching this doesn't have an idea and now something will change with that. But we can look into it. We'll report back to you um and get you the information that you guys are looking for.

Excellent. Yeah, that'd be Thank you for the discerning the difference between those two uh anal those two examples. Appreciate that. Um uh any anything else on the matter? Are you just one question from here? Are you going to tell her now or later she's got a job to do? Are you going to do it later? Let her get her lunch first. Yeah, let her get lunch first. All right. Is there any uh closing public comment from the gallery or online? No. Seeing none, we have