Westminster Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

We are ready. Okay. Call this meeting to order. This is a meeting of the planning and zoning commission of July 17th here at city hall. So the first order first order this meeting the Warner this is the meeting of the planning and zoning commission of July 17th here at city hall. Yeah. So the first order this is zoning commission. Sorry. Perfect. There we go.

Okay. The first item is a public hearing for annexation number 87. So at this point in time, I'll open the public hearing and turn the floor over to Mr.

Yeah, guess I guess it would be So, we're gonna focus just awc 1.2 acres at 1012 Baltimore property. If you look at the map, it's right next to the Newland Stoler Chevrolet dealership. Um, it is across the sheet across the street from Sheets. And when we annex sheets, we also annex that portion of 140. So this property is adjacent to the city. They are coming into the city because they need additional sewer um allocation. Property is served by

by one site. Well um and so that's why that they are coming and the property is zoned. Hey, how you doing? Hey, happy to have you. Happy to be here. T we are sound only tonight through the computer right there. Just okay. Letting you know everything is in from the staff report. So no presentation tonight.

Um the property is zone C2 in the county. It'd be coming to V business into the city. Uh it got introd in introduced to mayor and county council on May 12th. Sented to the county on May 13th. On June 11th the I'm sorry, no uh July 9th. I apologize. the planning and zoning commission of Carol County. They held um a public hearing or yeah they had a meeting about it, talked about it, decided to forward it to the county commissioners with a positive recommendation. And then the next day on the 10th of July, the board of county commissioners um they did sign a letter that was that's now in your packet. So if you have any interest, um the property is going to be they're keeping the building there. It used to be an old ReMax building. Um they're going to keep that building there, but they're going to be turning it into an adult daycare facility.

So with that, I end my report. Um if you But I'm here obviously if you have any question. So there was no waiver of zoning required because there wasn't significant change in the zoning and it's going to be an adult daycare facility. Yes, it was it was zone C2, commercial medium intensity district in the county which is comparable to the business zone. That's the zoning district that always applied for any property in the county going from county to city and the use that allow both the C2 district and in the county as well as the D business district in the city. Does the state have any comments? Not much. No.

Okay, perfect. Any questions by the members? No, not anybody here. Was that the old Sharkies? Yes, that's the old Sharkies. You even shorties. Yeah, graduate or restaurant. Graduate. Thank you. Okay. Any any further comment by anybody in the audience? And just let you know, it's scheduled to go at the July 28th Mayor and Council Okay. meeting. So the recommendation that we're asking tonight is for a positive recommendation to the United States.

First we have to to close the public hearing. So uh without objection we'll close the public hearing and uh we'll entertain a motion to make a recommendation to council. A motion to give a favorable recommendation to city council to adopt the annotation. Second. Okay. So you mean that the department of planning? I'm trying to resol. Yeah. The planning and zoning commission forward resolution number 25-06 for annexation 87 to the Marian council with a federal recommendation. That's the motion. Is there a second? Second.

Second. Motion been made and seconded. Any questions? All in favor say I. I. No. Eyes have it. recommendation goes on to the man council. Yeah. The uh second item is a public hearing for ordinance number 25 2025-01 automobile uses text amendment. Um here again this is a public hearing. So at this point I'll open the public hearing. Turn the floor over to Mr. Deepo.

Thank you. So this is a public hearing for ordinance 202501 automobile use text amendment. This ordinance of the Mar County Council amending chapter 164 zoning in South India land um to amend the definitions of word usage and add the definitions of automobile detail and shop, automobile repair and service shop major, automobile repair and service shop minor and automobile sales. and to replace the term service station, the automobile service station to amend section 1641 121 form premise business signs in article 20 special provisions. Section 164149 automobile service stations as well as the forbidded uses and special exception uses in the NYU zone, Bzone, PD zone, IG zone, NC zone, PI zone, and PRSC zone to reflect the newly defined uses entry number without substantive change to the list of um list of provisioning special exception uses in those zone districts. And just as some background, Brian Ditto, who represents the Durham Community Commerce Center, is actually the audience located in the city of Westminster corporate center court contacted community planning and development regarding a desire to operate automobile service shop use at the commerce center. The commerce center is zone PI plan industrial zone and an automobile service use is not identified as an allowed use in the PI zone. During the review of the zoning ordinance and the types of automobile related uses provided for therein, city administration and community plan development determined that the automobile related uses contained in the zoning ordinance do not reflect the

array of such uses currently offered to automobile owners and that the city should clearly identify which automobile related uses are permitted, which zones uh consistently refer to these uses established and define Each use staff identified several automobile type uses and zoning ordinance that should be amended, deleted, or added, as I pointed out earlier in certain zoning districts and determine that usage should be amended or added to provide consistency and clarity of differing automobile type uses. Staff drafted the proposed text amendment to the zone ordinance to address the automobile type uses and presented the amendments to the economic development community. Economic and Community Development Committee, the ECDC, at its June 17th meeting for review and discussion. Subsequently, we continue to meet with the ECDC on August 19th, October 19th, November 19th, and December 10th of 2024 to discuss the text amendments. At its meeting, the ECDC recommended that the community plan development forward ordinance 2025 total council for introduction and step and this text me was introduced to the Marit County Council on June 9th, 2025 where the mayor's common council referred the PL referred the ordinance to the plane zoning commission for review and recommendation to the marathon council. Um, so that's if you have any questions about the ordinance or changes, I'm available for any questions you may have.

Okay. Any any question by commission members? Yeah. I'm not quite sure what the question is, but I think I have one. Okay. I let you think about it. Yeah. Yeah. Somebody else can ask a question first, maybe. So basically this is an effort to modernize our definitions to take into account the variety of uses that relate to what we what in the old days we just called a service station.

Exactly. Or and if you look at the ordinance on like page five, you'll see some of the in red some of the terminologies. It was all over the place. Automobile uh vehicle. So it cleans it up to be consistent. We created these definitions and uses for different levels of automobile use and depending on the level and intensity that's how we determine what zoning districts that type of auto. Okay, that was my as well. And if you look at the changes don't blanket every zoning board, every zoning district. No,

you have the definitions and then you fit those in where you think they best fit. So if you look at page seven, that's a good breakdown of the uses and where they would be allowed in those own districts. So and and the definitions as we go through the automobile detailing shop is the most minor of the intensive type of uses you can imagine for detailing the car. Then the automobile repair service m minor is the next step up to major and so so and so forth. So um so obviously the more intensive uses would be allowed in the more the industrial zone. So yeah so just as you go through see the thought process in that

okay is a motor in still a current term for something there such a thing as a motor in not in the city of Westminster. Well under PI zone you have a moto and we got to be from 195. Yeah. And and just the the complexity of some automobile car washes which may be approved only said this on and on. So clean we clean that up. Um nobody calls it automobile trailer sales without a front. So we said automobile sales stuff and divide it as basically any any type of automobile vehicle that can sell. So again, clean enough terminology and

trying to clarify potent uses and the intensity of each use. Okay. So have you had time enough? I think that explains what I was going to try to ask. How about you? You good? Any questions? I don't have any right on top of my head. Okay. I'm sure I'll probably think of some later. about the you good. Okay. No, I was just I had was wondering is this holding up a business from opening like what has spurred this on? So again the problem probably

it was safe lights. So safe light wanted to move into the PI zone. We didn't allow for that all type of service use. We the only detailing and minor would be was added to the PI zone. So that you could therefore be allowed. Okay. Okay. So this is going to affect any existing.

No. So and that's that's looked at the definitions. What's downtown? We paid attention to that. Anything that is existing today that wouldn't otherwise be allowed would be non-conforming and can continue to operate in perpetuity until it ceases to exist for 6 months in some cases four years. So, so yeah, so we did we did look at all the abuses we have and hopefully correctly named them and located them in the districts that they visited today. No. Okay, you ready? Yep.

Okay. So, I'll open the floor up for any comments from from anybody here that wants to speak to this issue. Thank you. I would uh may I stay seated? Whatever makes you comfortable.

My Clark Schaefer. Uh I'm an attorney representing the owners of the Carol County Commerce Center, which is the Rosen family. I don't know what the entity is called, but uh corporate center corporate center leasing. Um, yes, we had a potential tenant safe light that puts windshields on and comes to your house and does it in your driveway and all that, but the zoning administrator said it's not allowed. So, we said, well, let's talk about it. And then it ended into a year and a this safe long gone. This is a year and a half ago board that we are now here with this comprehensive thing. So we're not So we have two comments as the only PI zoned property in the city and one which is developed uh percentage of it. There's there's there's a fair amount of undeveloped area in that PI. I would like to point out at least or at least for your consideration that that development and those families commitment to the city is uh is to be admired. That's brick and glass. There's no requirement that that be written glass. You know, it's it's and if you read your PISO and this purposes, this is a home run. Uh now, that being said, uh we have two comments on this text amendment. Two specific comments,

uh beefs, beefs within changes. We believe that the automobile detailing shops and the automobile repair and service shops minor should be made a permitted use in PIS and not be put in the category that requires uses up our 15% retail aotment. There's a 15. This zoning ordinance is one that puts lawyers kids through college and from this because it it lists uses mostly manufactured by the way that you can do out there. You know, aircraft assembly, you know, some some ridiculous ones. But then it then it says you can do the following retail uses and it lists about 15 of but you but you're limited to 6,000 square ft for certain you're limited in the size and you're limited in the floor area as opposed to your total area of your PI. So you and and and we're not we're not here tonight to quibble about that because it is what it is. We've lived with it. we're going to live with it. What we're saying is that we're asking that you this ordinance as proposed would put these uses in a category that takes away our retail flexibility. Uh and and I think flexibility is a key word here. Naturally, the the person that owns these property wants some flexibility in leasing, you know, hence safelight walks. You know, we we were interested in Safe Light. We thought it was a good use. We thought it was compatible with our other uses out there. We thought it would fit. We knew it was almost it was indoors.

The most of the work took place. But anyway, that's so we want we believe that these uses we're not equivalent to definitions. We believe that they should be put in as permitted uses. So that's number one. Number two and and maybe more important and and and I can't well it so number two and more importantly this ordinance as proposed would actually reduce the zoning that we have on the site and have had since we developed it 15 20 years ago. And namely, it removes restaurants from our permitted uses. It's and restaurants was in the permitted uses when we bought the property, when we applied for the PI zone, when we went through the development plan approval process, got the approval, pulled the building permits, built the buildings that are out there now. Restaurants were permitted use. this ordinance purports to remove that from the per we don't know why uh uh and what and I mean and I

is that only in PI just in the PI zone that's the only one that's being removed uh and you see it's strike it's stricken through there on the motors on the motors there is that there that they strike it out now Why would you want to do that? But do you not want restaurants? Does the city not want restaurants? Uh, it's on 97. It's got traffic. Are the restaurants out there now? No. Just the food related to Yeah. Like chicken sandwiches and stuff like that, you know.

But could you eat those on site? Is there like a like a table inside where you can eat? Yeah, that's an interesting question. We can you know what I f I'm finding out? You know, all these Royal Farms, sheets, uh you know, you know what they you know what they're doing now? They they call themselves restaurants. Okay.

Probably because they figured out most are more friendly to those in convenience stores, but they but yes, that that there's oil farms out there now. I don't know that Mark would call it a restaurant. I don't, you know, I doubt if uh but no, there's not a restaurant there now. And we can't figure out why the city would want to prevent restaurants out there or put it against our retail. Okay. They they they have it they've left it in the retail section, but they've taken it out and permitted. And as I said, it's been a permitted use in the PI as far back as there's been PI walk. So anyway, we we object to that. We we think you should recommend we we request that you recommend to the mayor and council that that not be removed from the permitted uses in EI. Now, we don't have um you know, we don't have any prospect or anything with that. We just want the flexibility if somebody comes out there and wants to do a rest ride. We want to be able to go through the process and get it approved. You know, traffic, you know, all that stuff gets evaluated. We're not looking for any exemptions from any, you know, adequate facilities where. So, anyway, that's those are our two requests uh to you to recommend to the council. And

the two requests, the restaurant, what else? the restaurant and take the automobile detailing shops and the automobile repairing service shops minor and put them in the permitted use list, not in the special detailing. Well, does so you're talking about on page I'm just trying to understand your issues with the page on page 13 of 17 the striketh through of restaurants. Yeah. Is that your your that your beef? That's that's one, right? And then the other one is se 14 of 17 at the top. What's that? 14 of 17.

14 of 17 at the top where you see that they have added automobile detailing or proposing to add automobile detailing shops and automobile repair and service shops minor into the local retail business or service shops included. Now, you don't have the rest of that section, but that's the section I was referring to that limits your size that says you can't. It It's like a quote. Jay's very familiar with it because it's got like a quot system. You come in, you know, you come in, you want to do a one of these uses, there's a chart, you just used up 4,000 square feet of your retail. Don't And once you get up to your 15%, don't come in with any.

So, your issue isn't with the usage. Your issue is where it is in the order. Exactly. Okay. We're not quing with the definitions with the uses. So for the rest of the ordinance, you have no issues anywhere else. Those are the two. Okay. Any any further? That's it. That's that's it. Any go through both?

Yeah. I mean, I think it'd be good to understand. So section 16475 um the mayor common council years ago I believe this was a Clark Schaefer text amendment request back in the day for this property but mayor common council approved the ability for anybody in the PI to design it to designate certain area in the plan industrial zone for retail and commercial uses as part of the development So it gave a special allowance for because typically retail and commercial uses part what would be considered a planned industrial type of use. So they provide this caveat that you could have retail and commercial uses but it limits how much you can have and again the intent of industrial zone is not to be a commercial center or retail center. So they said you have to have 15%. So then they listed specifically the retail and commercial uses allowed under this section and they list local retail businesses or service shops uses including I go alcoholic beverage package store, bakery shop, banks, beauty shop, candy store, sales and service for phones, clothing stores, computer sales. So they listed all these retail commercial that would be special allowance and PI zone. All we did is list the similar type of service use of automobile detailing and repair shop in the same location that the Vcoming council felt where the type of local retail and service shop uses about the PI. So we're just treating this like all other commercial service shop uses in the PI zone. We didn't feel it should be treated differently. It should be put together with all the other what mayor county council deemed

appropriate type of uses that would be beyond your typical family industrial use. As for the restaurant use, there's a conflict. Yes, it's listed permitted use, but it's also listed in the local retail businesses and service shops, including all those uses. It lists restaurants. You can't have two use. You can't have permitted use and then have the same use listed where it limits 50%. But if you do, the more restrictive applies. So even if a restaurant wanted to close a day, it wouldn't be permitted. I would go to this section and say you're subject to 15%. You're subject to this regulation because it's listed here as well. So we didn't eliminate restaurants as use. It's still permitted use. We just cleaned up the ordinance to get rid of the complex. So again they could today operate a restaurant they would have to they're limited to how much again as the man common council approved limiting 15% of the total area of the property can be these type service type of uses but again that was the intent because these aren't your typical type of industrial uses when was that approved

this was there was a year Let's say 2013 here. I don't think I remember.

So it's been in the book. So for example, Warrior Farm when it came through, they had to apply the 50% for being stores is again listed as one of those retail service uses. It's not Warrior Farms is not what you think of an industrial use, but again they carved out that disability. So they were able to by right do the royal farm but they they were limited to how you know that takes up portion of that 15% but allow to have these type of uses. So again they're allowed to use it just limits these type of uses to 15%. Just an example if hoses steakhouse wanted to come here and locate in the PI zone could they do it?

Yes. So, and where would that be allowed? By where? Under that under that one section. Just use it as an example so I can understand. So, you would go to once section 16475 which we're changing. We can see on page um how about H14?

Right. I got still be listed as a restaurant under the retail and commercial uses allowed under the subjection limited the following uses and restaurant is one of those reasons. We didn't list them all. We just live we just did alphabetically and it came up with itself. There's 20 or so retailed based and service based business more than that. But that counts against this percentage

against percentage. Again, the intent was to maintain the majority of the development for industrial manufacturing type of uses. That's the job creation. That's the type of usage you anticipate those type of usage you want in industrial zone. Otherwise, they could request to rezone the property business to be business owned and go through a process of reszoning if that's what they want to do. But we already have that zoning district. That's this is planned industrial. There was an intent to limit how much non-industrial public use will be allowed in PSO. So just I get this straight my head. So if we eliminated restaurants from the section of the strikeout, it would still allow a restaurant to be in that zone as a principal use but limited to 15% of the total

total area of the development of development. Yeah. So may I waste time sp

um Second question. Um, with those two, the detailing shops and minor repair service shops, um, I don't see why they couldn't be principally self. I don't think they would affect uh that zoning. It's It's something that I would rather have in that type of zoning than somewhere else. Um

but it's not it's not a heavy use. It's not something that it's going to cause a lot of issues. Noise, smoke, odors. That's right. kind of think of that. Traffic got traffic.

I mean, in the case of Safe Light, like I say, they usually do most of their work offsite, go to homes and stuff. Um, but a detailing shop is basically where they they're cleaning your car, they're fixing small scratches, they're um cleaning your windows, um getting your car ready to sell if you want for just to be clean. that I don't see myself those two necessarily need to be special exceptions you know industrial part it's not a special exception to buy right into the how many you can add in that zoning district again it's

so in the planning what I got in front of me here for detailing shops and repair service you're stating under the PI that they'd be special exceptions No. Permitted by rights as a service and retail use, but they're limited to how many you can have net. Is that limited to square? 15%

15%. So just like all the other retail and service uses. If you're going to move those out, you might as well just eliminate that. Move all those retail service uses up and not call this plan industrial and create a D business zone. Um again, we have to look at the purpose and intent of the plan industrial zone. Um, and it's not intended to be a retail service center. Um, it's intended to be a community of industries which in the mutually maintain aesthetically pleasing appearances and operations. So, it's it's supposed to be a higherend type of industrial building. We are adding the more all these all these uses in the IRG zone the heavier industrial type of zones that aren't type of development. R2 this will be nearly plain industrial.

No, there's another one north. Well, has there is there any other planned industrial zone that has submitted a development plan and had it approved? Yes. Where where Marada used to be? Is Marada plan industrial plan up there north of Teavis? That whole site is PE and they they came in with a development plan and went through the process. Independence Arthur Peek drive that whole area. I knew okay but I think what happened is the city took PI whatever it is blue the color for PI and during a comprehensive they colored those northern properties PI. Uh no

no no when that came in it was PI. In fact, it was written because I only know this because I was here. I knew you were. There was an intent that Magna was going to create a whole campus there and they wanted this beautiful site that would allow industrial but wouldn't be be uh look be very aesthetically pleasing. So, that was part and parcel to them coming here. They never really fulfilled that plan because so I could go out and I could come over here and look at the development plan for that thing that would show me the I can't tell you today I can't tell you what today what you can and can't do. I only I'm only trying to answer your question.

Okay. But whatever. Okay. So there is PI north of us. Yeah. Well, I'm trying to So, if you go to this I guess I'm maybe stupid sometimes, but on the 16466, the restaurant use is allowed. So, by removing it there, it's still allowed, but but restrictions. What are the restrictions? The 15% and 6,000 square feet. We get we get a 6,500T restaurant, they can't come in. Um and and and is that really the kind of tenants you're trying to attract or you uh Tom 6,000 is not that I mean you might get some but

Well, I'm not being critical. I'm just trying to understand your Well, here's here's here's my first of all, it's it's not correct to argue that the intent was to do this that this being remove the permitted use. There was no discussion of that. What happened was, and I was the one that there was no discussion where

at the city council when they adopted this. What happened was Robert Rosen and the Rosen family said, "We're having trouble leasing this place up. I mean, they they built those buildings on spec, okay? They they they put money. That's not unusual. You usually have them leased up.

They sat there, they leased them up, they and they go, "Well, we're not getting a lot. can we get we're getting some retail? And so we came in and we said, "How about letting us have some retail?" Long story short, I took the county the county has a similar uh zone and a similar carve out for their industrial business bars for their industrial. I mean, I can tell you we got you don't have a full agenda tonight, so let's go. Um, so what it is is that Jack Library and the and the county and people up here, they said, "We don't want our industrial zones sucked up with retail,

taken away from retail because the county's zoning ordinance 20 years ago, 30 years ago had IR and IG zones. There were their two industrial zones. But in the IR zone, all the business uses were special exceptions. So guess what? The market spoke and the market said, "All that industrial land you got, you got zoned along 140, you know, let's put a Walmart in there. Let's put a big box. let's put a and that's what started to come well certain people at the county and and and they said no we don't want that we got to prevent that. So the county then started this process of putting in this you can't do those and then they and then they they ended up putting in language very very similar to this because we copied it when we proposed to the city of Westminster. We said, "Why don't you use the counties? Why don't we do that? Everybody's familiar with it. This is a way you can let retail in." Now, it was an oversight pretty obviously to list. It says restaurants and lunchrooms, okay, in in the current ordinance, which is which they're leaving in, okay, in the 15% carve out area restaurant. And then Mark's arguing that putting that in indicates an intent. You didn't want you wanted it out of the other the permitted uses which is which he's now. So he's going we'll just take it out now because that's what they wanted to do in the first place. No, that's not true. Uh nobody wanted to do that. Nobody thought about doing it. And you notice that

restaurant and lunchrooms language. It's kind of funny, isn't it? because it's it's kind of like the habeddashery and the what's a way they used to call things. Well, that's because the theory part of the theory behind this whole maneuver was industrial zones. By the way, this is my opinion all outdated but still there. Industrial zones. We need to we they're going to be big. They're going to be campuses and we're hoping we get some real manufacturing

and they're going to be on a campus and those people need you lunch somewhere. We don't want to force them to drive up into town or whatever. We and and so you can have a dry cleaner but but we don't want uh a complex of restaurants. You know, that was the theory there. Now, your mayor and council at some point before I was here when they adopted this PI zone, the original PI zone, they put restaurants in as a permitted use. No size limitation. It's allowed in the zone, the PI uh and they're now they want to take it out uh and and keep and restrict it. So my my my question for the for the house is and the council and everybody else and you is why would you want to what is there a harm? Why would you want to remove from a property owner who bought a property based on a zone who developed the property based on his zone? Why would you want to take something away from him and restrict him? Uh if he gets a 6,500 foot tenant, sorry, no, get out of here. even 6,500 square feet. You can't you got two story, you know, I I you know, it's hard to imagine. Why would you want to do that? It and and I I I have one more comment and that is Mark keeps referring to this is not industrial and and we're using these terms industrial and retail. They're not useful terms. Retail is sales to the public of goods that are, you know, as a definition. This, you've been, I'm sure most of you have been to the site. Um, that's industrial. I mean, most of these uses in here are look at the uses you can do in here. But

let me see. Brian's Brian, you got your sheet there?

So, here's what you can do out there. You can you can do manufacturing and assembly of aircraft, automobiles etc. You can do manufacturing assembly of electrical appliances. You can do uh manufacturing package treatment cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and food products. Musical in manufacturing of musical instruments. Man, you get the point. Manufacturing manufacturing. You can do carpet and rug cleaning plants. Okay? You can do clothing and shoe manufacturer. You can do blacksmith, welding, machine or similar shops. And by the way, if that's auto detailing is not not compatible with blacksmith welding machine shops, uh you can do helports subject to various things. Self-service storage facilities, aircraft storage, that's for the you know the airport obviously. Uh you can do office prof we I had Brian mark up the ones on this that we really thought might come out there. you can see his his purple lines. There's not that many of them. You know, we're trying to, you know, which ones could we actually, you know, lease to and make money and and and hire people and all that. Um, so to call this and to to suggest that the intent of the city is that this is an industrial, you know, this it's not. It's a it's a that's why it's called planned industrial instead of IR and IG. It's a sheath of it's brick and glass. It's all the work takes place inside. The storage is if it's outside, it's hidden in back. It's clean. The roads are it's compatible. Um, and by the way, uh, I think I think everybody knows this, but developers like the Rosenf,

they don't want incompatible uses out there, they don't they turn, but you may not believe they they're not just leased to anybody. He sat on his property for a long, long time. Build it spec. If they find somebody that wants to lease that they think is going to hurt their ability to lease to other people, they're not leasing to them. You know, you come in with a whatever. So, getting back to the point, the automobile uses seem to us to be fit in with permitted uses out there should not be limited. Um, and secondly, the restaurant also fits in or was considered compatible because it was in the original ordinance said you can have a restaurant.

And I get back to my other question is why not? Because it prevents us from having an auto manufacturer come out there because we're using up too much space for a restaurant. And and again, it was in the original ordinance. It's not correct to say that when it got inadvertently listed in the back in the amendment, it indicate it indicated an intent to take it out. If it did, why didn't they take it out then? Why didn't they take it out? Nobody saw it. Nobody realized it. It's not

That's why I think if they realized it, they would take it out and the state was overlooked. Well, that's pretty easy to say. I I I would say since you were, but I was here and I don't say it's pretty consistent in the amount of text amendments I've noticed of past tax events. But again, you don't think the city would want a restaurant out there, but they court a restaurant came in, they'd be subject to the 15%. Because that is listed as well. Not now.

No, today. Yes. Today it's listed as a one of the 50% ones is restaurant and lunchrooms with or without drive-thrus including fast food as a listed use today under the allowed retail service uses. So it is still there. We're not we're cleaning up. So restaurant today they be subject to 50%. So, what Mark is saying is that if I came in and applied for a uh corabus, you know what a bonefish grant, you could do it.

No, he's saying he's saying uh it's 15% right now. That's his interpretation as a zoning administrator is that a later listed

he's gonna he's gonna say he's gonna say I mean we' probably be in court on it if it was a big enough deal but the the it is wrong my opinion and labor opinion it's all for it to state that a subsequent amendment that adds that restaurant language trumps the original language that said restaurant is permitting use. That's not correct. If you if you you can always but you can always change a zoning ordinance. I mean the there's no vesting in language. I mean

I'm not saying you can't change it. I'm saying that they're changing it by taking the restaurant out of the permitted use list. But but that's they can do it. You have the power to do it. You could take them all out. That's true. You could change this to a res.

I'm not saying that they should or should. I'm just saying the fact that the zoning ordinance changes where uses fit or are allowed or not allowed isn't like unique. That happens all the time. There's evolution of things. Some issue pops up. And you know why this got so specific years ago was there was a list. It would say uses similar to and it had a long list of things. So if it didn't fit, the zoning administrator could make an interpretation that kind of fits in there and things fell got through, you know, fell through the cracks and got into the downtown and people didn't like. So they said, "Well, we need to list it. It has to be on this list and if they want to add it, then we have to actually add it." So there was a reason why some of this stuff happened years ago. I'm not saying it's wrong.

They coral with the authority to do it. But my question is why would you why it's not why why would you exercise your legislative authority to take restaurants away from Carol County Congress or limit them? Why would you recommend adding this was your text amendment? Why did you recommend adding restaurants as one of the 15% uses oversight? I copied the counties. I copied the county's uh uh ordinance. So again oversight just like it was oversight that somebody didn't go back and use permitted by right and didn't take it out that I could say the same thing it was how long has it been redundant and in both places since it was adopted 10 15 years since it's 10 15 years since they copied the county

from the very beginning it's been no well so there was there was a date when the original planned industrial zone was adopted I don't know way back yeah way back it was here when I was here and and and then 15 years ago about this this amendment came in that that is the 50enter. Okay. So, and since then it's had the redundancy in it. Um the PI zone goes back to at least 1987 because it was in place when I came to work with so when it was adopted the let's presume that the people that adopted it wanted restaurants to be a permitted use in the Piser

thus they listed it. I think the I think the thought was Clark that a restaurant would be in support of the people that worked on the site. So if you had a building and internally to it, you had a place where people could eat, that was a good thing, but not where you're necessarily marketing it to the to the general public. I'm not saying that somebody else couldn't go there. But I think these I think that's what happened 15 years ago when it was modified. I I don't know. I'm from I think from the beginning. I'm saying in the beginning it was principle permitted. Good. And then 15 years ago they

according to marketation they are now restricted under the he made that change that wasn't here. Yeah, they didn't take it out of principle, but they put it in. So that was the question. The really question is 15 years ago. Did they want to restrict it? I can't. Was that intent? No one can answer the intent.

I'm saying so I there's here's even better. Okay. So, here's the original the original PI zone where it said where it said what you can do in that zone and it said all the uses permitted in 16453 and 16461 they're the IR and the IG uses okay the manufacturing and D except and then it lists seven it lists 10 exceptions These are the principal permits.

These are principal permitted. So all those uses you start and then you carve out the following. And the first one's the big one. All residential and retail commercial uses. Okay? They're out. So if they're listed in those two sections that are considered residential or retail, they're not in this. And then later it goes, well, let's list some other permitted uses because we've carved out those. And it says sawm mills, flour, grain mills, truck. Okay, they're out. What's in office buildings, research, experimental testing labs, etc., etc.

Um, motors, motel, restaurants, and service stations. That was considered in zone, compatible with the the uh the goals of the zone. uh works. We want them in there. That's why we're listing them specifically. Okay. Now, to to make the leap to they adopted this other section and that they must have intended to just move it take them out of the permitted use. No, that that was not the intent. It was an oversight to put them in. Uh and I wish some I would have seen it 15 years ago.

Well, yeah, me too. Um but and and and once again, you know, you're when you put them in that lit that it's it's it counts against your your retail quota, so to speak, whatever that is. Well, that's your real beef, isn't it? Well, no. Well, the beef is I'm trying to understand what your beef is. That's that's a beef and the 6,000 square feet. And and the the the other beef is the main beef is why take it away from us? We've had it. You're taking it away. Well, the 6,000 square ft, where is that coming from? I'm I'm sometimes

and all those retail and commercial uses that are listed back there, including restaurants and lunchrooms, except for daycare centers and something else are are limited to 6,000 square feet area. Okay. Got it. All right. I don't have the whole not in the principal permitted. That's the other. That's only for those in the permit in the principal permitted still. There's there's no there's no square foot limit on on in the in the principal permitted, you know, for obvious reasons. It's in the other section. Yeah. It's only for the ones that are carve out, special carveouts that are supposed to be special uh retail uses like daycare centers and Right.

All right. Any any further questions from the commission members? I want to to wrap up this phase and and close the hearing and then we can have any deliberation at that point. So any further comments any comments from staff? PI zone was actually part of the original 1979 zone always been in existence correct restaurant was not listed use back then. So and Clark might have mentioned at some point that was added to the but originally it didn't have restaurants in it. No, no, that's Mark. You can't. You're That's not true.

I'm I'm looking at the 1979 right now. What it it must have been added later because I'm looking at the original 1979 ordinance and it does not list restaurants. Well, Dean, can you tell us when it was added? It was I I don't know. So, in other words, it wasn't listed in the very beginning. Very beginning, but it was put in at some time. Yeah. And then at a later time came back and restricted it. She was later. So later, so restaurant must been add at some point. Again, I we'll find that out. But yeah, but then following that was the um but also it didn't allow any retail at all. As Clark pointed out, there was that stipulation and those retail uses.

So then to fix that, as Clark mentioned, there was a text amendment that allowed retail uses, but limited how much to 50%. Now granted, whether that's correct or should be updated now, I I agree that

it should be taken, put a line through the restaurant lunchrooms would be would fix it. Just put a line through the restaurant lunchrooms, take the line off of the restaurants in the permitted use, and we're done. We've we've create we've we've solved the redundancy and it's a permitted use. Um, and by the by what you just said, I think is more uh support for my argument that there couldn't have been int. They added restaurants. Somebody he thinks, namely the Baron Castle, specifically added restaurants at some point to this zone as permitted use. Then later they adopted this but

and specifically allowed restaurants as one of the 15%. But didn't there was that intent but didn't take it out of the if there would have been an intent to take it out they would have taken it out. Yeah. You would have think you would you would assume you would have here you did that here

but but when you look at it it starts off with motor ends. The restaurant is hidden in the string of uses. It does it's not this is our restaurant. So I think there's a good likelihood that somebody went down that permitted use didn't see our restaurant. They saw motor in motor lodge, restaurants and something else that it was missed and passed over when the tax should have been stricken back then because again there was a clear intent to place restaurants as allowed use under the 15% rule. But there was a clear intent to allow restaurants in the very beginning when they changed it. You have two instances,

but you have to go to the most rec I would say you go the most recent text amendment and act by American county council which was to add it to the 50% and again you can't have conflicting uses the more restrictive would apply and that's I'm not saying yet I'm not saying that I understand that I understand that but well then I think it would be easier to leave the restaurant in the permitted uses and strike it out from There would be an opportunity at this time to reverse that and make it correct permitted at this that this would be the time to discuss it. Yeah, definitely.

All right. So, this is a public hearing part. I want to, you know, close the hearing and then we can have a deliberation of what we'd like to do. Okay. So without objection, this point we'll close the public hearing and uh and we can deliberate this issue and decide what we want to do, what we want to recommend.

I'll start with you, Jay. You're on my far left. Believe me, I'm not on the farm. Um to me in a plain industrial park I don't see restaurants being initi being in that specifically since now I understand that it wasn't there in the very beginning then it was specifically inserted and then at a later date they decided to restrict I'm one I don't necessarily like restricting things. Um I think the restaurant should be um taken out of the restricted use and put back in as a principal. Now I'm not saying you maybe we put a limit on the size of the restaurant. You don't want a 20,000 square foot restaurant out there, believe me. But most restaurants nowadays has Outback and the rest of them are probably around around the five to 6,000 square feet size. Um or maybe a little larger maybe maybe 8,000 square feet. I've known some of restaurants I've been to, but I I don't in a planned industrial park that to me that adds to the attract the attraction of other businesses wanting to come there because there's something there to help serve its employees

and and it's to me it's an attraction to to come to that by having something like that there. myself uh I would like to see the restaurant stricken from the restricted use and left in as a principal use. So the so you're saying it should be allowed it shouldn't count this should not be counted against the 15. Now I can understand service station um convenience store or something like that. That's that's not something that's but a restaurant to me doesn't fit that. You think it could get to a point where where a limitation would still make sense rather than I don't know if you have five restaurants. Well, you're not.

You know how they they follow each other. No, sometimes they do. That's true. I think they limit themselves by how many would be there. I mean, they come in, they evaluate how many how many there are and they and the population in the area space already. Royal Farm's got the that site. because they have the trunkage right there. Well, they got they're all together like that. But, um, my opinion, the way I would like to see things is they're not much that big of a restaurant. I'm saying you see the but the comment was made about outback. You see that's kind of like that's that's

that's normal. That's a normal to me. It's that's a normal size restaurant. But one of these chains. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I've seen now I will say I've seen bigger outbacks and stuff like that, but then again, they take into account everything. I mean, population in the area, can it

can it support a 20,000 square foot outback? No. This area couldn't do that. But something of that size, it could easily. And it is. really don't see as much different than things that we've done at the air business center where a bounce me place or a trampoline place wanted to go in and we had to tweak things to allow use and we knew I I would always say well you know we're giving up industrial land when we do that but it was also well's got to rent his spaces you know what I mean they got to get the uh I think the income out of it and the things that are available

I think when you think when you think industrial you're automatically going to this manufacturing and and we had some of those in the past. The magnet was ERA. We're actually making car stuff, but I guess because of our location and you know, we don't have the best access here. Some of those things they're not going to come here. Well, that's what I was saying. I think that's why we opened up the other things and I guess it really wouldn't be, you know, a problem to open business up either because It's the same type of

thing. Not a question. Um I was just looking up for conversation purposes what the outback the square footage of the outback is in Westminster Station and it's 4,936. [Music] So that's what you see. But that 6,000 would go against the 15% for the Yeah. of the entire area of the entire just wanted to give you a square footage of you know in your mind when you're talking about how that's about what I thought it was. Yeah. Is a restaurant a restaurant a restaurant or are there any specifications on restaurants like No. Is there a carry out restaurant specifically or is there a full service restaurant or restaurant?

Restaurant to restaurant. But in this case, it does get more specific in the PI zone where it does list it as including fast food. I believe I'm asking because I worked at General Dynamics for 5 years when they first opened. I was um part of their hospitality team because they've brought in people from outside and one of the resounding problems was for the the guys on the manufacturing side was there was no place to eat. That's right. Right there. They ate at Tina's Deli because Tina's Deli was the only thing there and they across the street there by the social security office. Yes. We kept Tina's Deli in business. Yeah. There was no place

and the kitchen that was inside of there was basically vending machines. Got it. So, so I mean that's my opinion. That's my opinion. How about you? I think restaurant should be a permitted use. I think they need food out there for those people. And again, it is a permitted use, right? Just But it's not. It seems like the consensus is it should be allowed, which even you don't disagree with. The question is, should it be restricted? should be restricted and I think the feeling is probably not.

Yeah, because because that's what the D business zone is for which we have planning 140. This is an industrial zone. I think it's getting like I say I mean we have plenty we have zoning districts specifically for restaurants. So you're going to have 20. So you're going to have a west station. The intent of playing is not proliferated by restaurants to buy right articulate the public harm the harm restaurant this is right this is this is our our time to deliberate this issue I think you still have to have food for these people okay

I mean and I have no objections to putting a size limitation to a restaurant in the land indust industrial 6,000 square foot restaurant. That's the size of an outback. Most the other restaurants of that type, that's generally close to the size. I don't have a problem of adding that 6,000 square foot restriction to the use in the principal. I just don't think it should be counted as part of the 15% limiting because then you have one restaurant and it just limits everything else. That's that's I would say I would amend myself to say yeah leave it as a principal use. Put a restriction in the principal use of 6,000 foot restaurant. Remove it from the restricted area of part of the 15% of the hole.

Have more than one. It's acreage. It's not square. It's not 15%. It's 50% of the acreage. If you have 100 acres acres can be these type of well even even understand that I I still think like I say which is quite substantial when you No I'm not I'm not that I'm not saying but I saying like I say I how do we get the 6,000 square feet that

that was added at the same time text amendment it was um let's see the size of any individual retail or commercial use may not exceed a maximum 6,000 ft except for daycare centers and health gloves which may not square that's probably not going to restrict the restaurant anyhow.

Exactly. Today's restaurants are the six and below and then the area of a canopy over gasoline pumps it was limited to size as well. I think you could fix it if if that if you in this 164-66 help me here if you left restaurant in what page I'm talking about 137

leave restaurant in and you you take it out of the other you you you you remove it from the other other part from from uh on page 14. I mean sadly we don't have the entire list here so it makes it a little bit difficult for me to follow. Sometimes I'm sounding stupid because I don't have everything before me but I really don't have a problem with with the restaurant use. I might have problem with some retail uses, but I really don't have a problem with a restaurant use. Yeah, I I could agree with that. I really don't.

Yeah, because the intent is not to be a retail center out there. And I totally agree. And it's not a retail center. It has a restaurant. developer hasn't he's all I remember this guy from the beginning when he first came in and he was always he really wanted a top end project how it looked and uh he was very particular if he if he hasn't changed he's a very particular guy what he wants and um you know I think that how that's going out there has done pretty Well, you're saying if we write if we leave restaurants in this, this would be principal for Yes.

But it would still be limited to 6,000 when we when it's here. No, it wouldn't be limited. I mean, I would say put a limit on it. I mean, I don't have a problem with that. Well, it would be if you if you left it in right now, the size of a restaurant couldn't exceed 6,000 square feet, but then the size of a any retail facility could be 6,000 square feet. That restrictions there. I think the restriction's already there. Not arguing that number. No, I don't think the restriction's only there in that we want to move it to the principal permitted use category without the restriction. Is that section 13? Uh that is uh where do you take it out? Uh page 13.

Page 13. Yeah. Just take the strike out of the word restaurants there. I understand that one. That's what I'm saying. That means you could do any size restaurant you want. Now, you know, you mean you could do multiple restaurants as well. Yeah, you could do multiple restaurants. You could do multiple.

You could and but you could. Yeah. So, what um and you know, is that an evil? Uh and first of all, it's not going to happen because they don't want they want the visibility, but whatever. Um, but I'm worried about the 6,000 limit because we can't predict. We're not smart enough to predict the market. And now if you don't want to maybe 10,000, I'm doing a there's another restaurant I know that's a chain and most of the stuff's chain these. Although, you know, you might get a Vietnamese, you know, might get something that might be 6,000. But anyway, they want 180 seats in each place. you know, you hear that and I think that's more success. But anyway, uh we think that the leaving it in it's not a I mean it it's not a problem and it's not going to be a problem. And not only that, it's going to be a plus to the community if it if if we're if we're lucky enough to get a restaurant that will come out there and pay the rate. And again, we bought my clients bought and developed with restaurant as permitting use listed in there.

But that doesn't mean we can change and right in the mean. Well, but it didn't get changed. It got modified in according to him. Uh but you you agree and admit that legally we can make that change if we wanted to do it. I totally agree that that's shaper. All right. I got this issue. Stop pointing the finger at me, Clark. This was your doing. Well, so well, I think some of this pre the writing of this I think predates Mark. I don't think Mark was here with this role for me. But I don't know the reasoning in 2013 because even I wasn't here. So I can't speak to that.

I I was here and I was a notable site. It wasn't even thought about. What was thought about was the uses or general retail. What is that what you're saying? That's right. That's what I'm saying. That's right. Yeah. Okay. All right. So, let's let's I copied the county's orders. Have we have we beat this dead horse? The only question I'm getting a feeling of the 6,000. Do we want to to limit the total rest a restaurant to any of the 6,000 stuff or just level? I would not limit it. I

Okay. Okay. I think I don't think practically speaking we're not going to limit that then it can go back in 13 that's what I would do. All right. So what's the pleasure of permission? I'd like to motion modify the proposed because that would that be the correct no to to leave to leave restaurant in as a principal use and take it out of the um restricted passenger. All right. So there's a there's a motion to

to leave restaurants in as a principal use and and strike it as a as a uh restricted use out of the restricted use category. And would there I don't know I don't know if you can make a motion but we haven't voted on first. Right. So we have a motion at second. Are there any any further questions or any clarification commission members need on what they'd be voting on? Okay. My question is, is the commission otherwise recommending approval of all of the all the languages? Yes. Second. Okay. All right. Just breaking the second motion. All right. What about Aren't you going to talk about the auto detailing next

and taking it out of the uh restricted category?

Forgot about me. The the second request we had was to take it out and make it a principal. make it he's right. It's a take it out of the restricted category. We can't call it principal because he he's probably correct that it is a permitted use but to put it in the permitted uses instead of in the restricted category auto detailing and the others again like a machine shop it be might be next door to a machine shop who knows. Why would you want to restrict it? Which law on our first motion, please? Yes. When we vote on the first amendment,

right? First, which is one that's would u would leave the leave restaurant in as a as a a principal use and then they they would also remove it from the restricted category. Right. All in favor say I. I oppose. No. Now the uh the other thing we were considering is the auto detailing shops and the auto repair and service shops minor. So page 14 is where it's been put in but I don't know if it came from anywhere else. Did it did it remove itself from somewhere else?

If it did, it would have to be in this ordinance. All right. Um, in this category 13 approved, I make a second motion. Yeah. Okay. I'd like to make a motion that automobile detailing shops, automobile repair and service shops minor be put in a principal use, not as a special exception.

Second. Okay. Motion been made and seconded to put the auto detailing shops, automobile repair, service shops, minor in the principal use category, not restricted, and remove it from the from where it shows in this proposed ordinance. Correct. Under the restricted category. Okay. Is there any question on that? No, because because we're doing that that's again that's eating into that fish, right? I got it, right? Yeah. All right. So, all in favor of the second amendment,

I all oppose. The eyes have it. Okay. Now, the question here is the remainder of the ordinance. Do we have any issue with that? Can I make a move she seat? Yeah. Uh I'd like to make a motion uh that we present uh for the remainder of the ordinance if we've modified it with the changes in city council. Okay. So the recommendation is with the to recommend ordinance 2025-01 to the mayor and council with the two amendments that we approved. Is there a second to that motion? Second.

Motion been made and seconded. Any questions? All in favor say I. I. Oppos? No. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you for hearing us. Appreciate it. Okay. Next item is a sign permit for Baltimore Boulevard DJI Creative. So this is for a property or a building I'm sorry for western certation fees too. Uh it's for David Ross Orthodontic open the Oh okay.

Um we're administratively we're allowed to pro approve u signs that are no greater than 64 square feet but the planning commission has the ability for 64 up 125 square feet. So that's why we're here today. Um this one is a 77.7 school. And so um it is this picture on page three of your staff report. It talks about in your staff report too that the commission shall take into consideration the following factors. Safety, size, configuration, elevation, and the location of the property. And so um the existing signs on the property neighboring property and any other facts are related to the location sign or design. Um they said that no sign shall be approved if the commission finds that it will not achieve a maximum of compatibility, safety, efficiency as well as attractiveness. The proposed David Ross sign is a building mountain sign and the zoning the zoning administrator finds that there's no traffic or pedestrian safety concerns. Um our we our recommendation is that um the commission consider the approval of the sign permit 1988 to allow the building mounted side for 77.7 square ft of this stuff. Yes, for uh for the David orthodontic signs that was very quick but in the back we do have a much larger picture as well if you have any question. I mean, I think it's consistent with the that was my comments that signs in there. The

not the overall size, but the letter size seems to be consistent with, you know, other ones in the area. So, I I I would recommend that we we had approve it. This commission did approve also a little bit of a bigger sign for Honey, which is just a couple of storefronts down, but other than that, it does it is consistent with the same size, the same signs that are already up. All right. So, the motion's been made to approve sign permit application 1988 to allow a building mounted sign of 77.7 square ft for David Ross at 225 Baltimore Boulevard. Is there a second to that motion? I second it.

Has been made and seconded to approve the sign permit. All in favor say I. I. Oppos? No. The eyes have it. Okay. So what a resource group. Great. Yeah, we can uh can we uh take a short recess and say five minutes? If you hold on just a moment, I will leave this. Just hold on one second. It's great.

All right, now we're back. Okay, Miss Ghard, go forward.

Yeah, thank you. Um, so I'm here today just to talk a little bit about the water resources element. Uh this is a countywide document that is prepared. It is an element of the overall county master plan. Um the some of the purposes is that the fact that it um it's to evaluate the water supply, wastewater, and storm water to ensure that what is projected matches what's available and what will be available in the future. The water and store master plan only should have a 10-year focus while the water resource element has a much longer range that we can look at. that water and sewer master plan requires you to have projects that are specifically linked to your capacity and this does not. So you can look as far out as you want as far as long range plans are concerned. So what you'll see in front of you is a different two different documents. One is a countywide document to explain about it and then um this is also our city specific ones. We talk about our key water issues. If you look at the Westminster one, our key water issues really is pure water. That's what we're focusing on right now is to how to increase um what we need what how we're going to meet our buildout demand is very pure water and how that program moves forward.

That's a reclamation project. Yes.

Okay. Got it. And so um also it we talk here also on you know that eventually the idea would be to expand the cranberry waste water I mean the water treatment plant to accommodate that additional treatment. So once pure water goes through everything is moving smoothly before there could be that additional step to possibly increase that program even more. We would need to do some sort of expansion to the water treatment plant first. So that that talks about kind of like our key items here. Also talking about as far as wastewater goes, um talking about um an expansion eventually would be in order for pure water also to get to that maximum that it could ever be. A wastewater treatment plant upgrade would also probably need to be done in some capacity to allow it to reach there.

Well, when they finish this current work at the wastewater plant, what will be the capacity of the plant then at five? So, we're doing a lot of INI projects. the infill infiltration infill and what oh my inflow and infiltration I'm sorry projects that um is allowing us to to technically treat more so we're not necessarily doing a lot of capacity upgrades as far as we're doing ENR which allows to treat more and better um but we can get you that answer I'm just not entirely sure because I don't know that there is actual capacity being added

in theor theor what what they're doing is they're eliminating the ground water that seeps into the pipes with then has to be treated by taking that out. You're not have you don't have to treat as much with the plane. Well, and it gives you the ability to treat a lot more. Got it. By treating it's you know doing a lot more you're treating a real flow and not not ground water that's seeping. Okay. All right. All right. But any any new new things that are starting treatment plant now some of those are related to pure water. Um well not for waste water but at like for the water reclamation center. Yes. Everything there is that would be cranberry. Yeah. Okay. Not not at the Okay.

So um storm water is we have it contracted through the county so it's not exactly relevant to us but we are any type that anytime they have specific rules that they want to move forward with we are on board with that.

Okay. Um some of the things that are important to note when you look at our yellow light on the graph um on this app is that these this information is for planning purposes only. Right? So it is part of a Maryland Department of Planning document um and not necessarily Maryland Department of the Environment u document and they're the more regulatory agency as far as you know what we can do with our water and sewer. this being um part of they do use the Maryland Department of the Environment's methodology though to talk about capacity unit demand but they if it seems as if they are required to use the same methodology countywide. So one of the big differences here and you can see it on here too is that um they're using 250 gallons per household for residential when we have proven to mte time and time again that we're at 235. So that also when you look over you know however many units they propose it really does add up as to why it is considered to be higher.

Also if you see it being circle two you'll see that um doesn't take into account that water reclamation pure water project which would at first add 500,000 gallons to our capacity. So that doesn't take into consideration at all. that would make it come down to 162,619. Um, as Mark has also brought up before and in different circumstances too that the additional 10% added for the drought demand is I would consider it to be a little excessive too when I'm looking at our numbers. Um, but anyway, this is this is for planning purposes. Um they they said here that the buildout demand was based on the 2023 water service area and the sewer service area including long range areas and they took into account zoning of 2022. One of the things that's really interesting about a document like this is that you need three years of of consecutive data. Um sometimes it takes a while to get that data. So data that you're looking into is uh like older than you would think. So, um, a lot of, so I think this is considered the 2024 water resources element and in 2020 mid 2025, it's just going to 60-day review. So, it probably won't be adopted till like a 2026 time period. So, you can tell how old some of the information is. It's just kind of kind of funny. Um,

one question on the droughts demand. Don't we have the the uh Corey thing set up to solve the drought demand? But they they still would count against you. I mean, they don't add that in the fact that it would offset the drought demand. No, they they have it in there as projects, you know, like that's something that exists and then like future possibilities of things that we could also do for drought, but no, they because they have it seems like they have to do everything for everybody the same. So, they're taking into that 10%. They don't give you Yeah, they don't give you credit for it, but you can't use it unless it's a drought. Exactly. But then when there's a drought, they don't count. We know it's there, but they're not telling it's there. Okay, I got this.

In the cure water system itself is a drought uh element mitigation. Yeah. Again, so because you're reducing water, you're using and so yeah. So again, it's questionable some but technically the drought allows you to use the chlor. Yes. Because you can't use otherwise. pure water you you're going to be able to use whether it's a drought at night.

One of the things also I wanted to point out that I think is important when I said that this is an American department planning document. Um when I was at the county in 2010, we were doing the water resource element and we it was the I was instructed to make the water resource element match like the document for the water mastery plan. One is by Maryland Department of Planning, one's by Maryland Department of the Environment and they were like apples and oranges. they were nowhere. The data that one is asking for the other is not asking for. So it is it's it's its own animal and I think that um

it it's planning document that that's what it is. Um but wanted to also say that um our our action items for sewer is that we're going to continue to do the um infill I'm sorry inflow and trash and inflow. What is with me? I can't say those words. But yeah, we'll be um that's our our mitigation efforts for that. So, we do have a very small additional capacity that's needed and the idea is that we would keep moving forward um with that. Okay.

So, the uh the role we're asking tonight is that um and it might be a letter or something that the county gives to me to ask for you to sign on behalf of the planning commission that gives the county the ability to move forward with their 60-day read. That is what I am asking for tonight. Everybody's looking at me. Sounds good. Yeah, I'll make a motion. And what should the motion be? Motion to authorize the What do you want the motion to do? Um that the PL commission gives the um gives their approval for the county to move forward with the 6A review. Okay, that would be my mission. Okay. All right. Water resources out.

I second it. All right. Motion been made and seconded to allow the chairman to sign a letter that would allow the county to move forward with their 60-day review. Any questions? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I oppose. No. Okay. All right. Last item. Cal County Le on. Not not last. Cal on the I have their um it's a short report, right? Yeah. Okay. Great.

Yeah. I don't uh really just to say that the county is continuing to move forward with their master plan. Um work groups have been established. We are still moving forward with everything. Um there's some text amendments also that are currently moving forward for revisions to the employment campus district adequate public facilities and the solar development requirements. Those are I think the only thing on this list that is relevant and if that that's even not really. All right. Um the other Oh, I'm sorry. I have something for other comments when you get that.

Okay. So, the county reports finished and planning commission member comments hearing none. Andrea. So, we've received some updated availability dates for um our coordination with Carol County Planning Commission. Okay. Um so, I'm going to save this here tonight hopefully if you don't mind to check your calendars and I'll send an email tomorrow with these dates as well. All right. Um so, it's either an evening meeting on August 6, a daytime um a 9:00 a.m. meeting on August 19th. Okay. August 86. August 6 at when? 6 p.m. 6 p.m. August 19th. What day?

What day is the I will not be available on the 19th. So uh this August 6th is a Wednesday. Okay. Okay. August 19th is a Tuesday. I will not be I will not be here. Okay. At when uh with the that was at 9:00 a.m. Okay. You have Wednesday, September 3rd at 6 PM. Wednesday. You have Wednesday, September 3rd at 6 PM. Labor Day is early, right? That's that's the day before. Yeah. Or a couple days. Day before days. Okay. And then you have Tuesday, September 16th at 9:00 a.m.

Tuesday 9:16 at 9. So just as what we had previously talked about, we'd like to set a date. Um, so I was thinking maybe one of the September dates might be the best one. So it gives us time also to meet as a commission to decide, you know, what information we want to share and how we want to present it. But you agree? Yeah, we we put I started putting together a PowerPoint that ultimately want to pick a date. I'll get that out to the planning commissioner so then we can start game planning how they want to speak and or if there's anything else you want to add to that.

What Yeah. What is it they want us to uh they want us to talk about the environments between the city and the county or they want us to what are they I I think I think it's that how the city and county could work together um and it's maybe updated what what's happening in the city. Okay.

We're going to have to have kind of like a script. Yeah, that's again we put together a PowerPoint and I think it kind of sectioned out and maybe we can talk about you know maybe Tom does talks about one element and then somebody else you know just go through those type of things and yeah that's that's how I I kind of envision it and it seemed like it was just a good back and forth open discussion when we looked at some of the other uh municipalities that went Okay. So, they they were asking question. I'm sure they'll ask questions about water and sewer, about pure water, things like that. So,

yeah, I'll send out these dates tomorrow, too. But, um, just wanted to start thinking about, you know, what what would work for you. Most of them were bad for me, but the last one in September is good. But, yeah, that works. I mean, the September dates, the last one, the first Yeah, there's probably won't be here, but Yeah. and the early one in August. Probably too early. Yeah, I think I'll follow up with you. Yeah, just I'm just throwing it out. All right. Any any further comments?

Mr. Chair, moment of indulgence, I just want to let the commission know that tonight will be my last night with you here. Um I am moving out of state at the end of the month, so you won't see me at future meetings. But where are you going to? Uh I'm headed to North Carolina. What part? uh the Raleigh Durham area. Oh, wow. Nice. Yeah. But I just wanted to tell you how much I've enjoyed working with you and I'm sure you'll be in good hands moving forward. There'll be someone else with my perk will be here. Well, I'm we're really sorry to see you leave. You know, you're you're quiet, but you know, when you have something that that's important for us to know, you you let us know. You try to do it right. I appreciate that.

All right. Well, um anything else? No. Okay, make a motion we adjourn. Motion been made. Second, seconded to adjurnn. All in favor say I. No, the eyes have it.