>> A STORAGE FACILITIES FOR THIS MATERIAL.
[00:00:03]
WE HAVE NOT BEEN APPROACHED AS A LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO APPROVE ANY FACILITIES FOR REPURPOSING.[Planning Commission Review and Comment on Proposed Resolutions:]
THIS WAS TOTALLY GOING ON WITHOUT ANY KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT OR PERMITTING BY THE COUNTY AT ALL.MOST OF THESE STRUCTURES WERE REPURPOSED.
LIVESTOCK MENOR PITS, SOME WERE PREVIOUSLY INSPECTED BY SOIL CONSERVATION THROUGH COST SHARE PROGRAMS WITH NRCS, SOME WERE NOT.
ONE IN PARTICULAR WAS BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT, WITHOUT EVEN APPROACHING FOR NRCS, SOIL CONSERVATION, OR THE COUNTY FOR A PERMIT.
THE GOAL OF THIS IS TO GIVE US TIME TO ANALYZE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, TO DETERMINE IS IT SAFE FOR THESE STRUCTURES TO BE REPURPOSED.
DOES IT FIT WITHIN THE PLANS THAT LESLIE JUST POINTED OUT? THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL RESOLUTION AND THUS THIS EXTENSION REQUEST AT THIS TIME. I MISS ANYTHING.
>> ALL OF THESE RESOLUTIONS, WE LOOKED AT THEM THROUGH THAT. ALL THESE.
BECAUSE THEY ALL ADDRESS SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
>> YES. THE GOAL TO DO THEM INDIVIDUALLY WAS SO THAT THEY WOULD STAND ON THEIR OWN SHOULD WE HAVE TO DEFEND.
IT'S MUCH SIMPLER. IT SEEMS CONVOLUTE, BUT YOU PUT ALL OF THIS INTO ONE DOCUMENT, IT'S REALLY GOING TO OVERWHELM YOU.
AT LEAST THIS WAY YOU CAN BREAK IT UP INTO INDIVIDUAL ISSUES THAT HAVE ARISEN AND WE CAN ANALYZE THEM INDIVIDUALLY AGAINST OUR PLANS.
>> IF YOU ARE ABLE TO RESOLVE ONE OF THEM, THEN YOU'RE NOT HAVING TO GO BACK AND AMEND THE ORIGINAL ONE AGAIN TO DO THAT.
>> IF IT JUST EXPIRE AND YOU GOT IT RIGHT.
>> THE EXTENSION OF 60 DAYS, WHAT IS THAT DOING FOR US AND WHAT ARE WE DOING WITH IT?
>> THE RESOLUTION 2024-007 WILL THEN OVERLAP THIS ONE, SO IT'S GIVEN TIME, IT'S JUST EXTENDING THE EXISTING ONE UNTIL THE NEW ONE CAN OVERLAP AND TAKE THE PRESENT.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT WHAT ARE WE DOING IN THAT ADDITIONAL SIX DAY PERIOD?
[• Resolution 2024-003 DAF Moratorium Extension]
HOW ARE WE GOING ABOUT TRYING TO DO?>> I ACTUALLY MADE A PHONE CALL TO A CHICKEN COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE TODAY.
I'M TRYING TO SET UP A MEETING WHERE WE COULD GO AND DO SOME FURTHER RESEARCH ON WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY DEALING WITH HERE, WHAT PRODUCT IS BEING BROUGHT IN? WE STILL HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO GET TO THE BOTTOM EXACTLY OF WHAT'S BEING HAULED IN.
I THINK WE'LL START THERE AND THEN WE'LL EXPLORE WITH MDA AND MDE, WHAT REGULATIONS SHOULD BE PUT IN PLACE TO VERIFY THAT THESE STRUCTURES ARE SOUND AND SAFE TO HOLD THIS MATERIAL AND DISTANCES THAT THEY SHOULD BE AWAY FROM NEIGHBORS.
WE'RE RELYING ON PUBLIC TESTIMONY AT THIS POINT.
THIS TIME OF YEAR, YOU DON'T GET A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF SMELL, SO I THINK WE NEED TO ALSO DO RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTS IT HAS ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE NEIGHBORHOODS IN WHICH THEY ARE PLACED.
>> ARE THERE ANY PERMITS REQUIRED TO HOLD THIS STUFF DOWN THE ROAD FROM WHERE IT'S LEAVING TO WHERE IT'S GETTING TO?
>> NO. BASICALLY, RIGHT NOW, THE GENERATION OF THIS PRODUCT, AS BEST THAT I CAN TELL, IS ONLY REGULATED BY OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS THROUGH MOST OR IF IT'S IN DELAWARE OSHA FEDERAL OCEAN.
BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A STATE PROGRAM AS YOU'RE WELL AWARE, SO DEGENERATION IS TOTALLY JUST REGULATED THROUGH THAT OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION REGULATION.
ANY ILLEGAL DISCHARGE OF THIS MATERIAL OR EITHER THROUGH ACCIDENT OR ON PURPOSE WOULD BE REGULATED IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND BY MDE, I'M ASSUMING IN DELAWARE BY DNREC.
THE DISPOSAL OF THIS MATERIAL, THIS IS WHERE IT GETS A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED.
THE DISPOSAL OF THE MATERIAL IF IT GOES TO A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OR A LANDFILL WOULD BE REGULATED BY MDE.
[00:05:02]
IF IT GOES TO A TEMPORARY STORAGE FACILITY LIKE THIS, WITH THE END GOAL OF IT BEING APPLIED ON TO AGRICULTURAL LAND.APPARENTLY, THERE IS NO REGULATION AS LONG AS IT'S CONTAINED AND NOT SPILLED, MDE NOR MDA GET INVOLVED.
MDA ULTIMATELY GETS INVOLVED ONLY THROUGH THE NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEN THE PRODUCT IS APPLIED.
WHAT'S HAPPENED IS THERE'S A HUGE GAPING HOLE IN STORAGE WHERE IT'S UNREGULATED.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PUT THE MORATORIUM ON SO THAT WE CAN GENERATE LOCAL REGULATIONS TO FILL THAT HOLE.
>> THEY'RE CURRENTLY JUST FILLING A HOLE? DIGGING A HOLE IN THE GROUND.
>> BEST WE CAN TELL, THEY GOT ON GOOGLE EARTH INITIALLY AND LOOKED FOR OLD MENOR PITS AND THEN APPROACHED THOSE LANDOWNERS. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THERE'S A HOLE IN THE GROUND?
>> IN MANY CASES, THOSE PITS WERE COST SHARED THROUGH NRCS, SO A LOT OF THEM WERE BUILT 60, 50, 40 YEARS AGO.
DAIRY, AS WE ALL KNOW, HAS BEEN RUN OUT OF THE EASTERN SHORE FOR WHATEVER REASON. I DON'T KNOW.
I HEAR DIFFERENT STORIES ABOUT WHY WE LOST ALL OF OUR DAIRY OPERATIONS OR MOST OF THEM.
THERE'S STILL A FEW HANGING AROUND, BUT MOST OF IT HAS GONE THERE.
ONE PERSON JUST CAME IN AND BUILT THIS STRUCTURE, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE INTENT WAS, BUT THIS STUFF'S BEING PUT IN IT.
>> HOW MANY SITES ARE WE TALKING ABOUT IN THE COUNTY DO WE KNOW?
IT WAS TWO, I THINK TWO THAT I HAVE VERBAL CONFIRMATION OF AT THIS TIME.
THERE'S PROBABLY AT LEAST ONE OTHER THAT THERE'S SPECULATION STORAGE MAY BE HAPPENING, BUT WE DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE.
ANOTHER THING THAT I'M TRYING TO LOOK INTO IS WHY IS THIS A RECENT DEVELOPMENT? WHY IS THIS ALL OF A SUDDEN HAPPENING NOW? HAS IT BEEN GOING ON AND IT'S BEING STORED IN SUCH A MANNER WHERE IT WASN'T CAUSING ANY NEGATIVE IMPACT TO COMMUNITY MEMBERS FOR YEARS, AND IT'S JUST RECENTLY GOTTEN THIS WAY.
OR IS IT BECAUSE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS HAVE GOTTEN MORE STRICT AND THEY'RE GENERATING MORE OF THIS MATERIAL BECAUSE MDE WON'T LET THEM DISCHARGE IT ANYMORE INTO THE RIVERS.
IS THAT WHY THERE'S MORE OF THIS STUFF.
ARE THEY PROCESSING MORE CHICKENS? IS THAT WHAT IS CALLED? THERE'S A WHOLE HOST OF THINGS.
IF ANYBODY DOES KNOW, THEY HAVEN'T COME FORTH AND PRESENTED US WITH THAT INFORMATION YET.
I THINK IT'S GOING TO TAKE LONGER THAN 60 DAYS, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE ROLLING IT INTO THE NEXT ONE.
BUT IT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME FOR US TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS.
FRANKLY, IF THE INDUSTRY WOULD COME FORWARD AND EXPLAIN THIS TO US, IT WOULD SPEED TO PROCESS UP, I THINK.
PART OF IT IS US NOT GETTING AROUND TO IT YET BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS STUFF AND WE HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO SET UP THOSE MEETINGS.
BUT I'M CURIOUS TO SEE HOW OPEN THE CONVERSATIONS ARE.
>> THE REASON FOR THE 60 DAYS IS TO COVER THE GAP BECAUSE THE CURRENT MORATORIUM WILL EXPIRE FEBRUARY 19TH, AND THE RESOLUTION 2024-007 WOULD BE THE NEW MORATORIUM THAT WOULD GO UNTIL NOVEMBER 1ST.
BUT IF THAT IS ADOPTED AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING, IT WON'T BECOME EFFECTIVE UNTIL MARCH 8TH, SO THIS 60 DAYS WOULD COVER THAT GAP.
>> FROM THE 19TH TO THE 8TH, THEY COULD HOLD WHATEVER THEY WANTED.
>> START WHEN WE GET TO 007, CAN EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CHANGES BETWEEN THIS RESOLUTION AND 007.
>> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE EXTENSION OF THE CURRENT MORATORIUM?
>> I THINK WE'RE GOING FOR A MOTION.
>> YEAH. DO WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THESE INDIVIDUALLY?
I WOULD ASK YOU TO ALSO CONSIDER RECOMMENDING TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THAT NOT ONLY IS THIS
[00:10:02]
CONSISTENT WITH ALL OF OUR COUNTY PLANS IN EXISTENCE, BUT ALSO THAT YOU WOULD RECOMMEND TO THE COMMISSIONERS CONSIDERATION OF AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AND EMERGENCY LEGISLATIVE BILL THAT WOULD MATCH THIS RESOLUTION OF MORATORIUM.THE REASON FOR THAT EXTRA RECOMMENDATION IS BECAUSE WE ARE CONSIDERING EMERGENCY ORDINANCES ON EACH OF THESE SUBJECTS AS AN ADDITIONAL WAY TO INSULATE.
>> DOES THAT JUST PUT IT INTO PLACE QUICKER OR JUST SPEED THE PROCESS UP?
>> ARE YOU RECOMMENDING THAT FOR EACH ONE OF THEM?
>> OKAY. THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE FOR THE EXTENSION.
THEY'RE JUST VOTING TO. [OVERLAPPING]
>> EXTENSION HAS ALREADY BEEN ENACTED BY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
WHAT YOU'RE IN EFFECT SAYING AFTER THE FACT IS THAT THE ENACTMENT OF THAT RESOLUTION WAS CONSISTENT WITH ALL.
>> BUT IT'S THE OTHER ONES THAT WE WANT, THE EMERGENCY CODE.
THEY'VE ALREADY DID THIS ONE. YOU'VE ALREADY PASSED.
>> YOU ALREADY DID THE 60 DAY.
>> WE DID VOTE ON THAT ALREADY?
>> HOW DOES AN EMERGENCY [OVERLAPPING].
>> I DON'T KNOW, THERE'S SO MANY OF THESE THINGS THAT ARE INVOLVED.
>> AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE BECOMES EFFECTIVE MUCH MORE QUICKLY THAN A NORMAL LEGISLATIVE BILL.
>> HOW IS THAT BILL GENERATED? HOW IS THE EMERGENCY ORDINANCE GENERATED?
>> THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSIONERS WOULD, THROUGH STAFF, GENERATE AND GO THROUGH AS AN ABBREVIATED LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.
>> I THINK WHAT YOU'RE ASKING, WAS IT ELIMINATED? WAS IT CUT OUT? HOW DO YOU SPEED IT UP WHEN YOU JUST CUT OUT?
>> NUMBER OF DAYS YOU HAVE TO WAIT BEFORE THE ACT BECOMES EFFECTIVE.
>> RIGHT NOW IT'S 10 DAYS FROM THE VOTE TO ENACT.
>> THAT'S A DIFFERENT PROCEDURE.
WE'RE DOING MULTIPLE APPROACHES BY DESIGN.
>> YOU'RE REQUESTING THAT FOR THE AMENDED DAF MORATORIUM AND THE OTHER THREE NEW RESOLUTIONS?
>> I'LL BE HAPPY TO HELP LOOK AT WHERE IT'S GOING TO GO OUT FROM THE CHAIR.
>> WELL, AS LONG AS YOU'RE HAPPY TO HELP US MAKE THIS RECOMMENDATION.
>> IS THAT COMPLETELY GENERATED BY THE COMMISSIONERS?
>> THEN THEY VOTE ON THAT TO PUT IT INTO LAW?
>> AFTER THEY GENERATE THE BILL, THEY COME UP WITH THE LETTER OF WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO GET ACROSS.
IS IT THE COMMISSIONERS THAT VOTE ON THAT OR DOES THAT COME BACK TO THIS BOARD?
>> BY MAKING YOUR RECOMMENDATION AT THIS STAGE, IT WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY TO COME BACK TO YOU.
THE SUBSTANCE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IN EACH OF THESE MORATORIUM RESOLUTIONS IS THAT IT'S TOTALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE COUNTY PLANS.
WE RECOMMEND THE COUNTY TO GO FORWARD WITH THE MORATORIUM, AND WOULD ALSO RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNTY CONSIDER EMERGENCY ORDINANCES, EMERGENCY LEGISLATIVE BILLS SO THE MISSION IS ACCOMPLISHED IN MORE THAN ONE WAY.
AGAIN, THE PUBLIC HEARING STARTS TO GIVE YOU SOME OF THE LEGAL THINKING BEHIND ALL THIS.
ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSIONERS, I WOULD BE REQUESTING THAT THIS COMMISSION DO THOSE TWO THINGS.
>> IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE THAT THIS COMMISSION AGREES OR LOOKS AT THESE ISSUES AS AN EMERGENCY AND THEY NEED TO BE ENACTED FASTER THAN THE PROCESS THAT'S LAID OUT IN STATUTE UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES FOR US TO BE ABLE TO PASS THEM,
[00:15:05]
THAT THIS IS AN EMINENT ISSUE IN THE COUNTY THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED, ESSENTIALLY?>> HAS ANYBODY SAID ANYTHING? I KNOW YOU HAD A PUBLIC HEARING WHERE ANYBODY SAID THAT THEY HAD BEEN ACTUALLY AFFECTED HEALTH-WISE TO ANY OF THIS YET? WHERE SOMEBODY SAYS MY CHILD'S HAVING ASTHMA ATTACKS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I'M JUST ASKING.
>> WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY TESTIMONY THAT I CAN RECALL THAT INDICATES A PHYSICAL HEALTH ISSUE.
IT'S BEEN ODOR, INSECT, NAUSEA.
>> THAT COUNTS. WHAT WE SAY THE EMERGENCY, WOULD WE JUSTIFY THAT BASED ON A PUBLIC HEALTH? I THINK THAT WOULD COME UP A LITTLE BIT.
I'M JUST STATING THAT I THINK THAT WOULD BE PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT OF WEIGHT TO IT IN ONE OF OUR JUSTIFICATIONS.
>> I THINK THE TRAVELS AND YOU HEAR TESTIMONIAL TRUCKS AND ALL THAT ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC ON THE BACK ROADS.
>> YES, ROADS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR THAT KIND OF TRUCK TRAFFIC.
>> IT IS DAMAGING ROADS RIGHT NOW.
YOU CAN RIDE OUT TO ONE OF THE LOCATIONS OUTSIDE OF GREENSBORO AND SEE THE ROAD IS ALLIGATORING AND IT'S GETTING IN ROUGH SHAPE.
>> I LIVE RIGHT THERE. I LIVE DOWN THE ROAD.
>> THAT'S INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACT WHICH IMPACT PUBLIC SAFETY.
>> YEAH. IT'S HARD TO DO ANY TYPE OF ROAD WORK OR ROAD MAINTENANCE THIS TIME OF YEAR WITH WEATHER CONDITIONS THE WAY THEY ARE.
ASPHALT PLANTS ARE MOSTLY SHUT DOWN, SO YOU DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO MATERIALS TO FIX THE ROADS AND TEMPERATURES AREN'T CONDUCIVE TO DO THAT KIND OF WORK.
THAT'S PART OF IT. TO WHAT YOU WERE SPEAKING TO, I GUESS THE NAUSEA AND THAT STUFF WOULD HAVE AN EFFECT.
I DIDN'T REALLY TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, BUT YEAH, THERE ARE PERSONAL EFFECTS THAT WAY.
>> HAVE WE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE PEOPLE THAT ARE STORING THIS PRODUCT?
>> I WAS NOT IN THAT MEETING, COMMISSIONER PORTER WAS, BUT I WOULD DESCRIBE THE CONVERSATION AS MORE ABRASIVE THAN I WOULD RESPONSIVE.
>> [LAUGHTER] BUT THEY CAN'T DISPEL THE FACT THAT THERE WERE SOME HEALTH ISSUES WITH PEOPLE SUFFERING IN THEIR HOMES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
EVEN IF THEY'RE ABRASIVE, THEY CAN'T PROVE THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.
YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.
WHEN THE PUBLIC IS OUTRAGED AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME AND THEIR CHILDREN ARE SAYING IT, FOUR OR FIVE YEARS OLD.
THEY CAN'T EAT THE FOOD BECAUSE AT THE TABLE BECAUSE THEY SMELL THE STUFF COMING THROUGH.
THEY CAN'T GET ANY POOLS, THEY CAN'T DO ANY KIND.
IT ALSO AFFECTS THEIR LIVELIHOOD OR THE WAY THEY LIVE THEIR LIVES.
I THINK IT IS JUSTIFIED TO BE AN EMERGENCY.
>> ONE OF THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE UTILIZING THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN VERY RESPONSIVE AND WILLING TOO.
WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO RESEARCH ARE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS GOING TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT NEEDS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED, ESSENTIALLY.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO ADD THAT ON EACH OF THE MORATORIUM RESOLUTIONS, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN ENACTED YET, AS YOU UNDERSTAND, YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS PART OF THE PROCESS HERE.
BUT I WANTED TO SAY THAT I AM GOING TO ADD ON PARAGRAPH 1 OF EACH OF THEM WHERE IT SAYS MORATORIUM ESTABLISHED,
[00:20:04]
I'M INSERTING THE WORD AFTER THE WORDS "A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM", I'M INSERTING THE WORD "PROHIBITED" WITH "USE OF LAND OR STRUCTURES".ON PAGE 3 OF EACH OF THESE, I WOULD BE [OVERLAPPING] PARAGRAPH 7 WHICH WILL BE ENTITLED ENFORCEMENT.
IT'S ONE SENTENCE ADDITION THAT SAYS, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 175-191, VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES OF CHAPTER 175 ZONING, AND CHAPTER 92 CIVIL INFRACTIONS SHALL APPLY TO VIOLATIONS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DAF MORATORIUM.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHERE IS THAT.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK UNDER THIS SECTION, WE'RE LOOKING AT RESOLUTION 2024-007.
>> GO TO PAGE 2, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, AND WE HAVE ITEMS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, AND 7.
WOULD THAT BE AN ADDITIONAL ITEM UNDER THERE?
>> EIGHT IS ONE OF THEM, ITEM 7 AND ANY OTHERS.
>> IT WOULD BE EIGHT UNDER THIS ONE.
>> TITLED ENFORCEMENT. THEN ON THE [INAUDIBLE], IT WOULD BE ITEM NUMBER 7 TO BE ADDED.
>> I COULD HAVE [OVERLAPPING] A COPY OF THOSE SUBMITTED SO THEY CAN BE ATTACHED, BUT THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU AND WHAT I WOULD BE SUGGESTING TO THE COMMISSIONERS TO FIND RESOLUTIONS.
>> MINE STOPS AT SEVEN, AS AUTHORITY.
>> SO THEY'RE GOING TO ADD EIGHT.
>> OH, YOU GOING TO ADD EIGHT? [OVERLAPPING].
>> I'M THE ONLY ONE THAT'S STOPS AT SIX? ENFORCEMENT WILL BE SEVEN.
>> LIKE THIS [INAUDIBLE] LINE 7 WOULD BE ENFORCEMENT [LAUGHTER].
NOW LET'S GO BACK TO YOUR FIRST COMMENT.
ON PAGE 1, A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM PROHIBITING THE STORAGE OF FOODS PROCESSING.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO ADD IN THERE?
>> IT COULD BE IN BOTH PLACES.
I HAVE IT SPECIFICALLY ON PAGE 2, PARAGRAPH 1, MORATORIUM ESTABLISHED, TEMPORARY MORATORIUM AND INSERT THE WORD PROHIBITING INSTEAD OF THE WORD ON.
THE SAME CHANGE COULD BE IN THE TITLE.
SO INSTEAD OF ON, IT SAYS PROHIBITING.
>> I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE IT'S JUST ME, BUT THAT WOULD KEEP IT CONSISTENT IF YOU DID IT IN BOTH PLACES?
>> OKAY, I THINK SOMEBODY'S GOT TO BE CRANKED UP IN HERE.
>> THAT'S ON ALL RESOLUTIONS, CORRECT?
>> EXCEPT THE ONE THE COMMISSION HAS ALREADY ENACTED.
>> NUMBER 3, DID THEY ALREADY ENACT IT? HAS IT ON THERE?
>> YOU CAN'T CHANGE IT AT THIS POINT.
>> BUT THEY WANT TO CHANGE THESE MOVING FORWARD.
>> SO THE EXTENSION OF OUR CURRENT MORATORIUM FOR 60 DAYS.
IS EVERYBODY GOOD WITH THAT, MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS? ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON IT? EVERYBODY IS GOOD.
[00:25:01]
>> IN YOUR RECOMMENDATION, IT'S NOT ONLY FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE MORATORIUM, BUT ALSO RECOMMENDING THAT THEY CONSIDER ADOPTING AN EMERGENCY LEGISLATIVE BILL FOR THE PURPOSES OF AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE.
>> THAT'S NOT FOR THIS ONE, RIGHT? BECAUSE THIS ONE'S ALREADY ENACTED.
>> NO, THEY CAN DO WITH EMERGENCY LEGISLATIVE BILL IN ADDITION TO THAT.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PLANNING TO DO IN EACH CASE.
>> SO THE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS, ADOPTION AND CONSIDERATION OF EMERGENCY LEGISLATIVE BILL FOR EACH OF THE MORATORIUM ARE MOTIONS THAT YOU'RE MAKING.
>> SO NOW DO I HEAR A MOTION OR WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO MAKE THE MOTION AND WE'LL GET IT ALL OUT?
>> WELL, RIGHT NOW WE JUST NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO PUT AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE ON THIS 2024-003, CORRECT? BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY IN PLACE BY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS [NOISE].
>> IT'S CONSISTENT [OVERLAPPING] CONFIRM IT'S CONSISTENT WITH OUR REGULATIONS AND THAT THEY DO IT AN EMERGENCY BILL.
>> CAN WE MAKE THAT AS TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS?
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE 60-DAY EXTENSION TO THE MORATORIUM.
>> THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR REGULATIONS.
>> IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR REGULATIONS.
CAN WE DO THAT ACROSS THE BOARD FOR ALL OF WHAT'S HERE, OR DO WE NEED TO DO EACH ONE OF EACH INDIVIDUALLY?
>> I GUESS WE NEED TO DISCUSS EACH ONE CASE ONE.
DO WE NEED TO INCLUDE ENFORCEMENT ON THE CURRENT BILL AS IN THE SUGGESTED ADDITION OF AN EMERGENCY BILL ON 003?
>> I'LL INCORPORATE THAT INTO MY MOTION THAT WE ALLOWED ENFORCEMENT.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE 60-DAY EXTENSION OF OUR CURRENT MORATORIUM ON DEBT? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
>> ALL OPPOSE, SAME, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, SAY NO.
MOTION PASSED ON RESOLUTION 2024-003.
TO RECOMMEND IT? NO, THERE IS.
>> IT SUPPORTS THE COUNTY PLAN GOALS AND ADD THE ADDITION OF CONCERNING ENFORCEMENT TO THAT?
>> SO AND THEN THE NEXT MOTION WOULD BE FOR THE CONSIDERING EMERGENCY LEGISLATIVE BILL, CORRECT?
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT ON RESOLUTION 2024-003 THAT WE RECOMMEND TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THAT THEY PURSUE EMERGENCY LEGISLATION CONCERNING THIS ISSUE.
>> YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE EMERGENCY RECOMMENDATION? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY ARE, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
>> ALL OPPOSED SAY NAY, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
>> MOTION PASSED. LET TO KNOW WHEN EVERYBODY'S READY TO GO TO THE NEXT.
>> ALL RIGHT [NOISE] THE NEXT RESOLUTION, 2024-007 IS A DAF RESOLUTION, A MORATORIUM ON DAF.
IT'S A NEW ONE, NEW MORATORIUM THAT WILL RUN UNTIL, I GOT IT'S NOVEMBER 1 OF THIS YEAR, CORRECT? NOVEMBER 1 OF THIS YEAR.
I WOULD ASSUME IT'S THE SAME AS THE CURRENT ONE BUT, STEWART, YOU SAID THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENCES IN THIS ONE FROM
[00:30:01]
OUR CURRENT MORATORIUM THAT WE JUST EXTENDED OR WE RECOMMENDED TO EXTEND.>> WE'VE CUT THE CHANGE IN THE WORDING.
INSTEAD WORD ON, YOU CUT PROHIBITING.
>> AND YOU'RE GOING TO ADD ENFORCEMENT, NUMBER 8.
>> SO THIS RESOLUTION IS A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM AND WE RECOMMEND INSERTING THE WORD PROHIBITING THE STORAGE OF FOOD PROCESSING RESIDUAL AND OR DAF RESIDUAL IN CAROLINE COUNTY UNTIL NOVEMBER 1, 2024, PENDING CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF SUCH LEGISLATION AS THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER MAY CONSIDER ADVISABLE TO PROMOTE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE.
IF YOU LOOK, THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT IT IS.
THE MORATORIUM HAS DEFINITIONS.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE AS FAR? ANY QUESTION? ANY DISCUSSION AS TO HOW IT GOES ALONG WITH OUR COMP PLAN, OUR WATER AND SEWER PLAN THAT WE'VE ALREADY BEEN OVER? WE'VE DISCUSSED IT ALREADY HOW IT AFFECTS HEALTH SAFETY, ENVIRONMENT SAFETY, AND INFRASTRUCTURE SAFETY.
>> I BELIEVE HE TALKS ABOUT HEALTH.
SO IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?
>> STEWART, OTHER THAN THE DATE, WHAT ELSE DOES THIS RESOLUTION CHANGE? WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS RESOLUTION AND 003?
[• Resolution 2024-007 DAF Moratorium Amended]
>> WE HAVE THE WORD PROHIBITING INSTEAD OF ON.
IT REPLACES THE TITLE AND ALSO ON PAGE 2, PARAGRAPH.
AND THEN YOU HAVE THE EXTRA PARAGRAPH OF ENFORCEMENT.
>> OTHER THAN THAT, IT'S THE SAME?
>> SO IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE? HEARING NONE, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE COMMISSIONERS?
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE RESOLUTION 2024-007 TO THE CAROLINE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
AS THIS RESOLUTION FOLLOWS, OUR COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IN ADDITION, HAVE AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE PUT INTO PLACE TO SPEED UP THE PROCESS OF THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 2024-007.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SAY AYE, NAY, AYE.
>> ALL OPPOSED RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, SAY NAY.
>> WE HAVE ONE PERSON THAT HAS ABSTAINED.
THAT AMENDED THAT CURRENT ONE.
THESE ARE NEW MORATORIUMS. THE NEXT ONES ARE NEW MORATORIUMS THAT THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE COME UP WITH.
24-004 IS A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM.
I ASSUME YOU'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE WORD ON THIS ONE TOO, PROHIBITING ON ALL OF THEM.
>> CERTAIN LAND, USE OF LAND OR STRUCTURES FOR THE STORAGE OF BIOSOLIDS IN CAROLINE COUNTY UNTIL NOVEMBER 1ST, 2024, PENDING CONSIDERATION, ADOPTION OF SUCH LEGISLATION AS THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY CONSIDER ADVISABLE TO PROMOTE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE UNDER DEFINITIONS WHAT BIOHAZARDS MEANS, TREATED SEWAGE SLUDGE THAT MEETS THE STANDARDS OF CLASS A OR B SEWAGE SLUDGE.
THEY HAVE DEFINITIONS IN HERE WHAT BIOSOLIDS ARE.
MY QUESTION IS WHEN IT DOESN'T AFFECT ANY TREATMENT PLANTS THAT
[00:35:01]
ARE CURRENTLY RUNNING THAT WOULD BE OUT IN THE COUNTY, CORRECT?>> DOESN'T AFFECT ANY CURRENT TREATMENT PLANTS THAT ARE PERMITTED TO RUN.
I THINK WE ONLY HAVE A COUPLE THEN THAT ARE IN THE COUNTY.
>> YOU'LL SEE THAT UNDER NUMBER 1 ON PAGE 2, WHERE IT STATES THAT THE TEMPORARY MORATORIUM IS FOR THE USE OF LAND OR STRUCTURES FOR STORAGE OF BIOSOLID IN CAROLINE COUNTY NOT PERMITTED BY MDE.
THIS WOULDN'T AFFECT ANYONE WHO'S LEGALLY PERMITTED BY MDE FOR THE STORAGE OF BIOSOLIDS.
>> THAT'S WHAT THE DEFINITION OF BIOSOLIDS ARE.
THEY'RE ALL WRITTEN BASICALLY THE SAME THING, THEY JUST ADDRESS DIFFERENT ISSUES.
THE OTHER THING IS THEY'RE GOING TO ADD A SECTION 7 IN HERE.
I GUESS IT'S CALLED A PARAGRAPH 7 FOR ENFORCEMENT.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE IN REGARDS TO OUR WATER AND SEWER PLAN AND OUR HEALTH PLAN, OR-
>> COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND WATER SEWER PLAN OR ISSUES OF SAFETY.
>> WE HAVE SPECULATION THAT BIOSOLIDS MAYBE BEING HAULED IN FROM OTHER AREAS OF THE STATE OUTSIDE OF CAROLINE COUNTY.
AS FAR AS WE KNOW, ALL OF THE MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS INSIDE OF CAROLINE COUNTY DISPOSE OF THEIR BIOSOLIDS AT THE LANDFILL, STUFF COMES OUT OF THE REED BEDS AND IT'S HAULED TO THE LANDFILL, AND RIGIDLY AND DISPOSED OFF THERE INSIDE OF MDE'S REGULATION.
[• Resolution 2024-004 Bio Solid Moratorium]
WE BELIEVE THAT THERE MAY BE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES THAT DO NOT DISPOSE OF THEIR BIOSOLIDS THAT WAY, AND IT IS POTENTIALLY BEING HAULED HERE AND PLACED ON SLABS CAUSING HEALTH IMPACTS WITH SMELLS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WITH RUNOFF OFF OF THE SLABS.WE BELIEVE THAT THERE'S A SIMILAR SITUATION WHERE THE STORAGE MAY BE UNREGULATED.
WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE TIME TO INVESTIGATE THAT, AND GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT ACTUALLY IS HAPPENING WITH THIS MATERIAL.
IS IT IN FACT BEING INSPECTED WHEN IT IS STORED? IS IT ALLOWED TO BE STORED IN THAT MANNER?
>> TRAVIS, ARE YOU TALKING ON CONCERNING THIS ONE, WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
ARE YOU TALKING THEY'RE TRUCKING IN HUMAN WASTE HERE?
>> THAT IS REGULATED. HUMAN WASTE IS REGULATED.
>> IT SHOULD BE A CHAIN OF CUSTODY ON IT, YES.
>> WHENEVER WE'VE HAULED IT FROM MUNICIPALITY THERE'S A CHAIN OF CUSTODY.
>> YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PERMIT, AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE A ROUTE. THAT PART IS REGULATED.
WHEREVER IT'S ORIGINATED, IS THE PROBLEM.
>> BUT WE'RE NOT SURE IF IT'S WHERE THE TRUCKS ARE COMING FROM.
>> SOMETHING'S BEING STORED ON SLABS AT LEAST IN ONE LOCATION.
>> WE DON'T KNOW YET WHAT IT IS?
>> OKAY. YOU JUST WANT IT TO STOP?
>> YEAH. WELL, IF IT'S REGULATED BY MDE, IN THIS MORATORIUM, IF A STATE AGENCY HAS EYES ON IT AND IS WATCHING THE STORAGE, THEN WE'RE NOT PROHIBITING IT.
WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT AFFECTING IT IN THIS MORATORIUM.
OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT HAS THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL RISK AS A DAF SPILL WITH NUTRIENT POLLUTION AND POTENTIALLY OTHER POLLUTIONS.
I THINK I DID HEAR SOME CONCERN THAT THEY'RE FINDING THIS PFAS FOREVER CHEMICAL IN THESE BIOSOLIDS, AND THAT THAT MATERIAL IS MAKING ITS WAY BACK THROUGH THE FOOD CHAIN BECAUSE IT SPREAD ON THE GROUND, AND THEN IT MAKES ITS WAY INTO WHATEVER CROP IS BEING GROWN, WHICH THEN MAKES IT INTO WHATEVER ANIMAL IT'S BEING FED TO, WHICH THEN MAKES IT TO US WHEN WE EAT IT.
I THINK THERE'S INVESTIGATION GOING ON INTO THE IMPACTS OF THE USE OF BIOSOLIDS.
>> BUT THE HUMAN WASTE PART WOULD NOT FALL UNDER THEIR RIGHT TO FORM.
>> NO. WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT ANY OF IT DOES.
>> I GUESS THEY HAVE APPROVED SOME OF THAT FOR THIS BECAUSE THERE'S IN THE SPRAY WHICH IS USED TO SPRAY THE FIELDS.
[00:40:01]
>> BUT THAT'S NOT BIOSOLIDS, SO THAT WOULD BE JUST THE SPRAY DISCHARGE OF WATER. THAT GOES ON.
>> A LONG TIME AGO THEY TALKED ABOUT TRUCKING SOME OF THAT TO SOME OF THE FARMS ON A SMALL LEVEL THAT THEY COULD SPRAY ON THEIR FIELDS.
>> AT KENT COUNTY, MARYLAND HAS OUTLAWED BIOSOLIDS.
IT CANNOT BE SPRAYED ON THEIR FIELDS, WHICH IS AN INTERESTING ORDINANCE BECAUSE IT'S REGULATED BY MDE.
[LAUGHTER] IT'S INTERESTING THAT THAT HASN'T BEEN CHALLENGED THERE.
THAT PROHIBITION ON BIOSOLIDS IN KENT COUNTY, MARYLAND HAS BEEN IN EFFECT FOR QUITE SOME TIME, AS BEST WE CAN TELL.
I HAVEN'T DONE ANY RESEARCH TO EXACTLY WHEN IT WAS PASSED, BUT I THINK IT'S BEEN AROUND A WHILE.
>> I'M NOT OPPOSED TO ANY OF THESE MORATORIUMS, JUST JUST TO LET IT OUT, BUT WITHOUT DOING A LITTLE BIT MORE INVESTIGATING AND SAYING THAT'S THE REASON WHY I'M OPPOSED TO THE EMERGENCY.
>> I'M HOPING THAT I'M HOPING THAT NOVEMBER 1ST GIVES THEM TIME TO GET MORE INFORMATION.
>> FOR EVERYBODY, BECAUSE THIS ISN'T JUST A COUNTY ISSUE.
>> THE STATE SHOULD BE TACKLING THIS AS WELL.
THERE ARE SOME THINGS GOING ON IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS NOW.
IF WE SEE THE OUTCOME OF THAT, THEY MAY CHANGE WHAT WE COULD DO AT THE COUNTY OR ON THE COUNTY LEVEL.
>> BUT I THINK AND I'M GUESSING ALL I'M HEARING STEWART SAYING IS THAT THEY WANT TO ENACT THIS TOMORROW VERSUS A MONTH FROM NOW, SO IT GIVES THEM A MONTH TO TRUCK MORE STUFF IN.
SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I DON'T KNOW.
>> WELL, IF YOU'D LIKE, WE COULD TAKE A RECESS AND YOU CAN GO TALK TO STEWART.
I HAVE A MOTION TO TAKE A RECESS.
>> YOU'LL HAVE TO DO A CLOSED SESSION.
>> WELL, IF JUST ONE PERSON GOES.
>> THAT'S WHAT MY RECOMMENDATION IS. ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT? I'LL MAKE A MOTION WE TAKE A RECESS OR YOU CAN CALL RECESS, JEFF.
I THINK IN RECESS ON THE CALL OF THE PRESIDENT.
TAKE A WATER BREAK. [BACKGROUND]
>> [LAUGHTER] I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU WANT TO SHUT IT OFF.
[00:52:58]
[00:53:00]
WE HAVE RETURNED FROM OUR RECESS.
PRIOR TO THE RECESS, WE WERE DISCUSSING RESOLUTION 2024-004 CONCERNING BIO-SOLIDS.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE BIO-SOLIDS, THE DEFINITION OF BIO-SOLIDS, AND WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS HERE WITH THIS? ANYTHING ELSE? I THINK SOMETHING WAS BROUGHT UP ABOUT ENFORCEMENT, AND YOU SAID, WE'RE ADDING ENFORCEMENT TO ALL THESE RESOLUTIONS.
>> [INAUDIBLE] OF ONE SENTENCE REFERENCE TITLED ENFORCEMENT.
THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 175-191, VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES OF CHAPTER 175 ZONING, AND CHAPTER 92, CIVIL INFRACTIONS SHALL APPLY TO VIOLATIONS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS MORATORIUM RESOLUTION.
>> WHAT IS THE PENALTY FOR THEM TO CONTINUE TRUCKING IT IN?
>> VIOLATIONS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE ARE CLASS, DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT CLASS? WE HAD CLASS A, B, C, D. WHATEVER CLASS THEY ARE, CLASS A IS A $500 FOR THE FIRST OFFENSE AND $1,000 FOR SUBSEQUENT OFFENSES.
>> WHO DO YOU USE TO ENFORCE IT?
>> CLASS ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN OUR DEPARTMENT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTION ON ENFORCEMENT?
[00:55:07]
>> WHAT IS YOUR WAY OF PROVING THAT THAT IS OR NOT, THAT SUBSTANCE [OVERLAPPING].
>> YES, WHETHER IT'S A VIOLATION OR NOT?
>> RIGHT. POND WATER, ANIMAL MANURE, OR WHATEVER THEY SAY THEY'RE HAULING.
>> WE'VE ENCOUNTERED THAT ALREADY.
>> YES, UNDER THE CURRENT MORATORIUM BECAUSE THE CURRENT MORATORIUM STATES THAT IT'S A MORATORIUM ON THE STORAGE OF DAF FOR FOOD PROCESSING RESIDUALS.
AND WE HAVE AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE BECAUSE WE HAVE NO WAY OF IDENTIFYING THAT THE MATERIAL THAT IS IN THE TANK OR BEING PLACED IN THE TANK IS ACTUALLY DAF FOR PROCESSING RESIDUALS.
>> WHICH IS THE PURPOSE OF THE MORATORIUM THAT WE HAVEN'T GOT TO YET, BUT THE BIO-SOLIDS, BECAUSE OF THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY THAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER WITH MDE, SHOULD BE ENFORCEABLE.
WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO TELL IF THIS PRODUCT IS BEING HAULED IN AND STORED.
>> BECAUSE WITH THESE FOOD PROCESSING RESIDUALS, THERE IS NO CHAIN OF CUSTODY ON THE PRODUCT.
WITH BIO-SOLIDS, THERE IS A PROCESS, YOU HAVE TO DISCLOSE WHERE IT'S BEING TAKEN.
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON BIO-SOLIDS?
>> I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR OUR SUPPORT TO THE COMMISSION [OVERLAPPING] AS YOU HAVE IT WRITTEN NOW.
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH RESOLUTION 2024-004 TO THE CAROLINE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AS THIS RESOLUTION FOLLOWS, OUR COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IN ADDITION, HAVE AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE PUT INTO PLACE TO SPEED UP THE PROCESS OF THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 2024-004.
>> BEFORE I CALLED FOR A VOTE, WE HAD A RECOMMENDATION WE DO THEM SEPARATE BEFORE.
YOU STILL WANT TO DO THEM SEPARATE, YOU WANT TO DO IT ALL TOGETHER?
>> WE DID IT TOGETHER LAST ONE.
>> THE EMERGENCY? I VOTED AGAINST THE EMERGENCY.
WE VOTED 4-1 VOTED AGAINST THE EMERGENCY.
DO WE WANT TO GO AS THE MOTION IS WITH THE EMERGENCY IN IT, OR WE WANT TO VOTE ON THE EMERGENCY SEPARATE?
>> I'M KEEPING MY MOTION AS IS.
>> I HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO RECOMMEND TO THE COMMISSIONER.
>> WE HAVE A SECOND. THE MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE RESOLUTION AND THE MOTION, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SAY AYE.
>> ALL OPPOSED RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, SAY AYE.
HEARING NONE, THE MOTION PASSES.
ONLY TWO MORE. RESOLUTION. 2024-005, WELL, THEY GOT THIS ONE WRITTEN DIFFERENT.
A MORATORIUM IN CAROLINE COUNTY PROHIBITS CERTAIN USES OF LAND AND STRUCTURES PREVIOUSLY PERMITTED FOR THE DISCHARGE OR STORAGE OF VEGETABLE PROCESSING, WASTEWATER, AND OTHER SPECIFIED SUBSTANCES UNTIL NOVEMBER 1ST, 2024.
PENDING CONSIDERATION AND THE ADOPTION OF SUCH LEGISLATION AS THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER MAY CONSIDER ADVISABLE TO
[01:00:01]
PROMOTE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AND WELFARE.AGAIN, THE DEFINITIONS OF WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS IN THIS ONE WITH THIS VEGETABLE PROCESSING WASTEWATER.
>> THESE DEFINITIONS CAME DIRECTLY FROM AN MDE PERMIT THAT WAS ISSUED FOR THIS FACILITY THAT WAS TERMINATED IN JUNE OF LAST SUMMER.
JUNE, JULY OF LAST. I THINK WAS JUNE.
SO THAT'S WHERE THESE DEFINITIONS FOR VEGETABLE PROCESSING WASTEWATER AND BOILER BLOW DOWN CAME FROM, WAS THAT WAS IN THE PERMIT THAT WAS ISSUED TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER BY MDE FOR STORAGE AND APPLICATION OF VEGETABLE PROCESSING WASTEWATER TO THAT FIELD.
>> BUT THEY WERE GENERATING IT.
>> THEY WERE GENERATING IT ON SITE.
IT WAS GENERATED AT THE PLANT AND PIPED OVER TO THE LAGOON, AND THEN STORED AT THE LAGOON UNTIL WEATHER CONDITIONS WERE ALLOWABLE FOR IT TO BE APPLIED ON THE FIELDS THAT WERE THERE.
>> AND IT WAS STILL ALL THEIR PROPERTY? YES.
>> WE'RE JUST SAYING IF YOU HAD A FACILITY THAT WAS DESIGNED AND PERMITTED FOR THAT, THAT'S THE ONLY THING YOU CAN USE IT FOR.
IT CAN'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE PUT IN THAT LAGOON.
>> WE HAVE NO FACILITIES OPERATING IN THE COUNTY CURRENTLY, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. THAT WAS THE ONLY ONE.
>> SO NOBODY CAN START ONE UP.
>> WELL, THAT'S NOT WHAT IT'S SAYING.
>> YOU COULD IF YOU'VE GOTTEN A PERMIT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YOU COULD IF YOU GET PERMITTED.
>> THEY CAN OPEN THAT BACK UP.
>> YEAH, THEY COULD OPEN THAT ONE BACK UP.
>> BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED FOR.
HANOVER COULD COME BACK IN AND FIRE THAT PLAN UP TOMORROW AND START USING IT THE WAY THEY
[• Resolution 2024-005 Vegetable Processing Moratorium]
DID PRIOR TO IF THEY [OVERLAPPING] REOPENED THEIR MDE PERMIT.SOMEBODY COMES IN TOMORROW AND APPLIES TO DO THE SAME THING THAT HANOVER DID., THIS IS NOT A MORATORIUM ON THAT.
IT'S SIMPLY STATING THAT IF YOU TELL US THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO WITH IT, THAT'S ALL YOU CAN DO WITH IT.
>> AND THAT'S WHAT THE COUNTY PERMITTED IT FOR.
>> RIGHT. BUT HE MORATORIUM IS ALSO NOT GOING TO ALLOW SOMEBODY ELSE TO BRING VEGETABLE WASTEWATER. [OVERLAPPING] IT HAS TO BE GENERATED ON THE PROPERTY?
>> I THINK IT'S IN HERE SOMEWHERE.
>> I KNOW THERE'S ONE OF THEM THAT'S GOT IT IN THERE.
>> THE NEXT ONE, TALKS ABOUT GENERATED ON SITE.
>> THE VEGETABLE PROCESSING DOESN'T?
>> DOES NOT SAY THAT, I DON'T THINK.
>> IT DOESN'T SAY THAT. DO WE WANT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THEY PUT THAT IN THERE?
>> STEWART, AM I CORRECT? IT DOESN'T SAY FOR ON SITE ONLY.
AND THIS WAS NOT GENERATED ON THE SITE.
THE VEGETABLE WASTE WAS GENERATED FROM OFF THE SITE AND PUMPED OVER TO THE SITE.
>> BUT WHEN IT WAS HANOVER, IT WAS GENERATED ON THE SITE.
>> NO, BECAUSE THE FACTORY WAS IN TOWN. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT WASN'T A CONSUMER'S PIECE OF PROPERTY.
>> THEY ACTUALLY PUMPED IT ACROSS THE ROAD TO OTHER LAND THEY OWNED.
>> RIGHT. BUT IT WASN'T TRUCKED.
>> IF I GENERATED IT. I'M GETTING RID OF IT BASICALLY.
>> RIGHT. I'M NOT BRINGING IT FROM [OVERLAPPING] ANOTHER COUNTY.
>> BUT YES, YOU'RE CORRECT. IT DOES NOT STATE THAT YOU COULD NOT BRING IN VEGETABLE WASTE FROM OFF SITE IF MDE WOULD PERMIT IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.
>> THAT SHOULD BE UNDER THE MDE PERMIT THEN.
>> DO WE REALLY NEED TO HAVE THAT LANGUAGE OVERLAPPING IT?
>> I DON'T THINK SO. THEN AGAIN, THIS FACILITY THAT WE HAD WAS NOT GENERATED ON SITE.
>> IT WASN'T, BUT IT WAS PIPED.
IT WASN'T TRUCKED FROM THE PLANT TO THE LAGOON.
THERE WAS [OVERLAPPING] FORCE MAIN PIPE THAT PUMPED IT OUT THERE.
>> AND WE NEVER HAD A PROBLEM. DID WE HAVE A PROBLEM?
>> IF THERE WERE PROBLEMS, THE COUNTY WASN'T AWARE OF IT.
>> I THINK THERE WERE TIMES WHERE THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SMELLS, BUT THAT PLANT HAD BEEN THERE FOR SO LONG,
[01:05:05]
I THINK THE TOWN ORIGINALLY WAS ACCUSTOMED TO THOSE.>> WELL, GOOD CHICKEN HOUSE SMELLS A COUPLE OF TIMES A YEAR.
RESOLUTION 005 DEALS WITH THE VEGETABLE PROCESSING WASTE AND WASTE WATER AND [INAUDIBLE], WHICH WE CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE AN OPERATING PLANT FACILITY IN THE COUNTY.
IS ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE, OR DO I HEAR A MOTION?
>> JUST STATE THE REASONS AGAIN.
>> I'LL READ IT UNLESS YOU WANT TO READ IT.
>> SHE'S GOT IT WRITTEN DOWN OVER HERE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S JUST I'LL FUMBLE THROUGH IT.
>> I'M THE SECRETARY. I MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE RESOLUTION 2024-005 TO THE CAROLINE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
AS THIS RESOLUTION FOLLOWS OUR COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IN ADDITION, HAVE AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE PUT INTO PLACE TO SPEED UP THE PROCESS OF THE ADOPTION RESOLUTION 2024-005.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON RESOLUTION 005? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION AS IT STANDS RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SAY AYE.
>> ALL OPPOSED RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SAY AYE.
HEARING NONE, THE MOTION PASSES.
THE LAST ONE, RESOLUTION 2024-006.
A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM IN CAROLINE COUNTY ON [OVERLAPPING].
>> IN CAROLINE COUNTY PROHIBITING, TAKE OUT ON, PUT PROHIBITING, THE STORAGE OF ANY MATERIAL OR SUBSTANCE OTHER THAN LIVESTOCK MANURE IN A STRUCTURE DESIGNED AND OR PERMITTED [LAUGHTER] FOR THE STORAGE OF LIVESTOCK MANURE IN CAROLINE COUNTY UNTIL NOVEMBER 1ST, 2024, AND THE USE OF LAND OR STRUCTURES TO STORE LIVESTOCK MANURE, WHICH IS GENERATED AT ANOTHER LOCATION UNTIL NOVEMBER 1, 2024.
PENDING CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF SUCH LEGISLATION, THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY CONSIDER ADVISABLE TO PROMOTE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE.
THAT'S THIS ONE. NOW, I PROBABLY DISCUSSED IT BEFORE, BUT IF YOU HAVE A FARMER THAT IS MOVING PRODUCT BETWEEN FARMS, DOES THAT FALL UNDER THIS, FARM THAT HE OWNS, FARMS THAT HE RENTS?
>> YES. BECAUSE WE'VE TIED TO THE DEFINITION OF THE LOT.
IT'S GOT TO BE GENERATED ON THE LOT. [OVERLAPPING].
>> YES. HANNAH, YOU MAY HAVE TO ADDRESS.
WE HAVE FARMERS THAT TILL A LOT OF GROUND IN VARIOUS PLACES.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH STORAGE THEY'RE DOING.
>> EVEN THE LAND. IT'S NOT SO MUCH THE STRUCTURE, IT'S THE LAND, BUT THE DEFINITION STATED IN HERE, IT EXCLUDES POULTRY LITTER; AM I CORRECT?
>> MY CONVERSATIONS THAT I'VE HAD WITH THE CATTLE OPERATIONS AROUND IS THAT IF IT IS TRANSPORTED TO ANOTHER LOT [INAUDIBLE] ANOTHER FIELD OR PROPERTY, IT IS APPLIED.
IT'S NOT STORED BECAUSE IT'S LIQUID.
SO THEY LOAD IT ON A TANKER BEHIND A TRACTOR, DRIVE ACROSS, DRIVE DOWN THE ROAD, KNIFE IT IN, COME BACK TO THE DAIRY FARMS. IT'S IN A LIQUID STATE, SO IT CANNOT BE STORED IN MANY CASES.
>> IN THAT CASE, IT FALLS UNDER THE [INAUDIBLE]
[• Resolution 2024-006 Livestock Manure Pit Moratorium]
[01:10:09]
>> LIVESTOCK MANURE, WHICH THIS EXCLUDES LIVESTOCK MANURE, MEANS ANY MANURE GENERATED FROM FARM ANIMALS OTHER THAN BROILER CHICKENS RAISED UNDER CONTRACT FOR COMMERCIAL POULTRY,
>> I DON'T LIKE THE LANGUAGE OF THAT.
[OVERLAPPING] APPARENTLY THAT'S THROUGH MDA.
>> WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE OF BROILER CHICKENS AND CHICKENS? [OVERLAPPING]
>> THERE'S BROILER CHICKENS AND THERE'S ROASTER CHICKENS, SO I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY WOULD BE SO SPECIFIC IN THAT DEFINITION.
IT SHOULD JUST BE POULTRY, BUT WE HAVE NO SAY OVER THAT.
THAT'S THE MDA DEFINITION, CORRECT, TRAVIS?
>> YOUR DEFINITIONS COME FROM SOMEWHERE, NOT YOU?
LET ME FIND, WHERE IS THAT AT?
>> WHERE IT GETS INTO THE CHICKEN? THIS THING IS JUMPING ALL AROUND. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE WENT THROUGH THE INTRA MANAGEMENT PLAN, WE ALREADY HAVE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS AND HOW OR WHERE WE CAN STORE IT POULTRY MANURE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> PAGE 3 UNDER DEFINITIONS, NUMBER 2.
>> DO WE HAVE ANY LAYER FACILITIES IN THE COUNTY?
>> EGG PRODUCERS [LAUGHTER] IN THE COUNTY?
>> NOT ON A COMMERCIAL SCALE THAT I KNOW OF.
THEY'RE PRETTY WELL EXCLUDED FROM MEAT PRODUCING HOUSES.
>> JUST MAKING SURE WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY OF THOSE TYPES OF HOUSES THAT PRODUCED, WHEN WE WORD THAT, IT SHOULD BE NON BROILER.
>> WHY DID THEY SPECIFICALLY POINT OUT BROILERS THAT'S COMMERCIAL?
>> THAT DEFINITION CAME FROM MDAS.
WELL, IT CAME FROM, I THINK, [INAUDIBLE].
>> JUST WONDERING IF THEIR MANURE IS DIFFERENT.
>> I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK WHERE IT CAME FROM. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M NOT PICKING ON YOU. IT'S JUST IF THAT'S MDA, THEY NEED TO TWEAK THAT TO BE MORE RELEVANT TO THE CURRENT INDUSTRY.
>> SHOULD IT JUST SAY POULTRY?
BECAUSE IF YOU'RE JUST SAYING BROILERS, THEN YOU'RE EXCLUDING ROASTERS OR WHATEVER.
>> YOU CAN MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION IN YOUR LANGUAGE.
>> BUT IF THEY PULLED THE DEFINITION STRAIGHT FROM [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE CAN'T CHANGE [INAUDIBLE]. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YOUR LETTER IS A RECOMMENDATION, BY THE WAY.
IT'S NOT MANDATORY ON THE COMMISSIONERS, BUT IT FLAGS SOMETHING FOR THEM TO CONSIDER.
SO I SEE NO HARM IN MENTIONING THAT IN YOUR LETTER.
>> I FEEL LIKE SOMEBODY'S GOING TO PICK THAT APART.
>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE?
>> A BROILER OPERATION VERSUS.
>> BASICALLY JUST THE SIZE OF CHICKEN.
>> YEAH. YOU'RE LOOKING AT A FOUR OR FIVE WEEK OLD BIRD VERSUS SEVEN OR EIGHT WEEK BIRD.
>> EVERYTHING ELSE IS THE SAME, HOUSES ARE THE SAME.
>> DENSITY IS LESS OBVIOUSLY FOR THE BIGGER CHICKEN.
>> BUT THEY PRODUCE THE SAME MANURE AS FAR AS I KNOW. [LAUGHTER]
>> I THINK I'VE GOT THE DOCUMENT HERE.
IT CAME OUT MANURE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CHAPTER 5, AGRICULTURE ARTICLE 8-704.2.
[01:15:15]
THERE IT IS, CODE OF MARYLAND REGULATIONS.TITLE 15, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SUBTITLE 20, SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION CHAPTER 15.20.05, MANURE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, AND IT SAYS MANURE.
>> LIVESTOCK MANURE MEANS MANURE GENERATED FROM FARM ANIMALS OTHER THAN BROILER CHICKENS RAISED UNDER CONTRACT FOR COMMERCIAL CULTURE PRODUCERS.
>> IT'S A REGULATION UNDER [INAUDIBLE].
>> DOES THAT MEAN ALL OTHER KINDS OF CHICKENS FALL UNDER THE LIVESTOCK MANURE?
>> JUST SO THAT WE'RE SAYING THE ONLY ONE THAT WOULD BE EXCLUDED WOULD BE BROILER CHICKEN MANURE.
ALL THE CHICKEN OTHER MANURE GETS LUMPED IN WITH LIVESTOCK DEFINITION.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THE BROILER CHICKEN MANURE WOULD FALL UNDER THE MORATORIUM.
>> UNLESS YOU WERE JUST TO SAY ANY POULTRY [INAUDIBLE] [OVERLAPPING]
>> WELL, THEN THAT WOULD STOP THE WHOLE POULTRY.
>> I THINK THAT'S WHAT STEWART IS ALLUDING TO THAT WE SHOULD PROBABLY ADD THAT TO OUR [OVERLAPPING] LANGUAGE.
>> OTHER THAN ANY POULTRY RAISED [OVERLAPPING]
>> WELL, JUST REPLACE THE WORDS BROILER CHICKENS WITH POULTRY.
>> YEAH. THAT'S A SIMPLE THING.
>> BUT THEN THAT INHIBITS. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YOU'RE NOT CITING THIS TO ANYTHING, THIS ISN'T FROM [INAUDIBLE], BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
THIS IS JUST OUR LANGUAGE FOR THE COUNTY.
>> BUT LIVESTOCK, THE WORD IS EXEMPT FROM THIS.
>> NO, THE POULTRY LITTER WOULD BE EXEMPT.
>> FOR SOME REASON IN THIS STATE REGULATION, THE DEFINITION OF LIVESTOCK MANURE SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTS ONLY BROILER CHICKENS THOUGH.
SO WHAT HANNAH'S CONCERN IS IF SOMEBODY SAID IT WAS A ROASTER CHICKEN, THEN WE WOULD BE [OVERLAPPING].
>> RIGHT. THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO STORE MANURE FOR THE ROASTER CHICKEN.
>> LET ME READ THIS TO YOU AND TELL ME WHERE I MISSED MY EDUCATION.
YOU'RE PROHIBITING THE STORAGE OF ANY MATERIAL SUBSTANCE OTHER THAN LIVESTOCK MANURE.
THE DEFINITION OF LIVESTOCK MANURE MEANS ANY MANURE GENERATED FROM A FARM FROM FARM OTHER THAN POULTRY.
SO NOW WE'RE NOT GOING TO INCLUDE CHICKENS IN LIVESTOCK MANURE, SO WE JUST PROHIBIT IT WITH A MORATORIUM, DON'T DUMP IT ON THE GROUND.
>> THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY'RE AFTER.
>> I KNOW THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE AFTER, BUT THAT'S WHAT IT READS.
BECAUSE THEY'RE SAYING RIGHT NOW WE CAN'T DUMP BROILER CHICKEN MANURE ON THE GROUND [OVERLAPPING].
>> NO, WE'RE SAYING WE CAN. WE'RE MAKING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR.
>> ONLY THING YOU CAN DUMP ON THE GROUND.
>> NO, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
>> I DO SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE PROHIBITING THE STORAGE OF ANY MATERIAL OTHER THAN LIVESTOCK IN THE STORE.
LIVESTOCK MANURE IS DEFINED AS MANURE GENERATED FROM ANIMALS OTHER THAN POULTRY.
PIG MANURE. DON'T PUT CHICKEN MANURE ON THE GROUND.
>> STEWART, WOULD THAT BE LYING?
>> NO. ACTUALLY, TAKE THAT WHOLE THING OUT AND SAY LIVESTOCK MANURE MEANS MANURE GENERATED FROM FARM ANIMAL, PERIOD, AND THE CHICKENS ARE FARM ANIMALS, WHETHER YOU RAISE 40,000 OF THEM, WHETHER YO GOT FIVE [OVERLAPPING].
>> NO, JEFF, HOLD ON. THIS IS WHAT IT'S SAYING.
WHAT IT'S SAYING IS, IS THAT YEAH, YOU CAN STORE LIVESTOCK MANURE, ABSOLUTELY, BUT THAT'S THE ONLY THING YOU CAN STORE IN THAT STRUCTURE, AND THAT'S OUR INTENT.
WE DON'T WANT TO STOP MR. SMITH DOWN THE ROAD WHO'S GOT [OVERLAPPING].
I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED.
>> OTHER THAN BROILER CHICKEN MANURE.
[01:20:02]
>> IF WE'RE GOING TO CALL LIVESTOCK MANURE, NOW YOU'RE JUST BASICALLY BEING POULTRY, THEN YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE PROHIBITING THE STORAGE OF ANY MATERIAL OTHER THAN LIVESTOCK MANURE, AND LIVESTOCK MANURE IS MANURE GENERATED FROM ANIMALS OTHER THAN POULTRY.
>> I DO GET IT NOW, I'M SORRY. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S THE WORD. I GET IT NOW. I GOT TO READ IT THREE TIMES.
>> IT'S CORRECT, EXCEPT WE WANT TO CHANGE BROILER CHICKENS TO POULTRY.
>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY [INAUDIBLE] HAS A DEFINITION FOR LIVESTOCK MANURE AND THEN A STANDALONE DEFINITION FOR MANURE.
>> BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS A DEFINITION I COULD FIND FOR POULTRY MANURE.
>> I'VE READ IT MORE THAN THREE TIMES, I STILL DON'T SEE IT.
>> STORAGE OF MATERIAL OR SUBSTANCE OTHER THAN LIVESTOCK MANURE.
>> SO YOU CAN'T PUT ANYTHING ELSE IN THIS STRUCTURE OTHER THAN LIVESTOCK MANURE.
LIVESTOCK MANURE IS THE ONLY THING YOU CAN PUT IN IT.
WE GENERATE WHATEVER WE GENERATE AND WE CAN STORE IT.. THEN WHEN I LOOK AT THE DEFINITION OF LIVESTOCK MANURE, IT SAYS, ANY MANURE GENERATED FROM FARM ANIMALS OTHER THAN BOILER CHICKENS.
>> SO WE'RE NOT PUTTING THAT IN LIVESTOCK MANURE. IT'S OTHER THAN.
SO WHAT DO WE DO WITH THAT? IT'S NOT COVERED AT ALL UNDER THIS MORATORIUM.
>> NO, WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING WITH POULTRY LITTER.
>> IN RELATION TO A STRUCTURE.
>> THE GOAL OF THIS MORATORIUM, BASICALLY, WHAT IT SAYS IS IF YOU HAVE LIVESTOCK MANURE, IF YOU HAVE A PIT DESIGNED AND OR PERMITTED FOR THE STORAGE OF LIVESTOCK MANURE, THEN THE ONLY THING YOU CAN PUT IN IT IS LIVESTOCK MANURE.
>> YOU DON'T WANT CHICKEN MANURE IN IT.
>> YOU CAN'T PUT CHICKEN MANURE IN IT.
>> YOU JUST DON'T WANT NON MANURE IN A MANURE PIT.
>> RIGHT. IT'S DESIGNED AND PERMITTED, [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT'S THE LANGUAGE IN ALL THESE RIGHT HERE.
>> NOW I SEE IT. YOU DON'T WANT TO PUT IT IN THE STRUCTURE, BUT IN NUMBER 2, YOU SAY YOU CAN DUMP IT ON THE LAND AS LONG AS YOU GENERATED IT.
>> YOU JUST CAN'T TRUCK IT IN, BUT THAT STUFF REGULATED ANYWAY.
YOU BRING IT OUT AND DUMP IT ON THE FIELD, IT'S GOT TO BE SPREAD IN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME.
>> POULTRY, BUT WE'RE NOT ADDRESSING THAT AT ALL.
>> THIS IS WHY LAWYERS GET PAID SO MUCH TO DECIPHER THIS. [LAUGHTER]
>> I NEVER THOUGHT I'D BE IN A CONVERSATION LIKE THIS.
[LAUGHTER] NOW THAT WE'VE SORTED OUT CHICKENS AND WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHY BROILERS MAKE DIFFERENT MANURE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE GOT TO REPLACE BROILER CHICKENS WITH JUST THE WORD POULTRY.
>> SO WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE BROILER CHICKENS TO POULTRY.
HOW WOULD YOU WORD THAT OTHER THAN POULTRY.
>> RAISED UNDER CONTRACT FOR OUR COMMERCIAL PRODUCERS.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? IN REGARDS TO RESOLUTION 2024 006, I MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS RESOLUTION WITH THE CHANGES OF INSERTING PROHIBITED ON PAGE 1 INSTEAD OF ON, INSERTING A NUMBER SEVEN ENFORCEMENT PARAGRAPH, AND IN UNDER DEFINITIONS ON SECTION 2, CHANGING BROILER CHICKENS TO POULTRY,
[01:25:01]
AND RECOMMENDING THIS CHANGE IN THIS ORDINANCE OR THIS RESOLUTION TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON THE THAT IT FOLLOWS OUR COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND IN REGARDS TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND INFRASTRUCTURE.IN ADDITION, HAVE AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE PUT IN PLACE TO SPEED UP THE PROCESS OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS RESOLUTION.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE RESOLUTION OR THE MOTION THAT'S MADE? RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, SAY AYE.
>> ALL OPPOSED, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND SAY AYE? HEARING NONE, MOTION PASSED.
>> IF YOU'RE TALKING TO ANYBODY ABOUT THIS, PLEASE REMIND THEM THE PUBLIC HEARING IS FEBRUARY 27TH, IN THIS ROOM HERE.
>> WE'RE DOING IT RIGHT AFTER. WE'VE ALREADY HAD ONE, AND THIS ROOM WAS PACKED.
THERE WAS OVER 200 PEOPLE HERE.
>> MAYBE IT JUST FOLLOWS THEIR SCHEDULE.
>> WE HAVE OUR BUDGET ROUND TABLE NEXT TUESDAY.
>> IT'S BEGINNING AT 11:40. THIS ONE IS LIKE 10 MINUTES, SO THEY START AT 11:40.
>> THE 27TH HERE, BEGINNING AT 11 IN TWO WEEKS.
>> NOW THE MEETING WILL START AT 09:00.
IF YOU WANT TO COME AND BE BORED BY ALL THE BUDGET PRESENTATIONS, YOU CAN COME AND SIT THROUGH ALL OF THAT.
>> WE'LL BE HERE FROM 09:00 ON.
>> THEY'RE ALL LIKE SHE SAID DIFFERENT TIMES, BUT YOU'RE JUST GOING TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC, BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE THIS.
>> THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS, ABSOLUTELY.
>> BECAUSE IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING, YOU'RE GOING TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THEY VOTE.
>> YES. FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL RESOLUTION, WE WILL HOLD OUR PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN AFTER THOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS, WE WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE.
WE COULD ALWAYS POSTPONE THE VOTE.
>> YOU COULD TAKE ACTION THE SAME DAY?
>> YEAH, AND THEY CAN AMEND BASED OF ON, FOR EXAMPLE, YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS OR SOMETHING THAT'S HERE IN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> WHICH WE DID WITH THE FIRST ONE.
THE FIRST ONE GOT AMENDED AFTER WE HEARD TESTIMONY AT THE FIRST MEETING.
WE WENT BACK AND SPENT A COUPLE OF HOURS AMENDING IT. [LAUGHTER].
>> WE COULD DECIDE TO AMEND IT AND BRING IT BACK THE FOLLOWING WEEK, WE COULD VOTE ON IT NEXT TUESDAY.
>> BUT IT DOESN'T NEED TO COME BEFORE US AGAIN.
>> PLANNING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS UPDATE?
>> YES, THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MAY NOT MEET IN JANUARY.
>> SINCE LAST MONTH MEETING, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON MORATORIUMS, [LAUGHTER] AND WE WERE NOT SUCCESSFUL IN OUR FIRST ROUND OF ADVERTISING AND INTERVIEWING FOR FILLING THE TWO VACANCIES.
WE WERE HOPING FOR BETTER RESULTS, BUT THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
WE ARE GOING TO TRY AGAIN, BECAUSE WE DO DESPERATELY NEED TO FILL THOSE POSITIONS.
MATT'S GOT IN LARGE SOLAR PROJECT SUBMITTALS THAT HE'S TRYING TO WORK THROUGH TO GET THEM BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
WE NEED THAT OTHER DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COORDINATOR TO KEEP UP WITH THE REST OF THE PROJECTS, BECAUSE THOSE SOLAR PROJECTS ARE HUGE, AND THERE'S JUST A LOT OF REVIEW THAT GOES INTO THOSE.
>> THERE'S STATE LEGISLATION IN THAT WILL REMOVE ALL OF THAT, RIGHT? [LAUGHTER].
>> YEAH. THAT LEADS INTO THE OTHER THING THAT THE DEPARTMENT'S BEEN WORKING ON, IS JUST TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH ALL THE LEGISLATIVE BILLS THAT JUST KEEP COMING.
EVEN LAST WEEK, THEY'RE STILL DROPPING BILLS AND
[01:30:02]
THERE'S A NUMBER OF THEM OUT THERE FOR SOLAR, THERE'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING WE'RE LOOKING AT.>> ACTUALLY, THERE'S A FEW HOUSING BILLS.
>> YEAH, THERE'S A COUPLE. THERE'S BEEN ONE TO FAMILY AND GROUP DAYCARE.
WE CURRENTLY DEFINE FAMILY AND GROUP, FAMILY IS JUST YOUR TYPICAL AT HOME DAYCARE UP TO EIGHT CHILDREN, AND THEN ONCE YOU REACH NINE AND ABOVE, THAT'S CONSIDERED GROUP DAYCARE, AND WOULD REQUIRE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE STAFFING, MORE CHILDREN, MORE TRAFFIC AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT THE BILL THAT'S IN SAYING TAKE AWAY THE NUMBER.
>> YOUR NEIGHBOR COULD COME IN AND OPEN A DAYCARE WITH 20 KIDS.
>> YOU COULD BE IN A DEVELOPMENT AND NOW YOU'RE NOT RESTRICTED TO JUST A FAMILY DAYCARE THERE, AND THERE'S THE POTENTIAL FOR MORE TRAFFIC, MORE EMPLOYEES, BECAUSE ONCE YOU REACH A CERTAIN NUMBER OF KIDS, THEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE STAFF TO GO ALONG WITH IT.
WHAT ELSE IS THERE OUT THERE LESLIE?
>> I DON'T KNOW. YOU MEAN BILL WISE?
>> YES, IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYDAY THERE'S A NEW BILL THAT WE'RE TRYING TO LOOK INTO AND SEE [OVERLAPPING].
>> CANNABIS ON THE SAME LEVEL WITH ALCOHOL?
>> THEY'VE RELAXED THEM A LITTLE.
>> YEAH, THE FIRST WHEN THE BILL CAME OUT, IT WAS A 500 FOOT AND 1,000 FOOT SETBACK, AND THAT WAS, I BELIEVE, 500 FOOT FOR SCHOOLS,
[• BZA Update]
AND 1,000 FOOT FOR DAYCARE, WHICHEVER WAY IT WAS, AND THEY'RE LOOKING TO AMEND THAT TO MAKE IT INSTEAD OF 500 AND 1000, IT'S 1,000 AND 2000.BUT THEY ALSO ORIGINALLY HAD SAID DISPENSARIES WOULD BE ALLOWED AND TREATED THE SAME WAY WE WOULD ALLOW A RETAIL LIQUOR STORE, AND YOU WOULD TREAT A DISPENSARY THAT SAME WAY.
[• Department Update]
THERE'S BEEN A POTENTIAL AMENDMENT TO THAT 2000 FEET TO SAY THAT BECAUSE WHAT IT SAYS IS THE COUNTY HAS NO RIGHT TO BE ANY MORE RESTRICTIVE, BUT IT'S GIVEN US THAT ABILITY TO CREATE REGS FOR DISPENSARIES.THE AMENDMENT WOULD CIRCLE THAT BACK, AND THEN THE OTHER THING WAS THE CANNABIS GROWERS WOULD BE TREATED THE SAME AS WE WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE GROWING OF HEMP, WHICH WE WOULD CONSIDER THAT AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT ALLOWED IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT.
THE GROWERS WOULD BE ALLOWED IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT.
>> WE WOULD HAVE NO CONTROL, AND THAT'S THE PART OF THE BILL THAT GIVES ME THE MOST HEARTBURN IS THE GROWERS BEING ALLOWED ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTY, BECAUSE IT'S NOT GROWING LIKE HEMP.
THE CODE STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT A GROWER HAVE CHAIN LINK FENCE OR SOME TYPE OF FENCING WITH BARBED WIRE CAMERAS, THERE HAS TO BE SECURITY.
>> THAT COULD BE ANYWHERE OUT IN THE COUNTY, AND WE WOULD HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHERE THOSE COMPOUNDS BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE, THEY'RE GOING TO BE SECURITY COMPOUNDS WOULD BE PLACED.
I THINK IT WOULD CAUSE ISSUES FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT, WITH PEOPLE POTENTIALLY BREAKING INTO THEM IF THEY'RE IN VERY SECLUDED AREAS.
THAT'S REALLY WHAT I HAVE THE MOST HEARTBURN WITH IT.
I THINK IT WAS 500 FEET FROM SCHOOLS, CHURCHES, PARKS, THAT KIND OF STUFF, AND THEY WANT TO INCREASE THAT TO 1,000, AND I THINK IT WAS 1,000 FEET BETWEEN DISPENSARIES.
>> MAYBE 2000. THAT'S WHERE THEY [OVERLAPPING].
>> THEY WANT TO INCREASE IT TO 2000.
>> CAN THEY UP TO 1,000 TO 1,500 FEET.
>> AS OF NOW IT'S 1,500 FROM SCHOOLS, DAYCARE, CHURCHES, 2000 BETWEEN ANOTHER DISPENSARY.
>> THEY'VE GIVEN A LITTLE BIT ON THAT PART OF IT.
>> YEAH. BUT THAT ONE'S CREATED THE MOST HEARTBURN FOR ME, AND THEN THE SOLAR, ANYTHING SOLAR.
THEY WANT TO LIMIT OUR ABILITY TO TAX SOLAR, ONE BILL CAPS IT AT $2,500 PER MEGAWATT.
WE CURRENTLY NEGOTIATED A PILOT AT OVER 8,000 PER MEGAWATT.
THEY WANT TO DRASTICALLY REDUCE THE AMOUNT THAT WE CAN TAX.
THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY OUR ABILITY FOR CONTROL, SCREENING, SETBACKS, SIGHTING.
BASICALLY SOMEBODY COMES IN AND WANTS TO PUT IT, THEY CAN PUT IT ANYWHERE.
>> I THINK THERE'S ONE OTHER BILL OUT THERE FOR GROUP HOMES THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT TOO.
>> STREAM RESTORATION CONTRACTOR, COMPLETE WATERSHED THAT YOU SENT ME?
>> I THINK THAT'S GOING TO PASS.
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS PUSHING BACK ON IT.
THERE'S A MARINE CONTRACTOR REQUIREMENT.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THAT OR NOT, BUT THERE'S A LICENSING REQUIREMENT TO BE A MARINE CONTRACTOR TO DO PIERS, BULKHEAD, SHORELINE, ANY OF THOSE TYPES OF THINGS, ANYTHING IN THE WATERWAY WITH AN EXTENSIVE, I THINK, TEST YOU HAVE TO PASS.
IT'S LIKE MHIC LICENSE AND THEY WANT TO MAKE THAT SIMILAR.
[01:35:01]
THEY WANT TO MIMIC THAT REQUIREMENT AND APPLY IT TO STREAM RESTORATION CONTRACTORS.I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'VE GOT SOME FLY BY NIGHT PEOPLE ON THE WESTERN SHORE CONTRACTORS COMING IN MAKING A MESS OF THESE STREAM RESTORATION PROJECTS WHERE THEY FEEL THAT THEY NEED TO STEP IN AND CREATE A PARK. I DON'T KNOW.
>> I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT SCENARIO BECAUSE YOU HAVE A DESIGNER, YOU'VE GOT A PROJECT.
THEY'RE NOT JUST COMING IN AND DOING IT WITH NOBODY AROUND.
>> RIGHT. I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT COULD BE A PROBLEM.
AND THAT'S GOING TO HURT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT AND THE COST OF THAT.
IT'S GOING TO HURT THE SMALL PARTICULARLY LOCAL FIRMS AND DRIVE NEED TO NEED TO GO ACROSS THE BRIDGE TO HIRE SOMEBODY, WHICH [OVERLAPPING] PRICES THINGS OUT OF MY RANGE.
[OVERLAPPING] THEN REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR STREAM RESTORATION PROJECTS 60-DAY COMMENT PERIOD.
WHEN YOU'RE WORKING ON AN EIGHT-MONTH GRANT FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION, THAT CAN EAT INTO A PROJECT TO THE POINT WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO DO THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT I THINK THEY'RE TRYING TO DO AND THEY'RE GOING TO HURT THE ABILITY TO DO THESE PROJECTS.
>> ESSENTIALLY, THE LOCAL AUTONOMY, LOCAL CONTROL IS UNDER ASSAULT.
THEY WANT TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM THE LOCALS AND CENTRALIZE IT AT THE STATE IS WHAT'S HAPPENING.
THAT'S THE WHOLE THEME OF A LOT OF THESE BILLS GOING THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE.
A COUPLE GOOD BILLS THAT ARE IN, THERE WAS A DELEGATE LOVE, I BELIEVE FROM MONTGOMERY COUNTY INTRODUCED THE DAF BILL, WHICH WOULD SET UP A PERMITTING REQUIREMENT SIMILAR TO WHAT DELAWARE DOES.
DELAWARE HAS A PERMITTING REQUIREMENT FOR THE APPLICATION TO DAF ON AGRICULTURAL LAND, SO I THINK THEY WANTED TO MIRROR THAT.
IT'S GOING THROUGH SOME AMENDMENTS RIGHT NOW.
MDE WAS GOING TO BE THE ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. I THINK.
I BELIEVE THERE'S A LARGE AMENDMENT THAT WILL BE PUT IN TO TRANSFER THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY FROM MDE TO MDA.
SO MDA WILL ACTUALLY BE THE AGENCY.
DELEGATE GRACE HAS INTRODUCED A BILL THAT EXPRESSLY STATES THAT COUNTIES HAVE THE ABILITY TO REGULATE THE STORAGE OF THIS MATERIAL SIGHTING SPECIFICALLY, AND IF THE STATE DOES INDEED PASS ANY REGULATIONS ABOUT STORAGE, AS LONG AS WE'RE STRICTER THAN THOSE REGULATIONS, WE CAN IMPLEMENT OUR OWN.
SO WE CAN BE MORE STRICT AND WE HAVE CONTROL OVER SIGHTING.
IT TAKES AWAY ANY AMBIGUITY OVER THE COUNTY'S ABILITY TO CONTROL SIGHTING AND STORAGE.
THOSE ARE A COUPLE OF GOOD BILLS THAT ARE IN RIGHT NOW, BUT MOST OF THE OTHER ONES ARE JUST CAUSING US HEARTBURN.
>> MATT, YOU AWARE OF ANYTHING ELSE [LAUGHTER] WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT?
>> THAT'S GOT SOME ZINGERS ON IT.
BASICALLY, GRANTING [INAUDIBLE] COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO CREATE REGULATIONS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE INITIATIVES AND EQUITY, BILLING THAT IN THE REGULATIONS.
I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S GOING TO WORK. ALSO, GRANTS, IF THE LOCAL JURISDICTION DOESN'T UPDATE THEIR LOCAL PROGRAM AND ORDINANCES THAT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO JUST UPDATE IT FOR US.
>> WHICH WE HAVEN'T DONE YET, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS IN THERE THAT DON'T MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE.
SO THAT'S NOT NOT A GREAT BILL, WHICH MOST OF THE ONES THAT ARE IN RIGHT NOW ARE NOT GREAT BILLS.
MOST OF THEM, MR. BRIG SAID, TAKE AWAY LOCAL AUTHORITY FOR [INAUDIBLE] WE ALREADY HAVE AUTHORITY DELEGATED TO US FROM THE STATE.
>> THERE WAS AN INTERESTING ONE THAT LESLIE AND I WERE TACKLING THE PAST COUPLE OF DAYS IN THE HOUSING WHERE THEY WERE THE INTENT WAS TO ESTABLISH MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THE ORIGINAL BILL HAD IN THERE THAT MANUFACTURED DWELLINGS, WHICH WE CALL MOBILE HOMES, WOULD BE ALLOWED IN ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.
OUR CURRENT ZONING REGULATIONS STATE WHICH ZONING DISTRICTS THEY CAN GO IN AND UNDER WHAT PROVISIONS.
DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE MAY NOT WANT TO LOOK AT THAT AT SOME POINT IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
IT WAS LANGUAGE THAT WAS ADOPTED IN OUR CODE BACK IN THE '70S.
WE HAVEN'T LOOKED AT IT SINCE.
MAY BE SOMETHING THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY WANT TO LOOK AT, BUT THIS WAS SAYING YOU'RE GOING TO ALLOW THESE IN ALL YOUR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
[01:40:04]
THEN THERE WAS A BACK AND FORTH ABOUT MODULAR AND MANUFACTURED.NOBODY REALLY KNEW WHAT THE DIFFERENCE WAS [LAUGHTER].
WE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT TO THEM, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MANUFACTURED AND MODULAR.
MANUFACTURED IS REGULATED THROUGH THE FEDERAL AND HUD.
IT'S A HOME THAT'S BUILT ON A STEEL CHASSIS AND THAT'S ITS FOUNDATION, IT'S BROUGHT TO A LOT AND SUPPORTED BY PIERS.
WHEREAS A MODULAR HOME IS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME EXACT THING AS A STICK-BUILT-HOME.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS YOU BUILD IT IN THE FACTORY AND YOU BRING IT OUT THERE AND SET IT ON A PERMANENT FOUNDATION, BUT IT'S REQUIRED TO MEET ALL THE SAME CODES AS A STICK-BUILT-HOME WHEN IT COMES TO ENERGY EFFICIENCY, SPRINKLERS, INSULATION, ALL OF THAT IS THE SAME.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS IT'S BUILT AT THE FACTORY, WHERE MANUFACTURED, MOBILE HOMES HAVE DIFFERENT BUILDING STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES.
[OVERLAPPING] WE'VE EXPLAINED IT AND NOW THEY'VE COME BACK.
[OVERLAPPING] THEY TOOK MANUFACTURED OUT AND REPLACED IT WITH MODULAR.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S PROBLEMS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS WHERE THEY RESTRICT OR REGULATE MODULAR DWELLINGS.
I DON'T KNOW WHY BECAUSE AGAIN, THEY'RE CONSTRUCTED AND HAVE TO FOLLOW THE EXACT SAME CODES AS A STICK-BUILT-HOME, SO NOT SURE WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENING WITH THAT BILL.
>> THEY LOOK LIKE STICK-BUILT-HOMES [OVERLAPPING] WHEN THEY'RE DONE.
IT'S NOT A SINGLE WIDE FLAT ROOF TRAILER.
>> NO. AND THEY ARE BUILT TO DIFFERENT DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS.
>> THE THING THAT WE LIKED ABOUT IT WAS THAT THE IDEA OF MAYBE WE NEED TO LOOK AND REMEMBER WE WERE SAYING THINGS THAT WE CAN DO TO ENABLE MORE HOUSING POTENTIAL, WE LOOK AT ALLOWING MANUFACTURED HOMES IN MORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS THAN WE DO NOW.
WE ALREADY ALLOWED MODULAR HOMES EVERYWHERE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IF THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT, IT DOESN'T AFFECT US, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WAS THEIR ORIGINAL INTENT. [LAUGHTER]
>> WHAT THE LAST WORD WAS WE'RE JUST GOING TO TAKE MANUFACTURED HOMES OUT AND MAKE IT MODULAR HOMES, BUT WE ALREADY ALLOW THAT, BUT IT GAVE US AN IDEA THAT WE COULD DO ON OUR OWN WITHOUT THEM.
>> WHAT ARE THE DOUBLE WIDES CONSIDERED? ARE THEY [OVERLAPPING].
>> THERE ARE SOME COMPANIES THAT CONSTRUCT BOTH, THEY CONSTRUCT MODULAR AND MANUFACTURED [OVERLAPPING], DOUBLE WIDES, BUT YES, THE DIFFERENCE IS THE SINGLE WIDES AND DOUBLE WIDES, AND SOME POINT IN TIME, A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, THEY ACTUALLY MADE TRIPLE WIDES. THAT WAS SHORT LIVED.
>> I ALWAYS THOUGHT THEY HAD IT DEFINED.
>> IT IS DEFINED. [OVERLAPPING] IT'S JUST WHOEVER WAS WRITING THE BILL HAD NO CLUE WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YEAH, BUT YOU HAVE A DOUBLE WIDE, THEN YOU CAN TAKE THE WHEELS OUT AND PUT A FOUNDATION ON IT, DOESN'T MAKE IT A MODULAR.
>> NO, AND THAT'S WHAT I SAID.
A LOT OF THE DOUBLE WIDE THAT ARE BUILT TODAY, THEY LOOK VERY NICE.
>> WELL, THAT'S WHAT WE WERE THINKING BECAUSE OURS WOULD KEEP THEM OUT OF CERTAIN DISTRICTS WERE DONE WHEN THEY WEREN'T AS GOOD LOOKING AS THEY ARE NOW, SO IT'S ANOTHER THING THAT WE CAN LOOK AT.
[OVERLAPPING] > OUR RESTRICTIONS ARE ON THE SINGLE WIDE ONLY.
THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT KEEPS [OVERLAPPING] CAUSING THAT RISE IN AFFORDABILITY.
>> BUT WE DO ALLOW DOUBLE WIDE MANUFACTURED ANYWHERE WE ALLOW STICK-BUILT.
IT'S JUST THE SINGLE WIDES THAT ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE.
>> AND I THINK THAT WAS BECAUSE, AGAIN, BACK IN THE '70S WHEN WE CREATED THIS [OVERLAPPING].
>> THEY LOOK A WHOLE LOT DIFFERENT AND THEY'RE BUILT WAY DIFFERENT THAN THEY USED TO BE.
SO IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE CAN CONSIDER IN DOING THE COMP PLAN AND ALLOWING THEM IN [OVERLAPPING] OTHER JURISDICTIONS OR LIFTING SOME OF THE RESTRICTIONS WE HAVE ON THEM THAT SAY YOU CAN'T BE WITHIN SO MANY FEET OF A MAJOR HIGHWAY, YOU CAN'T BE WITHIN SO MANY FEET OF THE CHOPTANK RIVERS.
[OVERLAPPING] THERE'S A BUNCH OF RESTRICTIONS IN THERE THAT I THINK WE COULD TAKE A LOOK AT AND MAYBE ELIMINATE AS WE'RE WORKING THROUGH THE COMP PLAN.
>> THAT'S AN UNINTENDED BARRIER THAT WE CAN CORRECT.
>> I THINK THAT TOOK US THROUGH THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO DISCUSS? IF NOT, WE HAVE NO PUBLIC UNLESS YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING [INAUDIBLE] PUBLIC COMMENT.
>> IF NOT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
>> AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> MOTION PASSED. [LAUGHTER]
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.