>> PLANNING COMMISSION. I'M JEFF JACKSON.
[00:00:02]
I'M THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD.[Opening]
TO MY RIGHT VICE CHAIR HANNAH CAWLEY, AND MEMBERS KEITH BILBROUGH, AND ROGER MCKNIGHT.STAFF MEMBERS HERE, MATT KACZYNSKI.
>> KACZYNSKI. LESLIE GRUNDEN, KATHERINE MCCULLEY, AND OUR ATTORNEY STEWART BARROLL, RIGHT?
>> THERE'S A LIST GOING AROUND.
IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK, WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE END OF THIS AND THROUGHOUT THIS, WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE SOME PEOPLE SPEAK.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TIMES WHEN THE BOARD IS SPEAKING, PLEASE DON'T INTERRUPT US.
IF YOU COULD TAKE A MINUTE AND TURN YOUR CELL PHONES OFF, TURN THEM OFF, TURN THEM ON SILENT, SOMETHING, SO WE DON'T GET INTERRUPTED THAT WAY. THAT'S ALL OF US.
WE'RE READY. THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS THE RIGDELY COW BARN SOLAR PROJECT OVERVIEW AND UPDATE.
NOW, ARE YOU ALL REPRESENTING COW BARN?
>> BEFORE WE GET STARTED WITH THIS, THIS WAS A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION AT THE WORKSHOP MEETING LAST WEEK TO BRING THE BOARD UP ON WHAT'S GOING ON.
THIS IS A SMALL SYSTEM ABOUT 17-18 ACRES.
[Ridgely Cow Barn Solar Project – Final Site Plan Review]
THE FIRST REVIEW IS DONE DECEMBER '22.IF I MAKE ANY MISTAKES, YOU ALL CAN CLEAR THEM UP.
THE LETTER THAT WENT OUT ON MAY 2 IS THE SIXTH REVIEW FOR THIS 17 ACRE SOLAR PROJECT, WHICH BECAUSE THERE'S STUFF STILL NEEDS ADDRESSING, THERE WILL BE A SEVENTH REVIEW.
THE LETTER THAT WAS INCLUDED IN OUR PACKET FROM MATT TO ADDRESSING THE ISSUES OUT HERE AT THIS PROJECT.
FIRST THREE ITEMS ON THE LIST ARE MINOR.
I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT THEY'RE MINOR, THEY ALWAYS COME UP AND THEY'LL BE ADDRESSED BEFORE ANY FINAL PERMITS ARE ISSUED.
BUT THERE IS A COUPLE OF BIG ISSUES THAT IS THERE, AND ONE IS THE BOND AND ONE IS THE DECOMMISSIONING PLAN, WHICH ARE STILL NOT CORRECT AND THE BOND IS STILL NOT AGREED UPON.
I ASKED A POINT BLANK QUESTION IF THIS PLAN WAS READY TO BE REVIEWED BY US AND WAS TOLD NO.
BUT YET A COUPLE OF MEETINGS AGO, WE GAVE OUR STAFF GUIDANCE THAT SAID, WE DIDN'T WANT TO SEE ANYTHING TO TAKE UP OUR TIME THAT WASN'T READY FOR REVIEW, BUT YET WE'RE HERE.
NOW, UP FOR FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A SITE PLAN THAT ACCORDING TO OUR STAFF, IS NOT READY.
I WAS ALSO TOLD THAT APPARENTLY OVER OUR SIX REVIEWS, WE ARE NOW AT A POINT WHERE CARL MONROE DOESN'T WANT TO TALK TO OUR PLANNER ANYMORE OR MATT ANYMORE.
THEY ONLY WANT TO TALK TO THE BOSS AND I GUESS, US.
THIS IS A SMALL SYSTEM THAT AFTER A YEAR AND A HALF IS STILL HAVING ISSUES.
LIKE I SAID, WE WENT OVER AND MATT HAS ASSURED ME AND STAFF HAS ASSURED ME, WE'RE NOT BEING DIFFICULT TO WORK WITH.
THE ISSUES THAT YOU CAN READ OUR GUIDELINES, OUR CHAPTERS, OUR ORDINANCES AND GET EVERYTHING YOU NEED IN THEM.
TONIGHT, WE HAVE PRESENTED THE FINAL SITE PLAN FOR REVIEW FOR US AND WE CAN DO THREE THINGS AS IT WAS PUT IN OUR PACKAGE.
WE CAN APPROVE IT AND SAY, GO AHEAD.
WE CAN APPROVE IT WITH CONDITIONS, WHICH I ASSUME THE CONDITIONS WOULD BE TO HAVE TO ADDRESS EVERYTHING IN THE LETTER, OR WE CANNOT APPROVE IT AND HAVE IT BROUGHT TO US WHEN THE STAFF IS READY FOR US TO APPROVE IT AND HAS ALL THE ISSUES ADDRESSED.
THAT'S WHAT THE CONVERSATION WAS IN THE WORKSHOP MEETING.
[00:05:04]
MATT, DID I MISS ANYTHING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT?>> NOW, YOU ALL HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK OVER.
LIKE I SAID, THIS IS LETTER NUMBER 6.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALL HAVE ANY COMMENTS BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP TO STAFF.
>> I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THEM AGAIN.
>> I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM MATT.
>> MATT, BEFORE WE HEAR FROM COW BARN, WOULD YOU LIKE ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT YOU HAVE IN HERE, ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO?
>> NO. I FELT THAT YOU'VE ADDRESSED OUR CONCERNS, CERTAINLY YOUR CONCERNS.
WE'LL LET COW BARN PRESENT THEIR CASE AND IF YOU'VE GOT QUESTIONS FOR ME AFTER, THEN WE'LL MOVE FROM THERE.
>> PLEASE, JUST TELL US WHO YOU ARE.
>> SURE. BRENDAN MULLANEY WITH MCALLISTER, DETAR, SHOWALTER & WALKER, 100 NORTHWEST STREET EASTERN MARYLAND. GO AHEAD AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF.
>> HEATHER HUTTON WITH KIMLEY-HORN, 215 WASHINGTON AVENUE, TOWSON, MARYLAND.
>> I'M ZACH MEYER AT SOLTAGE AND THE PROJECT COMPANY RIDGELY COW BARN SOLAR LLC.
>> I GUESS I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS HEAD ON AND JUST TALK THROUGH THAT WITH YOU ALL.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY INTEREST IN BEING DIFFICULT.
THIS WAS FIRST HEARD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 11 OF LAST YEAR.
IT WENT BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS ON FEBRUARY 2, SO IT'S BEEN A YEAR AND THREE MONTHS SINCE IT WAS IN FRONT OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS.
SINCE THEN, THE DEVELOPER HAS WORKED WITH DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT, FINISH LAYOUT AND DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM ON THE PROPERTY AND FINALIZE THE DESIGN.
THE BOARD OF APPEALS DID GRANT A ONE YEAR EXTENSION ON THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE PROJECT BREAK GROUND.
WE'RE WELL WITHIN THAT, BUT THIS HAS BEEN A PRETTY LONG PROCESS.
HEATHER IS TO MY LEFT CHEEK, CAN I THINK DISCUSS IN GREATER DETAIL THE BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN STAFF.
I WAS CERTAINLY UNAWARE THAT THE PERCEPTION OR, IF ANYTHING, WAS SAID TO STAFF THAT WE WERE GOING AROUND MR. KACZYNSKI.
WHEN I CORRESPOND WITH STAFF, I USUALLY KEEP THE WHOLE STAFF TEAM ON.
WHEREVER THAT CAME FROM, I'D BE INTERESTED TO KNOW THAT AND CERTAINLY WASN'T OUR INTENTION TO GO AROUND ANYBODY TO TRY TO MOVE THIS FORWARD.
I DO KNOW THAT OVER THE LAST YEAR, THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ITERATIONS AND BACK AND FORTH WITH COMMENTS.
SOME OF THEM WERE NEW COMMENTS.
SOME OF THEM WERE DUPLICATIVE THAT NEEDED FURTHER DISCUSSION.
THERE WERE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ABOUT LEGAL DOCUMENTS SUCH AS FOREST CONSERVATION ACT EASEMENT, LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, AND THOSE OTHER COMPONENTS THAT GO INTO A PROJECT.
IS IT UNREALISTIC THAT THERE WOULD BE A FEW TURNS OF THE DISCUSSION? NO, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT IS.
I THINK THAT SIX OR SEVEN SEEMS EXCESSIVE.
WE ARE WHERE WE ARE, AND WE'RE BEFORE YOU LOOKING FOR FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A LETTER FROM MAY 2 FROM PLANNING AND ZONING THAT HAS EIGHT BULLET POINTS.
WE ASKED TO COME BEFORE YOU ORDINARILY.
IN I'LL JUST SAY MOST COUNTIES OR MUNICIPALITIES, A LOT OF THESE INCLUDING THE LEGAL AGREEMENTS, THE DECOMMISSIONING PLAN AND THE BONDS AND SOME OF THE FORMALITIES ARE GENERALLY LEFT TO STAFF TO DEAL WITH DIRECTLY WITH THE APPLICANT AND THE DEVELOPER AND MAKE SURE THAT ALL THAT'S BUTTONED UP WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT DEPENDING ON THE JURISDICTION, EITHER FINAL SITE PLAN WILL NOT BE EXECUTED BY STAFF UNTIL THOSE CONDITIONS ARE RESOLVED TO STAFF SATISFACTION.
OR BUILDING PERMITS WON'T BE ISSUED DEPENDING ON WHICH MUNICIPALITY OR COUNTY YOU'RE IN.
I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WANTS ANY OF THE MATERIAL COMPONENTS OF A PROJECT TO BE DEALT WITH, AND I DO BELIEVE THAT WE ARE THERE AND THAT THESE LAST PIECES ON THIS LAST COMMENT LETTER, WE CAN DEAL WITH STAFF AND THAT THEY ARE SMALL ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE DECOMMISSIONING PLAN AND THE SITE PLAN.
I DON'T HAVE ANY INTEREST IN PRESENTING THE PROJECT TO YOU ALL IF YOU'RE NOT INTERESTED IN APPROVING THIS TONIGHT AND I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THAT BE SEEN AS A WASTE OF YOUR TIME IN ANY WAY.
I DO THINK THAT MR. KACZYNSKI IS HERE, HE CAN OPINE ON THIS, BUT I DO READ THE STAFF REPORT FOR TONIGHT'S HEARING TO SAY THAT STAFF IS WILLING TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO RESOLVE
[00:10:01]
THESE OUTSTANDING ISSUES SHOULD YOU APPROVE FINAL SITE PLAN TONIGHT, AND THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO TO MOVE THE PROJECT FORWARD.>> THE FIRST THREE ITEMS, THEY'RE MINOR, THEY ALWAYS POP UP AND THEY'LL GET ADDRESSED BEFORE PERMITS ARE ISSUED. THAT'S FINE.
WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT. THE BOND I THINK WAS QUITE IN DISPUTE WHEN I THINK IT'S RECOMMENDED. THAT'S YOURS, RIGHT?
>> THERE'S JUST A BIG DISCREPANCY WITH THE DECOMMISSIONING PLAN THAT, I THINK SOMEWHERE IN HERE, IT SAYS, THEY JUST RECOMMENDED $10,000.
JUST DO $10,000 BOND BECAUSE, YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE MONEY ON THE DECOMMISSIONING ANYWAY.
MATT HAS TOLD ME, AND AGAIN, WE'RE NOT EXPERTS ON THIS, THAT A PROJECT RUNS BETWEEN 70 AND 100,000.
THAT'S A THAT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE THAT, WE FIGURED Y'ALL WOULD BE TALKING ABOUT, AND EVERYBODY WOULD HAVE COME TO AGREEMENT ON IT.
THEN, I THINK YOU BROUGHT IT UP, CLEANED IT UP.
IN THE DECOMMISSIONING PLAN, THERE'S NUMBERS THAT DON'T MATCH EACH OTHER, AND IT JUST NEEDED TO BE CLEANED UP.
I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY'S TALKING.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT HIS PROBLEMS ARE WITH THE DECOMMISSIONING PLAN?
>> YES. CAN I JUMP IN, IF THAT'S OKAY?
>> AGAIN, HEATHER HUTTON WITH KIMLEY-HORN, THE CIVIL ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT, WE DID ALSO PREPARE THE DECOMMISSIONING PLAN.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE COUNTY FOR A NUMBER OF MONTHS.
I THINK THERE'S BEEN MAYBE THREE, IF I HAD TO GUESS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, SUBMITTALS AND VARIATION OF THE DECOMMISSIONING PLAN.
WE HAVE PROPOSED A $10,000 BOND THERE WHICH IS SHOWING THAT THE SALVAGE VALUE OF THE MATERIALS IS GREATER THAN THE COST TO DECOMMISSION.
IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED, WE CAN CERTAINLY CONTINUE THAT CONVERSATION.
I WAS NOT AWARE THAT WE NEEDED TO RESTRUCTURE THAT AGREEMENT AT THIS TIME.
THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT WAYS THAT MANY DIFFERENT COUNTIES AND VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS AROUND THE STATE ARE ENFORCING THAT DECOMMISSIONING FINANCIAL AMOUNT.
WE CAN CERTAINLY CONTINUE THOSE CONVERSATIONS.
I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS ONE ATTACHMENT OF THE DECOMMISSIONING BOND THAT SOME OF THE VALUES DID NOT MATCH UP WAS [NOISE] IN THE REPORT.
I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT CONFUSION.
BY NO MEANS ARE WE TRYING TO BE COMBATIVE.
I AGREE WITH MR. MELANY'S ESTIMATE THERE AT THE BEGINNING.
WE ARE NOT TRYING TO GO AROUND ANYBODY.
SINCE WE'VE WORKED THROUGH THE SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BEFORE BOARD OF APPEALS, WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH THE VARIOUS DESIGN PHASES.
SOME OF THAT BEING THE SYSTEM DESIGN, SOME OF THAT BEING SOME REDESIGN FROM AN INTERCONNECTION STANDPOINT THAT WAS REQUIRED BY THE INTERCONNECT BY THE UTILITY THEMSELVES.
A LOT OF THAT BEING THE PLANNING AND ZONING REVIEW, THE SOIL CONSERVATION REVIEW, THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR THE PROJECT, AND WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO CONTINUE THAT CONVERSATION THROUGH WITH THE COUNTY.
AGAIN, NOT TRYING TO WORK AROUND ANYBODY.
THE COMMENTS HERE THAT LIE BEFORE US TONIGHT, THAT WE RECEIVED RECENTLY, I BELIEVE IT WAS SUGGESTED NOT TO TRY TO SUBMIT REVISED MATERIALS BEFORE THIS MEETING THIS WEEK AS TO NOT CONFUSE THE MATERIAL THAT'S PRESENTED BEFORE YOU.
WE ARE VERY PREPARED TO GIVE YOU THESE FINALIZED DOCUMENTS THIS WEEK TO CLARIFY THESE ITEMS HERE.
WE'VE JUST RECENTLY ON NUMBER 2 RECEIVED CONFIRMATION FROM SHA ABOUT SOME FINAL ADJUSTMENTS THEY WANT TO SEE, AND WE BELIEVE WE'RE AT THE FINAL OF THAT.
THE SHA COMMENTS THEY SHOULD NOT BE IMPACTING ANYTHING THAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY.
>> THAT HAS A SURE MEANING FOR THREE THINGS HERE.
>> THEN THE REMAINDER OF THAT DECOMMISSIONING, WHAT THAT SURETY VALUE, WHAT THE COUNTY WANTS TO SEE ON THAT SURETY VALUE, WE CAN CERTAINLY CONTINUE TO TALK THROUGH THAT.
I KNOW ZACK CAN SPEAK TO THAT SINCE HIS COMPANY IS THE ONE THAT'S ACTUALLY PUTTING UP THAT SURETY, BUT THOSE COMMENTS THAT ARE OUTSTANDING TONIGHT DO NOT AFFECT THE SITE PLAN, AS IT'S LAID OUT BEFORE YOU IN ITS MATERIAL LIMITS OF THE PROJECT, ANY OF THAT.
I JUST WANTED TO FURTHER CLARIFY THAT BEFORE WE CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION.
[NOISE] I THINK LIKE YOU SAID,
[00:15:04]
THE DECOMMISSIONING PLAN, EACH JURISDICTION IS ADDRESSING THEM DIFFERENTLY.I THINK AS MATT TOLD ME, WE GET IT BEFORE THE FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, BUT OTHER PEOPLE ARE GETTING IT AFTERWARDS.
THIS IS A PART THAT WE DON'T HAVE YET.
WHICH, AGAIN, YOU CAN APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS AND THE CONDITIONS ALREADY GOT THEIR ADDRESSES.
>> I WANTED TO CHIME IN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HEARING US TONIGHT.
REITERATING WHAT MS. MELANY AND MS. HANOV SAID.
WE WANT TO BE REALLY COOPERATIVE HERE.
WITH MR. KACZYNSKI, NONE OF US MEANT TO GIVE ANY IMPRESSION OF GOING AROUND HIM.
I'M SORRY IF THAT WAS THE IMPRESSION RECEIVED.
THIS THIS CONCEPT OVERALL OF THE SALVAGE VALUE BEING PART OF THE CALCULATION OF THE DECOMMISSIONING BOND, SOME JURISDICTIONS ARE RECEPTIVE TO IT AND OTHERS LESS SO.
I'LL JUST SAY AS THE APPLICANT OF THE PROJECT OPERATING COMPANY, WE WOULD RATHER HAVE YOU ALL WIND UP NOT BEING RECEPTIVE TO THAT, AND HAVE THE APPROVAL TONIGHT WITH CONDITIONS.
THEN, WE DON'T WANT TO DIG OUR HEELS IN ON THAT POINT. YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN? I THINK WE SUBMITTED THE LATEST VERSION IN EARLY MARCH WE'RE READY AND WILLING TO MAKE CHANGES TO THAT DOCUMENT.
WE'RE TOLD ABOUT THIS LETTER FROM MAY 2ND JUST RECENTLY.
LIKE HEATHER SAID, WE CAN ADDRESS IT THIS WEEK EVEN.
>> WELL, AND AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT MY CONCERN. WE SIT DOWN.
WE HAVE SEVERAL SOLAR PROJECTS AND OTHER PROJECTS GOING ON.
I CAN TELL YOU THIS IS A SMALL ONE.
THERE'S PROBABLY PEOPLE IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM THAT STICK THEIR HEAD WHEN I SAID THERE'S A VERY LARGE ONE SITTING IN HERE.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET 500 ACRES, HOWEVER BIG THAT ONE IS.
THEN, ONCE IT EVERYTHING'S APPROVED AND EVERYTHING'S DONE, AND HERE WE ARE WITH THIS PLAN AND, YOUR SYSTEM GETS SOLD OFF TO SOMEBODY ELSE AND THEY INHERIT THIS PLAN, THEY WOULD HAVE IT.
WE HAVE RULES THAT WE HAVE PUT IN PLACE AND WE GO BY, AND I KNOW THEY'RE DIFFERENT FROM OTHER COUNTIES.
THEY'VE ASSURED ME THAT WE'RE NOT BEING DIFFICULT TO WORK WITH, BUT WE ALSO DON'T WANT TO SEE PLANS.
WE WERE TOLD AND I'VE BEEN TOLD, THAT WE HAVE AT LEAST TWO PROJECTS THAT DEMAND TO BE PUT IN FRONT OF THE BOARD. WE HAVE STAFF.
BUT, THEY WANT TO THEY WANT TO COME IN FRONT OF THE BOARD. FOR WHAT? FOR US TO TELL YOU KNOW? BUT YOU KNOW.
WHEN THEY'RE DONE, WHEN THEY SAY, "WE'RE GOOD, WE CAN WORK WITH IT", THEN, WE'RE WILLING TO DO THAT.
THAT'S THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION.
AS WE PULL ON HERE FOR FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW, AND AGAIN, WE HAVE THREE OPTIONS THAT WE CAN APPROVE IT AND WE CAN PROVE IT WITH CONDITIONS OR WE CAN NOT APPROVE.
ANYTHING ELSE YOU ALL WANT TO ADD?
>> WHO COMES UP WITH THE DECOMMISSIONING FIGURE AND HOW DO YOU REACH THAT DETERMINATION?
>> I CAN SPEAK TO THAT. THERE'S A LOT THAT GOES INTO IT, SO I'LL TRY TO KEEP IT BRIEF.
A LOT OF IT IS QUANTITY TAKEOFFS THAT ARE DIRECTLY COMING FROM THE PLANT.
THE AMOUNT OF ROAD THAT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED.
PART OF THE CONVERSATION HERE HAS BEEN THE COST TO REMOVE THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
>> CAN I ASK ANOTHER QUESTION AHEAD OF THAT?
>> BASICALLY, THE DECOMMISSIONING, WE'RE LOOKING TO PUT THE LAND BACK THE WAY THAT IT IS [INAUDIBLE] AND IN CONSTRUCTION?
>> YES. FROM THERE, THERE ARE VALUES FROM RSMEANS.
THERE ARE VALUES FROM THIRD MARKET RATES THAT WE WILL USE FOR BOTH THE SALVAGE OF THE MATERIALS OF THE THIRD MARKET SALVAGE RATES.
>> WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH DECOMMISSION? WE'RE LOOKING FOR A BOND TO COVER THE PROPERTY TO BE PUT BACK INTO THE CONDITION IT IS RIGHT NOW.
>> WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS WE COULD YANK ALL THAT STUFF OUT OF THE GROUND AND SELL IT.
>> YES. THE DECOMMISSIONING PLAN AS IT'S BEEN PREPARED,
[00:20:05]
IT DOES DISCUSS THE COSTS OF DECOMMISSIONING: LABOR, AND MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT RENTALS THAT WOULD BE ANTICIPATED FOR SUCH EFFORTS.THERE IS ALSO A COLUMN THERE THAT DOES DISCUSS SALVAGE VALUE, WHICH IS WHAT MR. MEYER WAS JUST EXPLAINING.
ULTIMATELY, THEY DON'T WANT THAT TO GET IN THE WAY OF CAUSING ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE APPROVAL OF THIS.
TO GET TO THE MEAT OF YOUR QUESTION, A LOT OF WHAT GOES INTO THE COST ESTIMATING FOR THAT ARE LABOR PRODUCTIVITY RATES, RSMEANS LABOR RATES THAT ARE ADJUSTED THEN FOR THE REGION, AND THE VALUES THAT WE SEE WITHIN THE REGION.
THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT BASES OF THOSE COST ADJUSTMENTS THAT WE CAN TAKE DEPENDING ON WHERE WE'RE LOCATED SPECIFICALLY WITHIN MARYLAND, SO WE ADJUST IT FOR THE REGION AS CLOSE AS WE CAN, AND WE'RE CONSTANTLY USING DATABASES TO UPDATE THOSE NUMBERS TO KEEP THEM CURRENT.
>> YOU USE PAST HISTORY FROM THE COMMISSION AND OTHER PLACES.
>> THERE'S SUPPOSED TO BE A MECHANISM IN HERE.
IT'S LIKE WHAT IT IS TODAY AND THEN A MECHANISM FOR INFLATION.
>> I'M NOT SURE WHO THIS QUESTION WOULD BE FOR.
THE SALVAGE MATERIAL, HYPOTHETICALLY SAY AT THE END OF THIS PROJECT, IF YOU'RE TAKING A SALVAGE VALUE, WHO'S SELLING IT? ARE WE GOING TO GO OUT AND TAKE IT TO THE SCRAP YARD TO SELL IT? WHERE DOES THAT FIGURE PLAY IN AND WHY ARE WE [INAUDIBLE]
>> WE'RE GETTING A BOND IN CASE THEY WALK AWAY.
>> THERE ARE COMPANIES THAT COME IN AND SPECIFICALLY DEAL IN SECOND AND THIRD MARKET PHOTOVOLTAIC EQUIPMENT.
IT MAY GO TO ANOTHER PROJECT, IT MAY GO TO ANOTHER COUNTRY, WHEREVER THE MARKET IS TO GET THE HIGHEST VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.
THE BOND IS THERE SO THAT IF ANYTHING EVER HAPPENS TO THE DEVELOPER AND THE PROJECT HAS TO BE DECOMMISSIONED, THE STATE OR THE COUNTY, DEPENDING ON WHO'S HOLDING THE BOND, CAN COME IN AND HAS THE MONEY TO BRING IN THE CONTRACTORS, AND THE SALVAGE EXPERTS, AND THE COMPANIES TO DECOMMISSION THE PROJECT AND MAKE SURE THAT IT'S RETURNED BACK TO WHAT IT WAS BEFORE CONSTRUCTION.
>> RIGHT. FOR THIS ONE WE'VE PROVIDED A THIRD PARTY QUOTE FROM ONE OF THOSE COMPANIES.
MR. KACZYNSKI ASKED US TO PROVIDE REAL DOCUMENTATION OF THESE SALVAGE VALUE.
WE WENT AND GOT THIS QUOTE FROM THIS COMPANY ONTILITY AND THEY WILL PAY YOU TO COME REMOVE THE SOLAR PANELS.
>> THE ONLY QUESTION THAT I HAD, AND WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING IT, IT'S A MARKED PROPERTY, THE INDUSTRY STANDARD.
THEY'RE SAYING 70-30; 70% OF THIS EQUIPMENT IS REUSABLE AFTER I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY YEARS.
>> THAT'S WHAT ONTILITY PUT ON THEIR DOCUMENT AS AN EXAMPLE.
I THINK THAT, IN REALITY, EVERY TIME THEY DECOMMISSION A PROJECT, THAT NUMBER IS PROBABLY A BIT DIFFERENT.
>> THIS IS A BALL PARK TO GO BY.
IT DEPENDS ON HOW OLD THAT SYSTEM IS.
>> RIGHT. EVERY FIVE YEARS THERE'S THE ABILITY FOR THE COUNTY TO REASSESS THE BOND OR ASK US TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION YET AGAIN AND REASSESS AND PROVIDE A NEW UPDATED BOND FIGURE BECAUSE THE EQUIPMENT WILL DEPRECIATE OVER TIME.
>> THAT 70-30, HONESTLY IN THE ONTILITY REPORT, THAT WAS FOR US.
THE STAFF COMMENT SAID WE WANT TO SEE THAT, SO WE'RE GOING TO INCORPORATE IT INTO THE DECOMMISSIONING PLAN.
>> LIKE I SAID, THAT'S WHY NOBODY'S HERE.
IT WAS SURPRISING TO ME THAT PEOPLE THAT DEAL WITH IT ACTUALLY CAME UP AS 70% OF THIS STUFF CAN BE REUSED.
>> IT'S PROBABLY LOW IN YEAR 1, THAT'S ASSUMING THAT THE CONTRACTOR COMES IN AND BREAKS 30% OF THE PANELS IN YEAR 1 IF IT HAS TO BE DECOMMISSIONED.
IT MIGHT BE 95% IN YEAR 1, BUT IN YEAR 10, IT MIGHT BE 70-30.
IT DEPENDS ON LIFE OF THE PROJECT.
IT DEPENDS ON WHO DECOMMISSIONS IT.
IT DEPENDS ON WEATHER CONDITIONS.
THERE WAS A PROJECT IN TEXAS A FEW MONTHS AGO THAT WAS HIT BY A HAILSTORM.
WE DON'T REALLY HAVE MAJOR HAIL STORMS HERE, BUT IT HAPPENS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD.
THAT PROJECT HAD PRESUMABLY TO BE DECOMMISSIONED.
THAT NUMBER FLUCTUATES, WHICH IS WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THAT FIVE YEAR MECHANISM IN PLACE SO THAT THE COUNTY MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S A BOND TO COVER THE DECOMMISSIONING VALUE.
THE INITIAL PROPOSED BOND AMOUNT WILL VERY LIKELY INCREASE EVERY FIVE YEARS AS YOU GET CLOSER TOWARDS THE END OF THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT,
[00:25:04]
SO THAT THE COUNTY IS HOLDING ENOUGH OF A SURETY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PROJECT IS DECOMMISSIONED IF IT HAS TO CALL ON THE BOND.>> SO IS THAT AT 178,000 OR 160,000? BECAUSE THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT VALUES.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE NEED CLEANED UP.
THEY DON'T AGREE WITH EACH OTHER.
>> BUT WHICH ONE IS IT? THE 160 IS IN EXHIBIT A, AND THE 178 IS IN THE ACTUAL PLAN.
>> HOLD ON A SECOND JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR QUESTION.
SORRY, CAN YOU REPEAT THE VALUES YOU'RE STATING JUST SO I CAN FOLLOW.
>> IN THE PLAN IT WAS STATED AT 178,000.
AND THEN EXHIBIT A IS 160,000, IF I'M LOOKING AT IT CORRECTLY.
>> YES, UNDERSTOOD. WHEN I MENTIONED EARLIER, I BELIEVE THAT IT IS APPENDIX A, THE ATTACHMENT A THAT SOME OF THE VALUES THAT PAGE DID NOT GET REPLACED PROPERLY, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT CONFUSION, BUT THIS IS A REPORT THAT WE'RE PREPARED TO PROVIDE AS CORRECTED DOCUMENTATION AS SOON AS YOU-ALL NEED IT.
>> WHICH NUMBER IS IT IS MY QUESTION.
>> I THINK IT WOULD BE THE 178.
WE NEED TO CORRECT EXHIBIT A TO MATCH THAT.
>> YES. BECAUSE THE REQUEST HERE THAT WAS INCORPORATED WAS ADDING THE COST TO REMOVE THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER AT THE END OF THE PROJECT.
THAT'S WHY THAT NUMBER INCREASED, AND THAT THE TABLE DOESN'T REFLECT THAT.
>> BASICALLY 18,000 OR SO FOR THE LANDSCAPE PART.
>> THAT'S ONE OF THE COMMENTS OF THE EIGHT BULLET POINTS THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED TO MAKE SURE THAT STAFF IS COMFORTABLE WITH THE NUMBERS BEFORE THEY ISSUE THE FINAL SITE PLAN SIGNATURES.
>> I DO WANT TO ENHANCE THERE WAS A POINT MADE ABOUT THESE RATES DO CHANGE, AND WE ARE DOING OUR BEST TO STAY CURRENT WITH THOSE.
AS MR. MEYER JUST MENTIONED, THERE IS A REQUIREMENT HERE THAT THIS WILL GET REASSESSED EVERY FIVE YEARS AND CAN BE ADJUSTED AS NEEDED AS MARKET RATES DEMAND.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MATT.
HOW DO WE HANDLE THAT SIDE OF IT?
>> AS FAR AS THE DECOMMISSIONING PLAN?
>> NO. AS FAR AS AFTER A FIVE YEAR PERIOD, REASSESS.
>> PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION, THEY'D HAVE TO RESUBMIT A DECOMMISSIONING PLAN.
BASICALLY WHAT THEY HAVE NOW, AND WE'D HAVE TO REEVALUATE IT AND REAPPROVE IT.
>> IS THAT AN AUTOMATIC? ARE THEY REQUIRED TO DO THAT?
>> THE LANGUAGE IN THE CODE IS NOT SPECIFIC.
THE LANGUAGE IS IT HAS TO BE COVERED FOR THE LIFE CYCLE SYSTEM.
THE INDUSTRY IS GOING TO THESE FIVE YEAR INCREMENTS BECAUSE OF THE WAY INFLATION RATES ARE, BECAUSE OF THE CHANGING VALUES.
WE ARE OKAY WITH DOING THAT EVERY FIVE YEARS, BUT THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTATION TO ASK FOR A REAPPROVE.
THE INDUSTRY STANDARD IS GOING THAT WAY, BUT OUR CODE DOESN'T NECESSARILY REFLECT THAT.
US DOING THAT IS HELPING THEM FROM A STANDPOINT THAT IT'S NOT AS MUCH MATURITY UP FRONT FOR THEM TO HAVE TO COVER.
IT IS HELPFUL FOR THEM TO GET THE PROJECT IN THE GROUND, BUT IT'S JUST EXTRA DOCUMENTS EVERY FIVE YEARS THAT HAVE TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED.
>> CAN WE REQUEST AS PLANNING COMMISSION TO BE ABLE TO LOOK OVER THAT BEFORE IT'S APPROVED IN FIVE YEARS?
>> I DON'T SEE WHY NOT. IT'S TIED TO A SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD BRING BACK BEFORE THE BOARD.
>> I'M SORRY. I MISSED THE QUESTION. COULD YOU REQUEST WHAT?
>> TO BE INVOLVED WITH THE REVIEW PROCESS IN FIVE YEARS OF THE DECOMMISSIONING PLAN.
>> I THINK BECAUSE IT'S TIED TO THE SITE PLAN, THAT COULD BE A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL UPON REEVALUATION COMING BACK TO THE BOARD.
LIKE I SAID, IT'S NOT TIED IN [INAUDIBLE].
WE'RE TRYING TO HELP THEM OUT.
BUT IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO BE A PART OF EVERY FIVE YEARS AS PART OF THAT REASSESSMENT, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT I THINK AS A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL.
IF WE APPROVE IT FOR FIVE YEARS, IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE DONE ANYWAY, SO IF THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO BE INVOLVED WITH THAT.
HISTORICALLY, WE HAVE BROUGHT THIS BEFORE THE BOARD BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD COMMENTS ON DECOMMISSIONING PLANS WHERE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE REQUESTED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WITHIN A PLAN THAT HAD BEEN REVISED PRIOR TO COMING BACK FOR A FINAL APPROVAL, WHICH IS WHY WE REQUEST THOSE AT FINAL.
[00:30:02]
IS IT US THAT WOULD SEEK THEM OUT FOR THEIR FIVE YEARS OR WOULD IT BE THEIR OBLIGATION TO COME TO US?>> IT WOULD BE THEIR OBLIGATION, BUT WE WOULD PROBABLY TRIGGER SOMETHING IN OUR SYSTEM TO SAY HEY,.
>> FIVE YEARS FROM THAT WE'LL.
>> AND THE DEVELOPERS ARE AWARE OF THE OBLIGATION.
THESE ARE NOT INEXPENSIVE PROJECTS.
SO KEEPING THEM IN COMPLIANCE IS, OF COURSE, IMPORTANT.
AND IF THESE REQUIREMENTS AREN'T SATISFIED, THE COUNTY CAN TREAT IT AS A AS A DEFAULT OF THE OBLIGATIONS ON THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND TAKE ENFORCEMENT ACTION? JUST AS AN ASIDE, I DON'T WHAT IS CUSTOMARY IS THAT USUALLY BOND INSURTY AMOUNTS ARE LEFT TO THE AGENCIES BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE PROFESSIONALS TO REVIEW THE NUMBERS AND THEY'RE IN IT EVERY DAY AND RECOGNIZE WHAT IS OR ISN'T INDUSTRY STANDARD OR WHAT'S REASONABLE OR NOT.
I I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE WOULDN'T ABSOLUTELY AGREE TO COME BACK BEFORE YOU EVERY TIME IT HAD TO BE REEVALUATED, BUT I THINK AGAIN ORDINARY.
>> AND I THINK JUST THESE GENERAL QUESTIONS POP UP THAT ANYBODY WALKING ON THE STREET WOULD HAVE?
>> WHEN MATT TOLD ME 70/30, I WAS LIKE, YOU GOT A 10 YEAR SYSTEM AND 70% STILL GOOD.
>> I BELIEVE SOME OF THAT RATIO HAS TO DO WITH DAMAGE DURING THE RECOMMISSIONING.
>> BUT I MEAN I'M JUST SAYING THEY'RE JUST NORMAL.
THAT'S THE BOND NEEDS TO BE LEFT TO PEOPLE THAT KNOW HOW THE PRICES ARE.
SO MATT, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU'D LIKE TO ADDRESS? WITH THE PEOPLE HERE FROM CALBARN OR WITH US?
>> I MEAN, THEY THEY'VE COVERED THEY'VE DISCUSSED ALL THE ISSUES AT HAND.
THEY THEY HAVE THIS REVIEW LETTER.
THEY KNOW THAT THE MAJOR ISSUE AT THE AMENDMENT IS THE DECOMMISSION PLAN AND OBVIOUSLY, THEY CAN GET THAT TURNED AROUND PRETTY QUICK.
LIKE I SAID, FROM A SITE PLAN STANDPOINT, IT'S VERY MINOR.
EVEN WITH THE STATE HIGHWAY APPROVAL, IT'S IT'S NOT GOING TO MODIFY THE OVERALL BOUNDARY OF THE PROJECT.
>> BECAUSE I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THAT.
THEY'RE LOOKING FOR AN ENTRANCE OFF 312.
THAT'S NOT GOING TO STATE HIGHWAY GOES, ALL RIGHT, YOU CAN DO IT.
IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE PLAN.
THEY JUST WANT TO GET INTO THEIR.
>> IT'S JUST AN ACCESS TO THE METRIC COMPANY.
>> AND IF STATE HIGHWAY GOES, NO.
THEY'RE JUST GOING TO COME AROUND TO THE ORIGINAL ENTRANCE AND DRIVE AROUND THE SYSTEM.
SO IT'S NOT CHANGING ANYTHING.
SO MATT YOU GOT ANYTHING HERE?
>> NO. I MEAN, I GUESS THE QUESTION BECOMES, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO GRAVER THE STAFF COMMENTS IN REGARDS TO THE MAJOR SITE APPLICATION THE EIGHT FACTORS THAT WE HAVE TO GO OVER?
>> PLEASE. BECAUSE I MEAN, THEY'RE ASKING US TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE. BY ALL MEANS.
>> SO AS PART OF CHAPTER 175, 122, THE COUNTY CODE IT OUTLINES WHAT THE REVIEW PROCESS IS, WHAT'S REQUIRED FOR SITE IN APPLICATIONS, AND WHAT OUR STAFF HAS DONE AS THE DEPARTMENT HAS PORT DELAIGN COMMISSION TO ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING FACTORS, COMPLIANCE WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, COMPLIANCE WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS, ACCESS AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION, EFFECTS ON SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT, EFFECT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES, IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES, OPEN SPACE AND AVAILABLE UTILITIES.
SO THIS IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AT EVERY SITE PLAN FOR EVERY USE OF WATER SITES.
GIVE ME QUESTIONS. GO AHEAD AND INTERRUPT ME.
SO BULL 0.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE.
SO ZONING IS A KEY DEPONENT IN OUR COMPLAN ALWAYS HAS BEEN AND IT WILL CONTINUE TO BE THAT WAY.
THE ZONING REGULATIONS ARE BASED ON THE ZONING DISTRICT.
SO EACH ZONING DISTRICT HAS A PERMITTED USE, WHICH WHICH IS ALLOWED BASED ON BASED ON ZONING.
IN THIS CASE, THE PROPERTY IS ZONED OR RURAL, AND THIS IS A PROPOSED USE THAT COMPLIES WITH THE ZONING REGULATIONS AND MEETS THE INTENT OF THE COMPLIANCE.
POINT NUMBER 2, THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
SO CHAPTER 175,123 IS THE SITE PLAN SECTION THAT OUTLINES THE MINIMUM INFORMATION THAT'S REQUIRED.
IN THIS CASE, THERE'S SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS FOR THE SPECIFIC USE THAT SECTION 175,46 FOR COMMERCIAL SOLV ENERGY SYSTEMS. SO OTHER THAN THE TWO SITE PLAN RELATED COMMENTS, POINTS ONE AND TWO, EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S FOUND IN THE ATTACHED REVIEW LETTER,
[00:35:03]
THE SITE PLAN MEETS MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS, THE INFORMATION THAT'S REQUIRED TO BE SHOWN AT A MINIMUM.>>YOU SAID OTHER THAN ONE AND TWO.
>> THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE ACTUALLY SITE PLAN RELATED.
THOSE ARE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER FOR THE PLATS REPORTED AND THAT'S ONLY BECAUSE OF THE SHARES A BOUNDARY.
AND WITH THE PROPOSED ENTRANCE ON 312.
>> WHICH YOU HAVE SAID WE'LL GET SORTED OUT.
>> THEY'RE NOT BIG DEAL GETTING SORTED OUT.
>> THE REST OF THE SITE PLAN COMPLIES WITH THE SITE PLAN REQUIREMENT.. WELL POINT SO ACCESS AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION.
SO BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED, STAFF DOESN'T BELIEVE THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE OR CALLS, AND INCREASES IN TRAFFIC.
EFFECTS ON SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT.
THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY INFORMATION OR COMPLAINTS FROM NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS REGARDING THE PROPERTY.
IT'S THE STAFF'S OPINION THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL HAVE NO EFFECT ON SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT.
AND THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS WILL STILL BE ABLE TO PEACEFULLY ENJOY USE OF PROPERTIES WITHOUT ANY UNDUE HARDSHIP EFFECT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES.
SO THERE'S BEEN NO QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS RAISED BY STAFF FOR ANY MEMBERS OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGARDING THE PROPOSED USE STAFF BELIEVES THAT THERE WOULD BE NO IMPACTS ON ANY COMMUNITY FACILITIES.
IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES [INAUDIBLE].
THERE'S NO INDICATION OF ANY HISTORIC RESOURCES ON SITE WERE LOCATED WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY.
OPEN SPACE. SO THE PROPOSED USE DOES NOT HAVE ANY OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS.
THERE ARE SPECIFIC USES IN CODE THAT HAVE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS.
SO THERE ARE NO IMPACTS TO ANY EXISTING PEN SPACE IN FACILITY OR ANY VICINITY AROUND THE PROJECT. AND AVAILABLE UTILITY.
SO THERE'S NO INDICATION OF ANY PROPOSED USE WILL HAVE ANY IMPACTS ON PUBLIC UTILITIES LOCATED IN THE CITY OF THE PROJECT.
THE ONLY UTILITY THAT WOULD BE COMING IN IS THE ENTRANCE LOCATION ON 312.
AND THAT'S NOT BE WILL SAY HIGHWAY FROM FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN FROM THEIR COMMENTS.
SO WE'VE REVIEWED THE APPLICATION, ALL THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS.
OBVIOUSLY, THE THINGS ARE OUTLINED HERE IN THE REVIEW LETTER HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED.
BUT BEYOND THOSE, WE FOUND THE PROPOSED USE DOES CONFORM WITH THE ZONING REGULATIONS, BUT AT LEAST THE MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS.
IT'S OUR OPINION THAT IT IS IN COMPLIANCE AND SHOULD BE PERMITTED AS PROPOSED.
WE RECOMMENDED ALL THE COMMENTS LISTED IN THE REVIEW LETTER BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO THE PLANING DIRECTOR ISSUING A FINAL NOTICE APPROVAL.
SO HOW WE'VE RECOMMENDED IT AS BASICALLY AS AN APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS? THAT'S OUR RECOMMENDATION. I DON'T KNOW.
WE HAVE PEOPLE HERE. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE HERE THAT HAS GOT ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT CALBORN ROAD.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING SAY.
>> WAS THERE ANY ANYBODY ELSE THAT'S GOT ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT CALBARN? MAYBE THERE'S SOME CITIZENS THAT GO AHEAD.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE FINAL SITE PLAN WITH THE COMMENTS TO BE ADDRESSED WITH MR. KACZYNSKI.
>> COMMENTS FROM LETTER NUMBER 6.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS.
CONDITIONS B THAT THEY ADDRESS CONCERNS OUTLINED IN THE MAY 2ND, 2024 LETTER FROM STAFF. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR SAY HI, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THREE TO ONE, THE HI'S HAVE IT.
WE APPROVE A FINAL SITE PLAN WITH CONDITIONS.
I ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO WORK WITH THAT, PLEASE.
>> WE DON'T GET INVOLVED IN OUR STAFF.
AND SIX LETTERS ON A 17 ACRE PROJECT, SIX REVIEWS.
I DON'T WANT US TO BE STUCK WITH SOMETHING.
AND LIKE I SAID, WE HAVE MUCH LARGER PLANS.
AND WE HAVE TO HOLD EVERYBODY TO THE SAME STANDARD.
[00:40:03]
FOR $400 SITE REVIEW AND A $500 SPECIAL USE PERMIT, WE'RE SIX DEEP INTO THIS.AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH TIME MATT YOU SPEND ON EACH REVIEW.
BUT I'M GOING TO BRING THAT UP AT THE END OF THE MEETING THAT WE INVESTIGATE OR REVIEW THE.
>> CAN I JUST MAKE ONE COMMENT REASON I OPPOSE.
I DIDN'T GET TO SAY IT BEFORE YOU MADE A MOTION.
I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE $10,000 SURETY.
I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED TO PROTECT THE COUNTY AND LANDOWNERS.
>> AND I THINK THAT'S A QUESTION THAT MATT HAS AND HE HAS TOLD ME THAT IT AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOUR NUMBERS ARE AT, BUT MATT HAS TOLD ME BETWEEN 70 AND 100.
I WOULD TRUST THAT YOU ALL KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
AND THAT MATT I KNOW THAT MATT'S NOT GOING TO GET US INTO [INAUDIBLE]
>> WE'LL WORK WITH STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE SURETY AMOUNTS.
>> THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME.
>> YOU'RE THE NEXT ON THE AGENDA.
[Cherrywood Solar Project – Overview and Update]
>> GOOD. I THINK THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE THAT WANTED TO BE BROUGHT BEFORE FOR FINAL APPROVAL, AND WE'RE LIKE WHAT? SO YOU'RE HERE TO GIVE US A BRIEFING A STATUS REPORT AS I WOULD CHARACTERIZE IT.
>> MY NAME IS RYAN SHOWALTER WITH MC ALLISTER DET SHOWALTER AND WALKER AT 100 NORTHWEST STREET EASTON, MARYLAND.
SEATED TO MY RIGHT IS JASON ANDREWS.
JUST PROVIDE YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> JASON ANDREWS, 700 UNIVERSITY OF AVA JUNO BEACH, FLORIDA, 33408. NICE TO MEET YOU ALL.
>> NICE TO MEET YOU. WEATHER IS NICE IN FLORIDA. I JUST GOT BACK.
>> IT FEELS LIKE IT'S FLORIDA HERE ALMOST.
>> SO WE'RE HERE BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING TO PROVIDE YOU WITH AN UPDATE.
AND THIS IS AS YOU NOTED, THIS IS A MUCH LARGER PROJECT THAN THE ONE THAT YOU JUST DEALT WITH, AND IT IS A PROJECT THAT I KNOW NO MEMBER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS HAS SEEN BEFORE, EVEN THOUGH IT HAS QUITE A HISTORY IN CAROLINE COUNTY.
OUR GOAL IS TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION THIS SUMMER.
AND SO WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO GET BEFORE YOU AND PROVIDE YOU WITH AN UPDATE AND SOME BACKGROUND SO THAT WE DIDN'T COME IN FRONT OF YOU IN ONE MEETING AND ASK FOR AN APPROVAL ON SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL HAVEN'T SEEN EVEN THOUGH IT HAS A LONG HISTORY HERE.
SO THIS PROJECT STARTED BACK IN THE 2015, 2016 TIME FRAME.
WHEN THE PROJECT WAS INITIALLY CONCEIVED OF AND DISCUSSED WITH THE COUNTY, THE COUNTY ULTIMATELY PUT A PAUSE ON SOLAR DEVELOPMENT, ADOPTED A MORATORIUM, APPOINTED A TASK FORCE, AND THAT TASK FORCE CREATED THE SOLAR ZONING REGULATIONS THAT ARE IN YOUR CODE TODAY.
AND SO THIS PROJECT PAUSED WHILE THAT PROCESS WORKED AND COUNTY STAFF WORKED WITH MEMBERS OF THE MARYLAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, INDUSTRY PARTNERS TO GET INPUT AND TO COME UP WITH A COMPREHENSIVE SET OF SOLAR REGULATIONS.
AND ONCE THOSE WERE ADOPTED, THIS PROJECT THEN WAS DESIGNED BASED ON THOSE REGULATIONS AND CAME FORWARD.
THE PROJECT RECEIVED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN REVIEW IN A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN MAY OF 2018.
WE WENT TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS AND RECEIVED CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL IN AUGUST OF 2018, AND THAT CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL WAS EXTENDED IN AUGUST OF 2021.
AND DISTINCT FROM THE COMMUNITY SOLAR PROJECT THAT YOU JUST REVIEWED, BASED ON THE SIZE OF THIS PROJECT.
IT'S REALLY SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL AUTHORITY OF THE MARYLAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
AND SO THAT STATE APPROVAL IS CALLED A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY OR CPCN? AND THAT PROCESS INVOLVES VERY ROBUST REVIEW AT A MULTITUDE OF DIFFERENT LAYERS, AND THE COUNTY PLAYS A ROLE IN THAT PROCESS.
THE CPCN APPLICATION WAS FILED AROUND THE SAME TIME AS THE COUNTY PROCESS, AND THEY MORE OR LESS PROCEED, NOT NECESSARILY CONCURRENTLY, BUT RELATIVELY CLOSE IN TIME TO EACH OTHER.
AND THE GOAL IS TO ENSURE THAT WE DON'T GET A STATE APPROVAL FOR A PROJECT THAT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH
[00:45:02]
THE COUNTY CODE OR THAT THE COUNTY WANTS TO SEE CHANGE AND THAT WE DON'T RUSH AHEAD AND GET A COUNTY APPROVAL ON A PROJECT THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE STATE WOULD EXPECT.AND SO THE CPCN PROCESS INVOLVES A REVIEW BY AN INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM CALLED THE POWER PLANT RESEARCH PROGRAM.
THAT'S IT'S BASED IN THE MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, BUT THEY COORDINATE ALL REVIEWS BY THE STATE OF MARYLAND.
SO MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES.
ALL OF THE STATE AGENCIES WHO REVIEW THE SOLAR PROJECT DO SO UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF THE POWER PLANT RESEARCH PROGRAM.
PPRP ALSO ENGAGES ITS OWN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANTS, THEY BRING IN A NATIONAL LEVEL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT TO REVIEW THE PROJECT AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS.
AS PART OF THAT, THE COUNTY CAN PROVIDE COMMENTS AND THEY SOLICIT INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECTS ENGAGEMENT WITH THE COUNTY IN THE LOCAL APPROVAL PROCESSES.
THE CPCN FOR THIS PROJECT WAS GRANTED BY THE MARYLAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION IN MARCH OF 2019, AND THAT WAS EXTENDED IN APRIL OF 2022.
SO THIS HAS THE STATE LEVEL APPROVALS.
IT HAS THE COUNTY LAND USE APPROVALS.
AND WITH A PROJECT OF THIS SCALE, AS YOU MIGHT IMAGINE, IF THERE ARE LOTS OF ISSUES WITH THE 17 ACRE PROJECT, THERE ARE PLENTY OF ISSUES WITH A LARGER PROJECT.
ONE OF THE GREATEST CHALLENGES WITH PROJECTS OF THIS SCALE IS THE PROCESS RELATED TO INTERCONNECTION.
THAT'S THE CONNECTION OF THE GENERATION PROJECT TO THE ELECTRICAL GRID AND COORDINATING THE IMPROVEMENTS NECESSARY TO PUT THIS POWER ON THE GRID AND NEGOTIATION OF INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS WITH DELMARVA POWER, WHICH IS THE OPERATOR OF THE TRANSMISSION LINES IN THIS AREA.
SO THE INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT WAS FINALIZED IN OCTOBER OF 2021, AND THAT CERTAINLY ADDED A LOT OF TIME TO THE NORMAL DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCE AND PROCESS.
ONCE IT WAS CLEAR, WE HAD AN INTERCONNECTION THAT WAS VIABLE.
WE THEN ENGAGED IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE COUNTY ON A PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES OR PILOT AGREEMENT.
AND WE DID THAT WITH MR. BERYL AND OTHER STAFF MEMBERS.
AND THE BENEFIT AND PURPOSES OF THAT AGREEMENT ARE NOT TO PROVIDE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WERE VERY CLEAR THIS PROJECT WOULDN'T GET $1 OF TAX DISCOUNT.
SO THERE'S NO REDUCTION IN THE TAX BURDEN TO THE COUNTY, BUT IT DOES LEVELIZE THE IT PROVIDES FOR EQUAL PAYMENT OF THE TAXES FOR THE COUNTY.
UNDER THE MARYLAND TAX STRUCTURE.
THE DEFAULT OPERATION IS THAT PROJECTS DEPRECIATE OVER TIME, AND SO THEY PAY THE MOST TAXES IN THE FIRST YEAR WHEN THE PROJECT HAS THE LEAST AMOUNT OF REVENUE, AND THEN IT DECLINES.
AND FROM A COUNTY'S PERSPECTIVE, THEY GET THE MOST TAXES IN THE FIRST YEAR AND THEN THEY GET LESS MONEY EACH YEAR FROM THE PROJECT.
SO THERE'S A BENEFIT TO BOTH THE PROJECT OWNER AND THE COUNTY TO HAVE MORE PREDICTABILITY AND A LEVEL INCOME STREAM.
SO WE SPENT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME WORKING THROUGH THAT PROCESS TO GET THE COUNTY COMFORTABLE THAT THE PILOT WOULDN'T PROVIDE A DISCOUNT, BUT WOULD STILL PROVIDE MATERIAL BENEFITS.
AND THAT AGREEMENT PROVIDES FOR $1.25 MILLION IN PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR THE COUNTY EVERY YEAR.
THAT'S IN ADDITION TO THE REAL ESTATE TAXES WHICH ARE NOT ADDRESSED BY THE PILOT AGREEMENT.
AND SO WE ARE WORKING TO MOVE THIS PROJECT FORWARD TO CONSTRUCTION THIS SUMMER.
WE HAVE A COUPLE OF LOOSE ENDS THAT WE'RE WORKING TO RESOLVE, AND I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THOSE, BUT I THOUGHT IT'D BE GOOD TO PROVIDE YOU WITH CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND SO THAT WHEN WE COME BEFORE YOU, HOPEFULLY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ANY DETAILS.
AND IF THERE ARE BIG QUESTIONS OR ISSUES, WE COULD HEAR THOSE AND DISCUSS THOSE TONIGHT OR TAKE THOSE BACK WITH US AND RESPOND TO THOSE TO BE IN A BETTER POSITION TO GET FINAL APPROVAL.
DO YOU HAVE ANY BASIC QUESTIONS ON THAT INTRODUCTION BEFORE I GET INTO THE SLIDES? WE HAVE ABOUT 10.
>> ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY FIVE MEGAWATTS.
IT WILL HAVE SOLAR CONSTRUCTION ON ABOUT 738 ACRES.
>> WHAT'S THE PROJECTED LIFE OF THIS PROJECT? YOU HAVE 30 YEARS, 40 YEARS?
I MEAN, THAT IS THE RIGHT KIND OF TIME FRAME.
THIS PROJECT WILL BE OWNED BY NEXTERA.
SO THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S BEING BUILT AND SOLD.
JASON IS WITH NEXTERA, AND THIS IS BEING BUILT FOR THEIR SYSTEM AS AN ASSET.
THEY'LL BE A COMMUNITY, BUSINESS MEMBER FOR THE NEXT 30 OR 40 YEARS AND EXPECT THIS PROJECT TO CONTINUE.
[00:50:01]
TYPICALLY THAT'S THE MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY AND THE LIFESPAN ON PANELS, IT'S QUITE POSSIBLE, MAYBE PROBABLE THAT THESE PROJECTS COULD BE REPOWERED.SOLAR PANELS BECOME MORE EFFICIENT IN 15 YEARS, IT MAY LAST LONGER THAN THAT. IT MAY NOT.
IT REALLY DEPENDS ON WHAT UTILITY PRICING IS AND HOW EFFICIENT PANELS ARE AT THAT TIME.
THIS PROJECT HAS A DETAILED DECOMMISSIONING PLAN, WHICH I'LL TALK ABOUT IN THE PRESENTATION.
BUT WHENEVER THE PROJECT STOPS OPERATING, WHETHER THAT'S IN 10 YEARS BECAUSE OF A TORNADO OR SOME CASUALTY OR WHETHER THAT'S AT THE END OF THE LIFESPAN OF THE PANELS OR LONGER, IT WILL HAVE A PLAN AND A BOND TO ENSURE IT'S REMOVED.
>> SO THIS IS JUST THE FIRST PROJECT?
>> WHAT IS THE AVERAGE ACRE OF THE COMMISSION?
>> WHAT'S THE COST TO THE COMMISSION?
>> I DON'T KNOW. I CAN'T ACCURATELY DEFINE WHAT IT WOULD BE FOR ACRE, SO MUCH WHAT THEY'LL DO IS IT'S BASICALLY BASED ON THE NUMBER OF QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF EQUIPMENT AND SO THIS FOR THIS PROJECT, IN PARTICULAR, WE DID THE THIRD PARTY CONSULTANT TO DO THAT ASSESSMENT THEN WENT TO THE MARYLAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND GOT A $5.1 MILLION BOND APPROVED FOR THE COUNTY FOR THE PROJECT.
AGAIN, THAT MUCH LIKE WE HEARD FROM THE PREVIOUS DEVELOPER, THAT ACCOUNTS FOR WHAT IT WOULD COST IF THE COUNTY WAS LEFT WITH TO REMOVE ALL THE EQUIPMENT, TO SALVAGE VALUE, AND THEN PUT EVERYTHING BACK AS WE FOUND.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK.
>> IT'S NOT REALLY WHAT WAS THEIR FORMULA.
>> SO THERE'S A FORMULA, THE DECOMMISSIONING PLAN, WHICH WE HAVE SUBMITTED, AND WE CAN WALK THROUGH.
THE COST OF DECOMMISSIONING FOR THIS PROJECT AT THE OUTSET IS ESTIMATED TO BE $15.2 MILLION.
IT'S 738 ACRES. I JUST HIT THE MATH.
THAT'S ABOUT $20,000 PER ACRE.
BUT SOME ACRES WITHIN THE ARRAY DON'T HAVE PANELS ON THEM.
SOME HAVE SUBSTATION IMPROVEMENTS. SO IT'S.
>> WHEN THEY SIT DOWN AS, YOU KNOW, AS A BOARD AND GO, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO PUT THIS PROJECT UP, 700 ACRES, HOW MUCH IS GOING TO TAKE COST TO TAKE US APART ABOUT 20,000 ACRES.
SO, IT'S LIKE ANYBODY GOES INTO BUSINESS THAT, SHE KNOWS HOW MUCH PER ACRE THEY'RE GOING TO GET ON BOARD THIS YEAR.
>> WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DECOMMISSIONING PLAN, IT'S NOT BASED ON AN ACREAGE.
IT LOOKS AT HOW MANY MODULES ARE THERE, HOW MUCH RACKING IS THERE, HOW MANY INVERTERS, AND SOTHERE ARE UNIT PRICES, BUT IT'S NOT IT'S NOT EQUAL TO ACREAGE COVERAGE.
IT'S BASED ON THE COMPONENTS OF THE PROJECT THAT ARE BEING.
>> THERE'S A FORMULA BASED ON EQUIVALENT.
>> AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S DIFFERENT BETWEEN THIS AND A COMMUNITY SOLAR PROJECT IS, WITH THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION APPROVAL, THERE'S LOTS OF STATE OVERSIGHT.
THE CPCN APPROVAL HAS 14 PAGES OF SINGLE SPACE CONDITIONS.
THERE'S 35 CONDITIONS THAT WERE IMPOSED BY THE STATE, AND WE HAVE TO MEET ALL OF THOSE BEFORE WE CAN BEGIN CONSTRUCTION AS WELL AS THE COUNTY'S SITE PLAN REVIEW AND BUILDING PERMITS.
ONE OF THEIR REQUIREMENTS IS THAT WE HAVE A DECOMMISSIONING PLAN AND THEN WE HAVE A BOND AND THE STATE HAS TO APPROVE THE DECOMMISSIONING PLAN.
SO, IF ANYBODY WHO HAS EXPERIENCE REVIEWING THEM, THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION HAS SEEN THE MOST OF THEM.
THE MARYLAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION HAS APPROVED THIS DECOMMISSIONING PLAN, INCLUDING THE COST ESTIMATES IN IT.
AND THERE'S A REQUIREMENT THAT WE HAVE A BOND AND JUST AS WAS DISCUSSED WITH THE OTHER PROJECT, THE COST ESTIMATES IS GOOD FOR FIVE YEARS.
UNLIKE SMALLER PROJECTS WHICH ARE ONLY SUBJECT TO YOUR JURISDICTION, THE CPCN CONDITION REQUIRES THAT THAT ESTIMATE BE UPDATED EVERY FIVE YEARS WITH THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
AND WHAT WE TRY TO DO WITH THESE PROJECTS IS WE TRY TO HAVE BOTH JURISDICTIONS ACCEPT THE SAME DECOMMISSIONING PLAN AND WE POST A SINGLE BOND AND NAME BOTH THE STATE AND THE COUNTY AS BENEFICIARY.
SO IF FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE PROJECT ISN'T DECOMMISSIONED AND THE STATE ISN'T ACTING FAST ENOUGH, THE COUNTY COULD CALL THE BOND OR VICE VERSA.
AND SO THIS DECOMMISSIONING PLAN AND ITS ESTIMATES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
THEY DO HAVE SALVAGE VALUE IN HERE.
SO THERE'S A $15 MILLION COST ESTIMATE TO DECOMMISSION THE PROJECT, AND THEN THERE'S ROUGHLY A $10 MILLION SALVAGE VALUE.
SO THE NET IS THAT $5 MILLION COST, WHICH IS WHAT THE INITIAL BOND IS.
AND AS MR. MELANY EXPLAINED, IN FIVE YEARS, THE COST OF DECOMMISSIONING IS GOING TO BE MORE, LABOR IS GOING TO COST MORE.
SO THE COST OF REMOVING GRAVEL AND FENCE IS GOING TO BE HIGHER.
THE PANELS WILL HAVE LESS USEFUL LIFE AND THEIR VALUE WILL BE LESS.
SO YOU WILL SEE OVER TIME THAT THOSE NUMBERS GET CLOSER AND THEN EVENTUALLY 25 YEARS,
[00:55:04]
IT WILL PROBABLY JUST BE A STRAIGHT COST OF REMOVAL PLUS WHATEVER THE STEEL RECYCLING OUTAGE VALUE IS.SO EVERY FIVE YEAR INCREMENT, WE EXPECT THE BOND AMOUNT WILL INCREASE.
>>> SO RIGHT NOW, YOU'RE WORKING ON A $5 MILLION BOND IN FIVE YEARS FROM NOW YEAR.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT WILL BE 6.5 OR EIGHT, BUT IT WILL GO UP INCREMENTALLY EACH YEAR.
AND THAT WILL BE BASED ON ACTUAL COST ESTIMATES AT THAT TIME.
>> IS THERE A STATUTE IN MARYLAND THAT ALLOWS SALVAGE VALUE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN DETERMINING HOW MUCH THE DECOMMISSIONING BONDS HAS TO BE? SOME STATES HAVE IT SOME PROHIBITED THREE STATES THAT I KNOW OF PROHIBIT BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT PROHIBITS YOU FROM DEDUCTING THE SALVAGE VALUE.
>> MARYLAND STATUTES ARE SILENT, SO THEY DO NOT SPECIFICALLY ALLOW IT OR PROHIBIT IT, BUT THE MARYLAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION APPROVED SALVAGE VALUES ON EVERY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN THAT THEY'VE APPROVED? AND SO I MEAN, THIS HAS THIS ONE HAS BEEN APPROVED, AND WE CAN GET YOU RECORD OF THEIR APPROVAL, BUT BUT IT HAS BEEN APPROVED WITH THE SALVAGE VALUE.
ONE OF THE SALVAGE VALUE IS OFTEN A TOPIC.
AND I HAD A PROJECT IN QUEEN ANS COUNTY A YEAR OR TWO AGO WHERE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, MR. DRUMMOND, HAD A QUESTION ABOUT SALVAGE VALUE.
AND SO WE CAN CONNECT STEWART OUTSIDE OF THE MEETING, I CAN WALK YOU THROUGH THAT, BUT CHRIS SPOKE TO WE RECYCLE SOLAR, WHICH IS THE COMPANY THAT WE USED FOR PROVIDING THE ESTIMATE.
BECAUSE HE WAS SKEPTICAL AS TO WHETHER THERE'S REALLY A VALUE FOR THE PANELS.
AND SO WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THAT AND THEY CAN ESTABLISH AND DEMONSTRATE WHERE THE RESALE MARKET IS AND WHAT IT IS AND HOW THEY PRICED THEM, AND I'M HAPPY TO.
>> IT'S NOT, IF IF THEY'RE NEWER PANELS, IT CAN BE IN THE US.
THERE IS SOME RESALE MARKET IN THE US FOR NEWER PANELS.
ONCE THEY GET SOME HE ON THEM, IT'S GENERALLY OUTSIDE OF THE US.
WHETHER IT'S CHINA, WHETHER IT'S AFRICA, SOUTH AMERICA, IT'S OFTEN THIRD WORLD EXPORT, BUT.
>> DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE RATIONALE IS IN THE STATES THAT DON'T ALLOW SALVAGE?
>> I SUGGEST TO YOU THAT IT'S THE FACT THAT THE COUNTY IF THE COUNTY IS TRYING TO FIX THE PROBLEM, DOES NOT HAVE TITLE TO THE EQUIPMENT AND THEREFORE CAN'T SELL IT AND DEDUCT IT FROM THE COST THE COUNTY IS GOING TO SPEND IN CLEARING THE LAND.
SOME STATES HAVE NOT ADDRESSED IT, MARYLAND HAS ADDRESSED IT.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WHAT MATT'S FEELINGS ARE AT THE COUNTY LEVEL.
WHETHER SALVAGE BECAUSE REMEMBER, THE COUNTY DOESN'T OWN THE DIRT.
SOMEBODY ELSE DOES, WHO'S BEEN LEASING IT TO THE SALES IN THOSE CASES.
SO WHEN THE PROJECT GOES BELLY UP, THERE'S A BANKRUPTCY AND THE COUNTY IS STUCK WITH, WE'VE GOT THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE RECLAIMED LAND NOW. WHO'S GOING TO PAY FOR IT?
>> BUT IS THERE A MECHANISM AND THIS IS WHERE YOUR WHEELHOUSE.
A MECHANISM TO SEIZE THAT PROPERTY THAT WE CAN'T SEE THAT WE CAN SEIZE THAT PROPERTY?
>> I MEAN, AFTER WE SPENT HUNDREDS OF THOUSAND DOLLARS FIGHTING IT, CAN WE SEIZE THAT PROPERTY?
>> IT'S NOT A QUESTION I CAN'T ANSWER TO GET ANY CERTAINTY RIGHT NOW.
BUT THAT'S WHY THE STATES AND THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT WILL NOT LET YOU IN DETERMINING THAT THE COMMISSIONING BOND DEDUCT FOR SALVAGE BECAUSE OF THOSE LOGISTICAL LEGAL PROBLEMS, THE COUNTY, IF WE'RE HAVING TO CLEAR TO FIX IT.
WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELL ANY EQUIPMENT AT THIS POINT FOR THE FAIR MARKET VALUE THAT THEY'RE ESTIMATING 70% OF ITS YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? THAT'S WHY.
>> SO WHY IS IT SO THEN WHY DID THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION GET INVOLVED IN IT AND SAID THAT, NOW THEY PUT US AT ODDS WITH THE STATE?
>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THAT EXCEPT TO SAY THAT MAYBE NOBODY RAISED THEIR HAND AND SAID. THAT'S NOT RIGHT.
>> I THINK THAT'S WHAT MY QUESTION WAS EARLIER.
THE COUNTY DOESN'T WANT TO GET INTO THE SALVAGE BUSINESS. I DON'T THINK.
I MEAN, YOU'RE NOT INTERESTED IN GOING OUT TAKING THE METAL DOWN AND TAKING OUT THE SHOULDER.
SO HOW DO WE GET OUT OF THAT? [OVERLAPPING] BUT THE SOLAR OWNERS FOR THE PEOPLE THAT'S MANAGING IT AND MAINTAINING IT CAN TAKE THE PRODUCT IN THE SALAD.
YOU GUYS ARE THE ONES THAT ARE SAYING THAT WHOEVER THIS COMPANY THAT'S GOING TO SAY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SELL TO, THAT'S MONEY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO RECOUP.
[01:00:01]
WE'VE GOT A FIVE-MILLION DOLLAR BOND SO WE CAN TAKE CLAIM THAT BOND TO REESTABLISH THE PROPERTY OF THE WAY THAT IT IS RIGHT NOW, BUT IT'S GOING TO TAKE $15 MILLION.WHO'S GOING TO SELL THE $10 MILLION WORTH OF LAND? WHO'S GOING TO GUARANTEE THAT THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE ARE USED ON THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY TO REMOVE THE SOLAR ARRAY?
>> LIKE YOU SAID, IF THEY DECOMMISSIONED THEIR THING AND WALK AWAY FROM IT, BY THE WAY WE'RE NOT SAYING YOU DO THIS, WE'RE JUST THROWING IT.
>> WE APPRECIATE ANY DISCUSSION IN ALL HONESTY.
ANY QUESTIONS, ANY DISCUSSION TONIGHT, OUR GOAL IS TO HAVE A CONVERSATION SO THAT WE CAN COME BACK AND YOU'RE COMFORTABLE AND WE'LL APPROVE IT SO WE WELCOME THE QUESTION.
>> YOU'RE RIGHT. THE LAND OWNER SAYS, WELL, I GOT MY LAND BACK.
THEY WALKED AWAY WITH THEIR EQUIPMENT, BUT NOW HIS LAND HAS A SUBSTATION ON IT, AND BARNS WITH PLANTS AND TREES ON IT.
WE'RE ALL SITTING HERE LOOKING LIKE WHAT'S GOING TO TAKE $15 MILLION?
>> YEAH, GOOD. WE GOT A BOND FOR 5 MILLION, BUT THAT MIGHT KNOCK THE ROOF DOWN.
>> AND IT'S LEASED GROUND, AND IN THIS CASE, YOU OWN THE GROUND. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> OH, I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT HE SAID.
THE GROUND IS LEASED, CORRECT?
>> MOST OF IT. THAT'S CORRECT.
>> OKAY, I MISUNDERSTOOD THAT.
>> THERE'S ANOTHER DYNAMIC AND I KNOW WE'RE HERE WITH THE INTENT AND DESIRE TO BE A BUSINESS PARTNER AND COLLABORATIVE WITH THE COUNTY.
SO THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO BE THREATENING, BUT I'LL JUST BE DIRECTED.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ONE OF THE DYNAMICS THAT'S OUT THERE THAT'S BEEN SUBJECT TO LOTS OF DISCUSSION OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS IS WHAT A CPCN DOES AND WHAT AUTHORITY THE STATE HAS VERSUS THE COUNTY.
AND THERE'S BEEN LEGISLATION EACH IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, IT HASN'T GOTTEN OUT OF COMMITTEE.
RIGHT NOW, THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS SAID THAT A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY PREEMPTS LOCAL ZONING.
CERTAINLY WITH RESPECT TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE USE, WHETHER THIS PROJECT CAN HAPPEN, WHETHER WE NEED A CONDITIONAL USE, I THINK IT'S CLEAR THE COUNTY DOESN'T HAVE AUTHORITY, AND EVEN IF THE BOARD OF APPEALS SAID NO, THE PROJECTS APPROVED.
THE COURT HASN'T ADDRESSED THE NUANCES OF SALVAGE VALUE, AND WE DON'T WANT THIS TO BE ONE THAT ADDRESSES THAT.
WHAT WE DON'T IDEALLY LIKE TO AVOID IS HAVING CONFLICT WITH THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
MAYBE THE FIRST THING WE DO IS START A CONVERSATION BETWEEN MR. BARROW AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND SEE IF WE CAN ANSWER HIS QUESTIONS OR WORK THAT OUT BECAUSE IDEALLY WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN A POSITION WHERE WE'RE ARGUING ABOUT PREEMPTION OR WHERE WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT BONDS.
>> I THINK WE'RE GETTING INTO THIS SOLAR.
I FEEL LIKE THESE ARE OUR FIRST TWO SOLAR DEALS.
I'LL SPEAK FOR MYSELF, I'M ASKING THE QUESTIONS TRYING TO LEARN.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE COMMUNITY SOLAR COME IN, WHICH WOULD BE DIFFERENT THAN [OVERLAPPING].
>> MAYBE THERE'S DIFFERENCES THAT WE LOOK AT AS THE SALVAGE ON THAT TYPE OF STUFF VERSUS WHERE OUR HANDS ARE TIED, WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING.
BUT THERE'S GOING TO BE TIMES WHEN WE CAN DO SOMETHING.
>> AS WE GET INTO IT, THAT WAS THE FRUSTRATING THING WITH A PROJECT 17 ACRES.
AND WE'RE SIX REVIEWS INTO THIS.
PEOPLE GOT YOURS BIGGER THAN THAT AROUND HERE, AND YOU'RE SITTING HERE WITH 738? SOMEBODY'S GOT TO GET IT RIGHT BECAUSE 17 ACRES ON A CORNER IS ONE THING, 730 ACRES NORTH OF GREENSBORO, THAT'S A BIG MESS UP.
THAT'S A BIG PIECE OF LAND AND MESS UP.
>> AND, MR. COMMISSIONER, THANKS A LOT FOR THAT.
THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO HAVE THIS.
THIS IS TOO BIG TO KIND OF FIRST TIME, HEY, FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW.
SO WE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO THROUGH THESE AND ASK QUESTIONS BECAUSE UNDERSTANDING ALL THE COMPONENTS AND EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SHOW AROUND.
IT'S COMMON. WE KNOW WHERE OUR GOVERNOR'S AT AND EVERYTHING. WE KNOW THAT.
HOW DOES EVERYBODY SURVIVE AND HOW DOES EVERYBODY GET LONG WITH EVERYBODY AND WE END UP AT LEAST WITH A DECENT PROJECT.
LET'S BE HONEST, HOW CAN WE END UP WITH A PROJECT THAT IS THE EXAMPLE FOR EVERYBODY ELSE TO SAY THIS IS HOW YOU DO SOLVE IT?
LIKE MR. SHOWALTER SAID, WE'RE GOING TO OWN AND OPERATE.
WE'RE GOING TO BE MEMBERS IN THE COMMUNITY.
PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LIVE AND WORK HERE.
WE WANT A PROJECT THAT WORKS AND FRANKLY THAT THE COUNTY IS PROUD OF.
>> THIS IS THE FIRST LARGE PROJECT THAT CAME AFTER YOUR TEXT AMENDMENTS.
THERE'S ONE OTHER ONE THAT YOU KNOW THAT IS SIMILAR IN SIZE, AND THEN YOU HAVE AN ACREAGE CAP.
SO ONCE THESE TWO PROJECTS ACTUALLY MOVE FORWARD AND ARE APPROVED,
[01:05:05]
THERE IS SOME SPACE IN THERE FOR ADDITIONAL SOLAR, BUT THERE'S NOT A LOT.NOW, THE PREEMPTION ISSUE MAY CHANGE THAT AND I UNDERSTAND THAT DYNAMICS OUT THERE.
THESE TWO PROJECTS WILL CONSUME A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF THE ACREAGE THAT THE COUNTY HAS ALLOCATED UNDER YOUR CODE FOR SOLAR.
WE HAVE ABOUT A 10 SLIDE DECK THAT PROVIDES AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THAT, I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT, BUT I DON'T WANT TO CUT OFF CONVERSATION. WE WELCOME IT.
>> LIKE YOU SAID, WE'RE LEARNING.
>> I TRUST YOU'RE WORKING WITH STAFF.
THIS IS MOVING ALONG, IS THERE ANYTHING RIGHT NOW WITH OUR PART THAT YOU NEED TO MOVE? EVERYTHING IS MOVING ALONG.
>> YES. LET ME RESPOND AND THEN I'LL SKIP A SLIDE MAYBE IN THE PRESENTATION.
WE HAVE A COUPLE OF ISSUES REMAINING.
THE PRINCIPAL ISSUE THAT I THINK WE HAVE LEFT WITH STAFF IS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, AND UNDER MDE'S REGULATIONS WHERE PANELS HAVE SOME SEPARATION FROM THE GROUND.
THEY DON'T HAVE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE GRAVEL BETWEEN THE PANELS, AND THE SPACING BETWEEN THE PANEL DRIP EDGES IS AT LEAST AS WIDE AS THE PANELS.
GENERALLY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.
YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR DEALING WITH THE INTERFACE OF THE RACKING SYSTEM AT THE GROUND, BASICALLY, WHATEVER TWO SQUARE INCHES IS OR THE BEAM HITS THE GROUND, BUT NOT FOR THE SURFACE OF THE PANEL.
THE BULK OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT HAS BEEN DESIGNED.
IT'S BEING HANDLED THROUGH INFILTRATION AND THROUGH THE DESIGN.
THE MAIN THING THAT MR. KACZYNSKI REALLY NEEDS AND IS WAITING ON FROM US, FRANKLY, IS THE SUBSTATION, WILL HAVE A LOT OF GRAVEL, AND ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WITH ANY OF THESE LARGE PROJECTS IS GETTING DELMARVA POWER'S SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAILS ON THE SUBSTATIONS.
>> I BELIEVE DIDN'T THEY JUST MOVE IT ON YOU?
THAT WAS ANOTHER THING HE TOLD.
YOU GOT THIS PLAN, THEN THEY MOVED THE SUBSTATION, WHICH CHANGES THE SITE AND CHANGE THE DRAIN.
>> SO THE LOCATION OF THE SUBSTATION IS FIXED.
WE HAVE THE PROJECT ENGINEER, JASON LORS HERE WITH US TONIGHT.
AND BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF GRAVEL ASSOCIATED WITH THE GROUNDING GRID FOR THE SUBSTATION, THERE WILL BE SOME STRUCTURAL STORMWATER PRACTICES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.
SO WE OWE MR. KACZYNSKI BORINGS TO DEMONSTRATE ALL THE INFILTRATION WORKS AND THE STORMWATER DESIGN FOR THE SUBSTATION.
THAT'S REALLY THE PRINCIPAL ISSUE.
AND WE HAVE TO SUBMIT A FINAL FIRES CONSERVATION PLAN THAT NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED, BUT WE'VE WORKED THROUGH ALL OF THAT WITH THE STATE.
WE'VE COORDINATED ACCESS WITH THE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND STATE HIGHWAY AND COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.
AND SO I HAVE A KIND OF SOME THOUGHTS ON NEXT STEPS, BUT I THINK WE'RE VERY CLOSE IN TERMS OF TYING EVERYTHING UP WITH THE BOW.
>> CAN YOU SEE ON YOUR SCREENS?
>> I HAVE HARD COPIES IF YOU WANT THEM.
>> I JUST WANT TO ASK ONE QUESTION.
>> ARE YOU THE COMPANY WHO DID THE ONE IN QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY?
>> I REPRESENTED THE DEVELOPER OF THE PROJECT.
THERE'S A COUPLE. THE ONE THAT YOU'RE PROBABLY THINKING ABOUT IS BLUEGRASS, THE ONE THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE LAST TWO YEARS?
>> RIGHT. I WENT OUT TO THAT SITE.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I WAS TALKING TO THE SAME.
I REPRESENTED THE DEVELOPER AND OWNER OF THAT PROJECT, BUT IT'S DIFFERENT THAN NEXTERA.
DIFFERENT THAN THE APPLICANT THAT'S BEFORE YOU.
>> WELL, SO LET ME RUN THROUGH THESE SLIDES QUICKLY.
WE CAN PAUSE WITH ANY QUESTIONS OR SAVE THEM TO THE END.
IF WE SKIP TO THE THIRD SLIDE.
NEXTERA ENERGY IS THE PROJECT OWNER AND ULTIMATELY THE APPLICANT.
NEXTERA IS A SIGNIFICANT PLAYER.
THEY HAVE $122 BILLION IN MARKET CAPITALIZATION.
NEXTERA IS ASSOCIATED WITH FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT, WHICH IS THE LARGEST ELECTRIC UTILITY IN THE US AND NEXT AREA ENERGY RESOURCES, WHICH IS THE LARGEST GENERATOR OF WIND AND SOLAR ENERGY IN THE WORLD.
THERE'S A LOT OF HORSE POWER HERE, A LOT OF KNOWLEDGE, A LOT OF EXPERIENCE BEHIND THIS PROJECT.
WE CAN GLOSS OVER THE NEXT SLIDE, BUT AS WE NOTED, NEXTERA IS BUILDING THIS FOR ITS PORTFOLIO.
IT WILL OWN AND OPERATE AND BE A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S BEING BUILT AND FLIPPED TO SOMEONE ELSE.
THE NEXT SLIDE IS JUST A PROJECT OVERVIEW.
THIS PROJECT LARGELY IS ORIENTED ALONG 313 BETWEEN GREENSBORO, AND GOLDSBORO AND I WALK THROUGH THE CHRONOLOGY ON THE PROJECT.
[01:10:01]
IN TERMS OF OVERVIEW, IT'S 145 MEGAWATTS AC.THE SOLAR CONSTRUCTION IS JUST UNDER 740 ACRES.
DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT IS THE OWNER OF THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, AND THEN PJM, THE PENNSYLVANIA NEW JERSEY, MARYLAND IS THE MANAGER OF THE ELECTRICAL GRID IN THIS AREA.
THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF THIS PROJECT IN A LITTLE CLOSER DETAIL.
THIS GRAY SHADING IS NOT THE PANEL AREA.
THIS IS THE TOTAL PARCEL AREA.
THIS INCLUDES A LOT OF WOODS AND WETLANDS THAT WON'T HAVE PANELS.
THE SUBSTATION, AS YOU CAN SEE, IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF 313 ABOUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROJECT.
THAT'S WHERE ONE OF THESE PROJECT PARCELS INTERSECTS WITH THE EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINE THAT RUNS THROUGH THAT PART OF THE COUNTRY.
>> WHEN WE SAY SUBSTATION, WE TALK AND YOU SEE EVERYWHERE. IT LOOKS LIKE THAT.
>> IT LOOKS LIKE THAT. I'LL HAVE ESSENTIALLY THERE'S TWO SEPARATE.
THERE'S A PROJECT SUBSTATION AND THEN THERE'S A DELMARVA POWER SUBSTATION.
THEY'RE CONTIGUOUS TO EACH OTHER.
BUT IT'LL BE A FENCED AREA WITH A GRAVEL GROUNDING GRID AT THE BOTTOM, AND TRANSFORMERS AND EQUIPMENT TO GET THE POWER ONTO THE GRID.
NEXT SLIDE. I DIDN'T PUT EVERY SHEET OF THE SITE PLAN IN HERE AND I KNOW YOU ALL WILL HAVE SITE PLANS TO WORK THROUGH, BUT I THOUGHT I'D JUST PROVIDE A COUPLE OF EXCERPTS FOR ILLUSTRATION.
THIS IS A PORTION OF THE PROJECT AT THE SOUTH END OF THE SITE.
IT IS WEST OF 313, SO 313 THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, AND NORTH IS TO YOUR RIGHT.
WHAT I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT HERE PRINCIPALLY IS THE PRESENCE OF NON-TITLE WETLANDS AS PART OF BOTH OUR COUNTY REVIEW AND OUR STATE REVIEW, WE DELINEATED ALL THE WETLANDS ON SITE.
ALL THOSE WETLANDS HAVE 35-FOOT BUFFERS.
THE STATE REGULATION IS A 25-FOOT BUFFER.
TO MAKE IT EASIER AT THE STATE LEVEL, WE JUST ADD AN EXTRA 10 FEET TO REDUCE RISKS OR COMPLICATIONS.
YOU CAN SEE IN THIS FIELD, THERE ARE LOTS OF LITTLE POCKETS OR POTHOLES.
THE SOLAR ARRAY IS BUILT ON A SINGLE-AXIS TRACKING SYSTEM.
IT'S ON A SYSTEM THAT CAUSES THE PANELS TO ROTATE FROM EAST TO WEST AS THE SUN MOVES THROUGH THE SKY AND YOU HAVE THOSE IN STRINGS OF DEFINED LENGTHS.
YOU CAN SEE WHERE THERE'S A POTHOLE OR A WETLAND.
WE DON'T COME RIGHT UP NEXT TO IT WITH A WHOLE BUNCH OF SHORT ARRAY STRINGS, WE JUST BLOCK IT OUT AND WE'VE AVOIDED ALL WETLAND IMPACTS EXCEPT WHERE WE HAVE A COUPLE OF CROSSINGS.
THE NEXT SLIDE IS AN EXCERPT A LITTLE FURTHER NORTH ON THE PROJECT, LOOKING AT THE EAST SIDE.
THE POINT HERE IS TO ILLUSTRATE DIFFERENT TYPES OF LANDSCAPE SCREENING, AND I'LL TALK ABOUT THOSE IN GREATER DETAIL.
BUT WE USE DIFFERENT LANDSCAPE SCREENING BASED UPON THE CONTEXT.
IN AREAS WHERE WE HAVE PARCELS THAT ARE IMPROVED WITH RESIDENCES THAT HAVE VIEWS OF THE PANELS OR AREAS WHERE WE'VE GOT THE SCHOOL, WE HAVE MORE INTENSIVE SCREENING IN AREAS WHERE IT'S JUST HIGHWAY OR FARM PARCELS.
WE HAVE LESS INTENSIVE SCREENING, AND THAT'S INDICATED BY DIFFERENT SHADING ON THE SITE PLAN.
THERE'S DIFFERENT WIDTHS AND DIFFERENT DENSITIES OF PLANTING, WHICH WE'LL TALK ABOUT.
THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS THE PROJECT SUBSTATION.
AGAIN, THIS IS EAST SIDE OF THREE 13 ABOUT HALFWAY BETWEEN GREENSBORO AND GOLDSBORO.
WHAT WE ULTIMATELY WILL HAVE IS A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION THAT WILL COME TO THE COUNTY AS SOON AS THE DESIGNS ARE FINALIZED.
THE RED PARCEL WILL BE A DELMARVA POWER-OWNED PARCEL AND A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE SUBSTATION SITS ON THEIR TRANSMISSION EASEMENT AND UNDER THEIR TRANSMISSION LINE.
THEN THEY'LL BE A SMALLER ADJACENT PARCEL, WHICH IS OUTLINED IN GREEN HERE.
THAT WILL BE OWNED BY THE PROJECT.
THAT WILL HAVE PROJECT SWITCHING EQUITY.
>> WE HAVE REGULAR DISTANCE OFF THE ROAD.
>> THAT'S THE INTENT. FOR TWO REASONS.
THE CLOSER WE ARE TO THE TRANSMISSION LINE, THE LESS COSTLY IT IS.
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, FOR THE COMMISSION'S BENEFIT, IT'S FOR SCREENING.
PUTTING ALL THIS RIGHT NEXT TO THE ROAD IS IN EVERYBODY'S FACE, PUTTING IT BACK OFF THE ROAD, A SIGNIFICANT DISTANCE ADJACENT TO THOSE EXISTING TRANSMISSION TOWERS HELPS TO SCREEN IT.
THE NEXT SLIDE JUST HAS A COUPLE OF CONSTRUCTION DETAILS, AS YOU MIGHT IMAGINE, THERE ARE LOTS OF DETAILS IN THE PLAN SET.
THE LEFTMOST DRAWING SHOWS THE VIEW OF THE TYPICAL AXIS TRACKER RACKING SYSTEM. WE HAVE PANELS.
MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE PANELS APPROXIMATELY SEVEN FEET AND IT WILL BE ORIENTED TO THE EAST IN THE MORNING, MORE OR LESS LEVEL AT NOON WHEN THE SUN'S HIGHEST IN THE SKY, AND ORIENTED WEST IN THE EVENING, AND THEN WE'LL RESET.
[01:15:03]
THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF AREAS WHERE WE HAVE TO CROSS COUNTY ROADS WITH ELECTRICAL CONDUCTOR WITH WIRES.WE HAVE A ROAD AGREEMENT THAT AT LEAST THE FIRST ROUND HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO AND I THINK REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY THAT ADDRESSES GUARANTEES SO THAT IF THERE'S ANY IMPACT OR DAMAGE TO COUNTY ROADS THAT WE'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIRING THOSE AND CORRECTING ANY DAMAGE.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'LL NEED FROM THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IS SOME ROAD-CROSSING PERMITS.
ANY PLACE THAT WE'RE CROSSING A COUNTY ROAD, IT'LL BE DIRECTIONALLY BOARD.
WE'RE NOT OPEN-CUTTING COUNTY ROADS, BUT WE'LL HAVE ADEQUATE COVER TO PROTECT THE ROADS AND THE COUNTY WILL APPROVE THOSE BEFORE THOSE ARE CONSTRUCTED.
THERE IS A HOUSE THAT'S ON THE MARYLAND INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES CALLED THE SHERMAN COUNCIL HOUSE.
IT IS DILAPIDATED AND NOT IN A CONDITION THAT IS WORTHY OF KEEPING, BUT WE HAVE BEEN REQUIRED BY THE MARYLAND HISTORIC TRUST TO DOCUMENT IT BEFORE IT'S REMOVED AND WE'RE POSTING A HISTORICAL MARKER TO NOTE ITS FORMER PRESENCE ON THE PROPERTY.
WE'RE JUST WAITING ON FINAL APPROVAL FROM THE COUNTY FOR CLEARING OF THE TREES THAT ARE AROUND IT, AND THEN WE HAVE AN ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN WHO'S TAKING PHOTOS AND DOCUMENTING REPORTS TO SATISFY A STATE CONDITION BEFORE THE STRUCTURE IS REMOVED.
THE NEXT SLIDE IS JUST ANOTHER ILLUSTRATION OF DIFFERENT LANDSCAPE BUFFERS.
WE HAVE LANDSCAPE BUFFERS THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT THAT ARE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNTY CODE.
ALL OF THIS LANDSCAPING WILL BE THE SUBJECT OF A LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT.
THE COUNTY HAS A STANDARD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT THAT WE WILL USE YOUR FORM AND EXECUTE IT.
WHEN WE HAVE THE FINAL SUBSTATION DESIGN AND CONFIRM THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY PLANT QUANTITY CHANGES, WE WILL SUBMIT TO MATT THE TOTAL QUANTITIES IN THE LANDSCAPE COST ESTIMATE.
WE'LL POST A BOND FOR THAT AND THAT WILL GUARANTEE THAT THE LANDSCAPING SURVIVES.
IF THERE'S PLANT MATERIAL THAT DIES, THE COUNTY CAN CALL US AND THEY'LL BE REPLACED, AND IF IT'S NOT, YOU'LL HAVE A BOND TO ENSURE THAT MATERIAL IS REPLACED.
THEN AT THE NEXT COUPLE OF SLIDES, WE WALK THROUGH THE SCHEMATIC.
WE HAVE IN AREAS WHERE THERE ARE NOT RESIDENCES OR ANY SIGNIFICANT VIEW CONCERNS.
WE'VE INCORPORATED POLLINATOR HABITAT TO ADDRESS A PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REQUIREMENT.
THAT'S A COMBINATION OF A POLLINATOR SEED MIX, WHICH HAS A WIDE RANGE OF DIFFERENT WILDFLOWERS THAT BLOOM THROUGHOUT THE SEASON.
SOME OF THAT BLOOM BEGINNING IN THE SPRING ALL THE WAY THROUGH ASTERS AND STUFF THAT BLOOM IN THE FALL FOR POLLINATORS, ALONG WITH CLUSTERS OR CLUMPS OF GRASSES.
THEY SOFTEN THE VIEW. SOME OF THE PANELS, AND PROVIDE POLLINATOR HABITAT.
THEN THE NEXT SLIDE ILLUSTRATES THE THREE TYPES OF SCREENING THAT WE HAVE.
WE HAVE WHAT WE CALL FULL SCREENING, MODERATE SCREENING, AND THEN INTENSIVE SCREENING.
THOSE ARE USED IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS BASED ON PROXIMITY TO OTHER PARCELS OR VIEWS FROM RESIDENCES.
THE NEXT TWO OR THREE SLIDES PROVIDE RENDERINGS OR ILLUSTRATIONS OF THOSE SCENARIOS.
THE POLLINATOR BUFFER, AGAIN, IS THIS DOESN'T SHOW WITH LOTS OF COLOR.
WE DIDN'T WANT TO OVERSTATE IT, BUT THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, THERE WILL BE DIFFERENT TIMES WHERE THERE'S CLOVER BLOOMING OR CONE FLOWERS BLOOMING.
MODERATE SCREENING INCLUDES TREES AND SHRUBS.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S ALWAYS A CHALLENGE WITH SOLAR PROJECTS IS BALANCING THE IMMEDIACY OF A BUFFER WITH THE LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS OF A BUFFER, AND ONE TREND THAT WE SAW 10 OR MORE YEARS AGO, AND I KNOW MISS MCCULLEY WAS PART OF THESE DISCUSSIONS AT LENGTH IN SOME PROJECTS WAS HOW BIG SHOULD STUFF BE WHEN IT'S PLANTED AND HOW DENSE SHOULD IT BE PLANTED.
ONE THING THAT WE'VE WE'VE SEEN AS SOME OF THESE PROJECTS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED IS IF YOU CRAM LOTS OF TREES IN AT THE BEGINNING, YOU GET A MORE IMMEDIATE BUFFER.
BUT THEN AS THEY START TO GROW AND FILL OUT, WHAT THEY DO IS SHADE ALL OF THE LOWER BRANCHES BECAUSE THEY'RE TOO CLOSE TOGETHER.
THEN WHAT YOU END UP WITH IS THE ABILITY TO SEE THROUGH THE LOWER PART OF THE BUFFER AND SEE THE PANELS AND MORE VEGETATION UP TOP.
THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS BOTH THE FULL SCREENING AND THE INTENSIVE SCREENING.
AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE JUST THE WIDTH AND DENSITY OF THE PLANTING IS DIFFERENT AS WE GET TO A MORE INTENSIVE SCREENING WHICH WE USE NEAR HOUSES.
NEXT SLIDE ADDRESSES SOME OF BOTH THE COUNTY AND CPCN CONDITIONS.
WE DO HAVE MD AND CORPS OF ENGINEERS WETLANDS AUTHORIZATIONS FOR ALL THE IMPACTS.
THERE'S JUST A HANDFUL OF CULVERTS OR ROAD CROSSINGS.
[01:20:04]
THERE WAS ONE ADJUSTMENT RECENTLY, AND SO IN APRIL, WE RECEIVED A MODIFICATION OF THAT.WE HAVE WETLANDS PERMITS FOR ALL THE CROSSINGS AND ALL THE WETLAND IMPACTS.
WE WILL BE ESTABLISHING A PERMANENT FOREST CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND PROTECTING OVER 20 ACRES OF FOREST ADJACENT TO THE CHOP TANK RIVER.
AS I NOTED, THE FULL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PORT IS BEING FINALIZED.
IT'S JUST THE STORMWATER DETAILS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SUBSTATION THAT WE NEED TO WRAP UP.
JUST LIKE THE LANDSCAPING, WE HAVE TO PROVIDE A COST ESTIMATE FOR THE STORMWATER CONSTRUCTION.
WE'LL SIGN A COUNTY AGREEMENT THAT GUARANTEES THAT STORMWATER WILL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED AND GIVES THE COUNTY THE RIGHT TO ACCESS THE PROPERTY AND INSPECT IT AND ASSESS THE PROPERTY IF ANY REPAIRS NEED TO BE MADE, AND THAT WORK WILL BE BONDED.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE DECOMMISSIONING PLAN.
ONE OF THE CPCN CONDITIONS IS THAT WE GENERATE A TRUCK ROUTING AND TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE PLAN AND THAT WE COORDINATE THAT WITH A VARIETY OF LOCAL AGENCIES.
THAT'S BEEN GENERATED SEVERAL MONTHS AGO NOW, PROBABLY FOUR OR FIVE MONTHS AGO.
THAT WAS CIRCULATED TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, THE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, AND STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION.
WE'VE UPDATED THAT TO REFLECT COMMENTS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED FROM THOSE AGENCIES.
WE HAVE A ROAD USE AGREEMENT THAT THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED AT LEAST ONE TURN OF THAT OBLIGATES US TO ADDRESS ANY ROAD DAMAGE TO REPAIR ANY IMPACTS TO COUNTY ROADS.
WE'LL POST A BOND FOR THAT AS WELL.
WE'VE COORDINATED WITH GREENSBORO AND GOLDSBORO VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, AND WE'LL CONTINUE THAT THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT TO MAKE SURE THEY UNDERSTAND HOW TO ACCESS THE SYSTEM, WHAT TO DO, WHO TO CONTACT IF THERE'S A PROBLEM.
THAT TRAINING IS PART OF ANY OPERATOR'S RESPONSIBLE OPERATION.
THEN I TALKED ABOUT CULTURAL RESOURCES.
NEXT STEPS FOR US, OUR GOAL BASED ON THE IN-SERVICE DATE WE HAVE WITH THE INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT AND THE CPCN APPROVAL.
OUR GOAL IS TO START CONSTRUCTION IN JULY OF THIS YEAR.
WE NEED TO WRAP UP THE STORMWATER PLAN AND GET THAT SUBMITTED AND TIE UP LOOSE ENDS WITH COST ESTIMATES, THE AGREEMENTS, AND BONDS WITH THE COUNTY.
OUR HOPE IS THAT WE CAN GET ALL OF THAT DONE IN TIME TO BE BACK BEFORE YOU IDEALLY IN JUNE, IF NOT, JUNE AND JULY FOR FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
WE WILL HAVE ALL THE AGREEMENTS EXECUTED AND BONDS IN PLACE.
SEDIMENT EROSION CONTROL HAS BEEN REVIEWED, AND WE'VE ADDRESSED ALL OF THE COMMENTS FROM MISS NORTH AND MR. SHEPHERD.
THERE'LL BE A SHEET THAT THEY'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT AGAIN WITH THE FINAL SUBSTATION DESIGN, BUT EROSION SEDIMENT CONTROL IS MOSTLY DONE.
THE 35 CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION HAVE TO BE SATISFIED.
WE'VE DONE STREAM IN VERTEBRATE STUDIES.
WE'VE DONE RAPTOR NESTING AND READING STUDIES.
ALL OF THOSE STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE AND WE FILED THOSE REPORTS WITH THE STATE.
ONE OF THE LAST THINGS WE HAVE TO DO IS REPORT TO THE STATE THAT WE HAVE SITE PLAN APPROVAL FROM THE COUNTY AND THAT WE FULFILLED YOUR REQUIREMENTS.
>> THEN I DON'T KNOW THAT WE DIDN'T.
>> WE HAVE COMMERCIAL OPERATION DATE OF NOVEMBER 2025.
WE HAVE A LITTLE MORE THAN A YEAR CONSTRUCTION TIME FRAME.
THEN WE'LL BE IN A POSITION WHERE WE CAN START PAYING TAXES TO THE COUNTY AS A BUSINESS MEMBER.
THAT MAY HAVE GENERATED MORE QUESTIONS.
>> NOVEMBER 2025, IT'LL BE DONE OR IT'LL BE OPERATION PART OF IT OPERATIONAL AS YOU FINISH THE REST? NO. IT'LL BE OPERATION.
IT'LL BE DONE FULLY COMPLETE OPERATION PART SITTING SOMEWHERE AWAIT.
>> THE COMMENTS APPEAR, WE'RE DEALING WITH A ORGANIZATION. THAT HAS A CLUE.
>> THERE'S A BIG TEAM BEHIND THIS EFFORT.
I CAN ASSURE YOU WE HAVE 20 MEMBER CALLS, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT DOING TO MAKE THIS AS SMOOTH AS POSSIBLE IS THE CONSTRUCTION TEAM WILL BE NEW.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING THROUGH ALL THE PERMITTING.
THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR IS NEW.
WE'RE GOING TO SCHEDULE A MEETING WITH THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, PLANNING AND CODES, PUBLIC WORKS, AND INTRODUCE THE PROJECT MANAGERS ON THE CONSTRUCTION SIDE AND ACTUALLY, WE'RE GOING TO REACH OUT TO DO THAT IN THE NEXT WEEK OR TWO BECAUSE WE HAVE ABOUT TEN WEEKS TO PULL THESE AGREEMENTS TOGETHER AND GET PERMITS IN PLACE.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER IS INTEGRATED AND
[01:25:02]
KNOWS WHO TO CONTACT AND THAT THE COUNTY KNOWS WHO TO CONTACT SO THAT THIS GOES AS SMOOTHLY AS IT CAN GO.>> I'M GOING TO ASSUME THAT EVERYBODY TALK IN YOUR ORGANIZATION TALKS TO EACH OTHER AND SHE SAYS IT'S $1 OVER HERE.
>> THAT'S CERTAINLY OUR GOAL. NOBODY'S PERFECT, BUT WE TRY.
>> ESPECIALLY ON A PROJECT OF THIS SIZE, AND IT'S A GOOD SIZE.
YOU CAN MISS A PERIOD HERE OR THERE.
>> ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS?
>> LIKE I SAID, THEY'RE GETTING TOWARDS THE END.
WE HAVE SOME STUFF FOR THE SUBSTATION.
THEY'RE JUST GETTING THROUGH WET SEASON TESTING FOR THE INFILTRATION FACILITIES.
ONCE THAT'S FINALIZED, THEY DID SUBMIT A FINAL SITE PLAN OTHER THAN THE SUBSTATION.
SO THAT'S CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW.
ONCE WE GET TO THE SUBSTATION, STUFF FINALIZED, GET THAT REVIEW, SOME ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS GET SUBMITTED, WE'RE GETTING TOWARDS THE END.
I THINK THEIR FINAL MONTH'S PROBABLY PRETTY CLOSE, BUT MORE THAN LIKELY PROBABLY IN JULY, HONESTLY.
>> ON THE AGENDA. I DOUBT IT'LL BE JUNE.
MORE LIKELY REALLY SPRING OF JULY.
>> IS THERE ANYTHING YOU ALL NEED OF MATT AND STAFF? WE'RE WORKING TOGETHER.
>> WE'RE WORKING TOGETHER. WE'RE GOING TO START A MORE COORDINATED, MORE REGULAR MEETING JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE WORKING TOGETHER AND THERE'S NOT GAPS AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, AS I SAID, WE INTEGRATE THE CONSTRUCTION SIDE INTO THIS BECAUSE THAT RELATIONSHIP IS GOING TO BE ONGOING FOR 14 PLUS MONTHS.
>> SO WHEN THEY DID THEIR FIRST SITE PLAN, WERE WE HERE?
>> SO THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE GET TO MEET YOU?
>> I'M GLAD YOU WERE HERE. SECOND.
>> BECAUSE YOU ALL HAVE BEEN WORKING THROUGH, THIS IS OUR STAFF.
GOING AROUND HIM, WE DON'T DO THAT.
YOU COME TO THE BOARD, YOU'RE GOING TO GET TOLD WHAT HE SAYS.
IT'S DIFFERENT. HE TELLS YOU KNOW WHAT WE TELL YOU KNOW.
AS I TOLD MATT IN A MEETING THE OTHER DAY, I DON'T LONG AS WE'RE NOT DIFFICULT TO WORK WITH, I MEAN, YOU'RE A BUSINESS.
WE DON'T NEED TO BE DIFFICULT BUT WE ALSO HAVE RULES AND ALL I ASK YOU FOLLOW THE RULES.
THAT'S ALL. WORK WITH OUR PEOPLE TO WORK WITH YOU.
AND HONESTLY, THEY DON'T WORK WITH YOU.
YOU GOT A COMPLAINT, COME SEE US.
>> THE ONLY THING WE DID IN THE INTEREST OF FULL TRANSPARENCY, AND THIS IS NOT WORKING WITH YOU, BUT ON THE SUBSTATION APPROVAL THAT WE HAVE, THE TWO LOTS WE HAVE TO SUBDIVIDE, THERE WAS SOME QUESTION WITH THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT ABOUT WHETHER YOU NEED SEWAGE DISPOSAL AREAS.
THERE'S NO EMPLOYEES, THERE'S NOBODY WHO'S EVER PRESENT [OVERLAPPING].
SO WE ENCOUNTERED THIS IN OTHER COUNTIES AND SOME COUNTIES SAY YOU DON'T NEED A SEWAGE DISPOSAL AREA, SOME COUNTIES SAY YOU DO.
IN CAROLINE, THE ANSWER WAS, WELL, WE HAVEN'T REALLY DEALT WITH THIS BEFORE.
WE DON'T KNOW. WHY DON'T YOU SUBMIT AN APPLICATION AND WE'LL FIGURE IT OUT.
WE WORKED WITH MD AND MD, I THINK, JUST PROVIDED DIRECTION TO ALL COUNTIES THAT FOR ELECTRIC SUBSTATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CPCN, NO SEWAGE DISPOSAL AREA IS NECESSARY.
THAT WAS REALLY WITH THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT NOT THE COUNTY STAFF. THEY'RE DIFFERENT.
>> WE HAVE DEALT WITH IT BEFORE.
>> CHOP TECH ELECTRIC WANTED A SUBSTATION AND THEY HAD TO DO A SUBDIVISION FOR AND WE ACTUALLY DID TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW IT AS PUBLIC UTILITIES WOULDN'T HAVE TO ESTABLISH SOME.
SO IT'S IN OUR CODE BUT IT'S NOT IN HEALTH'S DEPARTMENT. WE HAVE APPROVED ONE.
THEY'VE BEEN SOME EMAILS BACK AND FORTH REGARDING SUBDIVISION STUFF WITH MD AND THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.
THERE'S SUPPOSEDLY A CALL THAT I'M GOING TO HOP ON AND SEE WHAT THE DEPARTMENT IS DOING.
>> I'M SURE THAT'S WHAT IT'S ABOUT.
>> THAT'S WHAT IT IS IT'S ABOUT.
>> THERE'S A QUESTION ON WHETHER OR NOT MDE CAN. I'LL BE ON THAT CALL.
I'M GOING TO LOOK AT THE SUBVISION ANYWAY.
WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE TO ESTABLISH THAT.
[01:30:02]
HOW FAR ALONG IN THAT KIND OF PROCESS ARE YOU? HOW CLOSE DO YOU THINK YOU ARE ON FINALIZATION AND SUBSTATION LOCATION?>> SUBSTATION LOCATION IS FINAL.
WE'VE JUST GOT TO DRAW A LOT OF LINES.
>> I PROBABLY START WORKING ON PLOT.
FRANKLY, WE NEED EROSION SEDIMENT CONTROL APPROVAL.
WE NEED A COUNTY GRADING PERMIT.
WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THE SUBDIVISION COMPLETE TO START CONSTRUCTION.
ONE OF THE TOPICS FOR THE DISCUSSION WITH THE COUNTY IS, WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO SO WE CAN START? WE PROBABLY HAVE A MONTH WORTH OF EROSION SEDIMENT CONTROL WORK AND ENTRANCES BEFORE WE NEED BUILDING PERMIT.
SO JUST MAKING SURE THAT WE COORDINATE AND WE GET WHAT WE NEED DONE DONE SO THAT WE CAN MAINTAIN OUR SCHEDULE TO START BY THE RIGHT TIME, BUT ALSO FULFILL ALL THE COUNTY REQUIREMENTS AND EXPECTATIONS AND SUBDIVISION ISN'T SOMETHING WE NEED TO START.
>> AND I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE IT.
THE ONLY ISSUE THAT I WOULD FORESEE WOULD JUST HAVING ENOUGH RIGHT OF WAY TO GET BACK TO IT.
>> THAT'S OUR MAIN ISSUE, JUST FIGURING OUT HOW ROAD MINIMUM FRONTAGE AND HOW WE CAN GET THAT IN THERE [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
>> YOU COME UP FROM FLORIDA? I APPRECIATE THAT.
FOR ME, THAT SHOWS THAT YOU HAVE SOME INTEREST IN THIS PROJECT, IF YOU'RE WILLING TO COME ALL THE WAY UP HERE.
>> WE HAVE OUR TEAM BACK HERE, TOO.
>> WE BROUGHT. IN CASE THERE WERE VERY TECHNICAL AND DETAILED QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAD.
WE BROUGHT THEM TOO. WE'RE COMMITTED. WE LOOK FORWARD TO IT.
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO FEEL A LOT BETTER THAT WE CAN PRESENT THIS. WE'VE SEEN IT.
WE'VE TALKED THROUGH SOME THINGS RATHER THAN THE FIRST TIME COME AND ASK FOR FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND Y'ALL FIRST TIME YOU SEE IT. THANK YOU.
I KNOW SOMEBODY ASKED, WAS THIS THE FIRST? THEY HAD PRESENTED THIS QUITE SOME TIME AGO, AND WE WEREN'T HERE.
I JUST WANT TO SAY, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE NEW MEMBERS, SOME OF US HAVE BEEN IN THE FIELD OF CIVIL ENGINEERS OVER 35 YEARS SO I DO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT I'M READING HERE.
I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW [LAUGHTER].
I'M JUST NOT GOING TO GO ON AND SAY SO.
>> AND I GO OUT TO SITES AND SEE THEM.
LIKE I TOLD YOU BEFORE, I WENT OUT TO ANOTHER SITE THAT'S SIMILAR TO WATCH THAT SO I'M A LITTLE QUIET IN SOME OF THE SITES [LAUGHTER].
>> OUR BOARD IS UNIQUE THAT WAY.
>> THAT'S HOW UNIQUE WE ARE [LAUGHTER].
>> THERE'S YOUR ELECTRICIAN [LAUGHTER].
I THINK IT'S NOT JUST ELECTRICIAN, IT'S THIS BIG COMMERCIAL PROJECTS.
THERE'S YOUR ELECTRICIAN. OUR MEMBER THAT'S NOT HERE TONIGHT, THEY'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS FOREVER.
>> IN THE AIR FORCE, I DESIGN RUNWAYS [LAUGHTER].
>> THIS IS THE POINT TRYING TO GET ACROSS, WE LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE. WE'RE LOOKING AT THE BIG PICTURE.
WE HAVE STAFF EMPLOYEES TO LOOK AT THE DETAILS TO TELL US.
WHEN THAT SAYS THAT THERE'S THREE THINGS ON THE TOP OF THIS LIST AND WE WILL HANDLE THEM BEFORE THEY GET STARTED, WE GO HOME AT NIGHT THINKING THEY'LL TAKE CARE OF IT.
>> IF QUESTIONS COME UP, IF YOU LOOK AT SOMETHING AND YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, YOU CERTAINLY CAN RUN THROUGH MATT.
IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE DOING SO, YOU WANT TO REACH OUT TO ME, WE'RE HAPPY TO ENGAGE DIRECTLY AND MAKE SURE WHATEVER YOU WANT OR NEED IN TERMS OF QUESTIONS, WE WANT TO ANSWER IT.
IF THERE'S STUFF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE BEFORE YOUR NEXT MEETING, JUST LET US KNOW AND WE'LL SUBMIT IT SO YOU HAVE TIME TO LOOK AT IT AND THINK ABOUT IT.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE DECOMMISSIONING PLAN.
>> I'M SURE MATT, DO YOU HAVE THAT?
>> HE DOES, BUT I BROUGHT AN EXTRA COPY TONIGHT.
[01:35:07]
[Benedictine School – Water & Sewer Plan Amendment]
WELL, ARE YOU GOING TO BENEDICTINE SCHOOL? IS THAT YOU?
>> THAT'S ME. THIS IS A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE WATER AND SEWER PLAN REQUESTED BY THE BENEDICTINE SCHOOL.
IT'S ACTUALLY AN AMENDMENT TO THE INVENTORY OF EXISTING COMMUNITY SEWERAGE SYSTEMS IN THE SEWERAGE CHAPTER OF THE PLAN.
THE BENEDICTINE SCHOOL RIGHT NOW IS IN THE MIDST OF A LARGE-SCALE RENOVATION PROJECT.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALL ARE FAMILIAR WITH IT.
THEY'RE REDOING SOME RESIDENTIAL DORMITORIES, MODERNIZING AND IMPROVING, THEY'RE NOT ADDING CAPACITY, THEY'RE JUST RENOVATING EXISTING OR REBUILDING EXISTING.
I THINK THEY'RE ADDING SOME SUPPORT OFFICES AND STAFF SUPPORT AREAS.
THEY'RE NOT EXPANDING, THEY'RE JUST RENOVATING.
ANYWAY, THEY'VE HAD A SEWER SYSTEM SINCE, IT'S A SMALL COMMUNITY SYSTEM, THE CAPACITY IS ABOUT 25,000 GALLONS PER DAY, BUT THEIR FLOW HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN ABOUT 10,000 GALLONS PER DAY, SO THEY'VE GOT PLENTY OF CAPACITY LEFT.
THE SYSTEM WAS BUILT IN 1992, AND I THINK IT STARTED OPERATING IN 1993.
IT'S ACTUALLY IN THE EXISTING PLAN.
IT'S IN THE INVENTORY AND IT'S IN THE SEWERAGE CHAPTER AS BEING A SMALL COMMUNITY SYSTEM IN THE RIDGELY ELECTION DISTRICT.
HOWEVER, AT THE TIME THAT THE PLAN WAS DONE AND THE TIME THAT THE SYSTEM WAS CONSTRUCTED AND STARTED, IT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE AN NPDES DISCHARGE PERMIT.
IT DOESN'T HAVE A CIRCUS DISCHARGE, IT'S ACTIVATED SLEDGE, AND IT USES WELL, BLEACH FIELDS OR DRAIN FIELDS, SO IT'S EXTENDED AERATION.
THEY DON'T DISCHARGE TO ANY WATERWAY.
THEY DO SUBSURFACE IN A DRAIN FIELD.
SINCE 1992 OR '93, AND I'M NOT SURE WHEN MDES REGS FOR SYSTEMS LIKE THIS CHANGED, AND AN NPDES PERMIT IS NOW REQUIRED FOR THOSE KINDS OF SYSTEMS. BENEDICTINE, WHO HAS AN OPERATOR WHO DOES THE SYSTEM, THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF THAT CHANGE.
IN THE MIDST OF THEIR RENOVATION PROJECT, WHILE THEY'RE LOOKING AT, AND THEY'RE LOOKING POSSIBLY TO POTENTIALLY UPGRADE TREATMENT MAYBE DOWN THE ROAD IN THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO, THAT WAS DISCOVERED, THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE AN NPDES PERMIT.
MDE HAS WORKED WITH THEM TO GET AN NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AND GET THEM LOGGED INTO THEIR NPDES SYSTEM.
ONE OF THE THINGS AND MDE REQUESTED WAS THAT OUR INVENTORY BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THE NPDES NUMBER FROM THE SYSTEM.
THAT'S WHAT THIS AMENDMENT IS.
>> BECAUSE IT'S A SYSTEM THAT'S ALREADY THERE.
[OVERLAPPING] THIS PROJECT, THEIR FLOW ISN'T INCREASING, THEY'RE NOT CHANGING THEIR SYSTEM, THEY'RE SIMPLY GETTING RIGHT WITH THE MDE NPDES SYSTEM.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS TO THE INVENTORY.
I'VE ADDED A LITTLE MORE INFO ON THE TYPE OF TREATMENT AND POINTED OUT THAT THE DISCHARGE IS TO GROUNDWATER, NOT SURFACE DISCHARGE.
THE FLOW IS IN THE ORIGINAL PLAN AT 10,000 GALLONS, BUT I WANT TO ADD THE CAPACITY TOO.
THEN THE SCHOOL PROVIDED ME, BECAUSE THEY SAID, WHERE EXACTLY ARE YOUR DRAIN FIELDS? THEY SENT ME AN ILLUSTRATION OF WHERE THE SYSTEM FACILITY IS AND THEN WHERE THE DRAIN FIELDS ARE JUST FOR MY INFORMATION AND YOUR INFORMATION.
WHAT I'M REQUESTING, PENDING ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE, IS A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
IT SUPPORTS OUR WATER AND SEWER PLAN TO KEEP FACILITIES CURRENT AND REGULATED.
IT'S A GOOD SYSTEM. IT HASN'T HAD ANY ISSUES.
THEY'RE DOING THE RIGHT THING BY MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE RIGHT WITH MDE.
I'M RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN HERE IS I WILL DRAFT A LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CHAIRMAN'S SIGNATURE TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BECAUSE THEY WOULD TAKE IT NEXT AND REVIEW IT AND THEN SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING, SO I CAN DRAFT A LETTER THAT HAS YOUR APPROVAL.
[01:40:01]
>> THEY ARE GOING TO DO ALL THAT FOR A SYSTEM THAT'S ALREADY BEEN OPERATING?
>> THEY HAVE ROOM TO GROW, THEY'RE ONLY AT 10,000 [OVERLAPPING].
>> IN FACT, WHEN I WAS TALKING TO THE SCHOOL AND THEIR ENGINEERS BECAUSE THEY'RE UPDATING, THOSE DORMS ARE PRETTY OLD.
THEY'LL BE PUTTING IN WATER-EFFICIENT FIXTURES AND UPDATING ALL OF THE PLUMBING, SO THEY COULD ACTUALLY REDUCE THEIR FLOW A LITTLE BIT WITH MORE WATER-EFFICIENT FIXTURES.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY PLANS TO EXPAND?
>> NO. THEY DON'T. THEY WANT TO IMPROVE WHAT THEY HAVE.
THIS PROJECT IS TO IMPROVE WHAT THEY HAVE, BUT IT IS NOT TO [OVERLAPPING] EXPAND OR ADD THE CAPACITY OF THE STUDENTS.
>> OH, I RECALL, THEY WEREN'T PUTTING UP DORMS OR ANYTHING, THEY WERE JUST BASICALLY REDOING [OVERLAPPING] ORDERS.
>> THEY'RE MAKING IMPROVEMENTS, BUT THEY'RE NOT ADDING CAPACITY.
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE COMPREHENSIVE WATER AND SEWER PLAN AMENDMENT TO UPDATE THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE BENEDICTINE SCHOOL COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM AND THE INVENTORY OF EXISTING COMMUNITY AND MULTI-USE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS AND FORWARD THE AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION. SO I HEAR A SECOND?
>> MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE BENEDICTINE? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE OR RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND?
>> ALL OPPOSED, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. IT PASSES.
[BZA Update]
>> THE BZA MET ON APRIL 16TH, AND THEY WERE CONSIDERING THE REQUEST OF CASTLE HALL 1781 FOR A SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION TO HAVE A BED AND BREAKFAST.
THEY WERE ALSO ASKING FOR A MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION FOR A RURAL SPECIAL EVENT VENUE BECAUSE THEY WERE ADDING A STRUCTURE.
THE BOARD DID APPROVE BOTH REQUESTS WITH SEVERAL CONDITIONS THERE.
APPLICANT MUST RECEIVE SITE PLAN APPROVAL, SO YOU'LL BE SEEING THIS AGAIN AND MUST RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVAL PRIOR TO RECEIVING ANY BUILDING PERMIT RESIDING CERTIFICATE.
ANY APPROVAL RELATED PRIOR TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION.
THE BOARD SAID IT WOULD ONLY STAND FOR ONE YEAR, EVEN THOUGH HE REALIZES IT COULD TAKE LONGER BECAUSE HE WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH WET SEASON TESTING, SO HE MAY BE COMING BACK TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS.
>> SO WE'RE GOING TO GET AN INITIAL SITE PLAN TO LOOK OVER?
>> RIGHT. THAT WILL BE FOR THE STRUCTURE, WHICH IS PROBABLY MORE FOR THE SPECIAL EVENT VENUE.
>> IF IT WILL COME TO THAT, I'M NOT SURE WE HAVE TO MAKE SOME REVISIONS TO THE SITE PLAN, IT MAY END UP STILL BEING A MINOR SITE PLAN, WHICH WOULDN'T COME BEFORE THE BOARD.
BUT I CAN'T MAKE A CALL YET BECAUSE I NEED TO HAVE SOME REVISIONS STILL.
I THINK IT'D BE CLOSE, BUT MORE LIKELY, IT'LL PROBABLY BE MINOR [INAUDIBLE].
>> IS THERE AN INTENT OUT THERE JUST TO DO BIGGER EVENTS, HOLD MORE PEOPLE?
>> THEIR EVENTS, THEY SAY BETWEEN 150-200 PEOPLE IS LIKE THEIR MAXIMUM AMOUNT WEDDINGS AND [INAUDIBLE] THINGS THAT THEY'RE PUSHING THE MOST OF.
BUT THEY DO SMALLER EVENTS AND YOU CAN RENT THE HOUSE OUT.
THE BED AND BREAKFAST PART IS REALLY TIED TO AN ALCOHOL LICENSE, IT'S THE ONLY LICENSE THAT COULD BE ISSUED AT THAT FACILITY.
HE PREVIOUSLY HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT ABOUT DOING A BED AND BREAKFAST AND THEN DISCUSSIONS DROPPED WHEN HE STARTED DOING THE [INAUDIBLE] SPECIAL EVENT VENUE.
HE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE DONE THEM SIMULTANEOUSLY, BUT HE GOT ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS, GOT AN APPROVAL,
[01:45:02]
APPLIED FOR THE BUILDING FOR THE ZONING CERTIFICATE FOR IT, AND THEN CAME IN AND TRIED TO APPLY FOR HIS ALCOHOL LICENSE.WELL, WE CAN'T ISSUE YOU AN ALCOHOL LICENSE, THERE'S NO LICENSE THAT YOU COULD DO OTHER THAN A BED AND BREAKFAST.
TO GET BACK BEFORE THE BOARD MODIFIES PREVIOUSLY APPROVED [INAUDIBLE] LITERALLY A MONTH LATER, SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION AND THE BED AND BREAKFAST APPLICATIONS.
WE TRIED TO RUSH HIM THROUGH SO HE COULD GET HIS ALCOHOL LICENSE BECAUSE HE WENT THE SAME MONTH AS HE DID THROUGH BZA TWO WEEKS LATER.
HE'S GOT SOME MINOR SITE PLAN CHANGES TO MAKE, BUT I THINK THEY'LL BE DONE QUICK, AND HOPEFULLY, HE DOESN'T [INAUDIBLE] TO COME HERE FOR ANOTHER MONTH.
WE'LL SEE IF WE CAN GET A REVISION DONE.
[Department Update]
>> ANYTHING AT ALL? ANY OTHER QUESTION?
>> MARKS GOING TO BE DOING THE DEPARTMENT UPDATE.
>> THE ONLY THING THAT CRYSTAL WANTED US TO JUST BRIEFLY DISCUSS WITH YOU IS THE CANNABIS LEGISLATION THAT THE STATE'S BEEN WORKING ON.
IT'S SITTING ON THE GOVERNOR'S DESK NOW FOR SIGNATURE.
EFFECTIVE DATE ON IT SAYS IT'S JUNE 1ST OF THIS YEAR.
THE BOARD PREVIOUSLY PUT TOGETHER SOME ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS IN RELATION TO THIS.
IT STOPPED BEFORE IT REALLY GOT TO THE COMMISSIONERS BECAUSE WE FOUND OUT ABOUT THE LEGISLATION, SO WE WANTED TO SEE WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THAT.
THE REGULATIONS THAT THEY HAVE IN FOR THIS ARE A LOT LESS RESTRICTIVE THAN WHAT THE BOARD HAD WANTED TO SEE.
ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS WAS ONLY BEING LOCATED IN IT ZONING DISTRICT.
WELL, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH GONE. THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
WE BASICALLY HAVE TO TREAT CANNABIS DISPENSARIES ANYWAY, SIMILAR TO HOW WE DO ALCOHOL LICENSE ESTABLISHMENTS.
I THINK THE BIGGEST CONCERN THAT WE HAVE IS PROBABLY WITH THE GROWERS.
BASICALLY, HOW THIS LANGUAGE IS WRITTEN, IT'S SIMILAR TO HOW WE WOULD GOVERN A HEMP FARM, WHICH IS BASICALLY JUST AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT, WHICH WOULD BE ALLOWED IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT.
THAT'S A MAJOR POINT OF CONTENTION.
OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S SOME REDUCED SETBACKS.
WE HAD SETBACKS IN HERE FOR 1,200 FEET FROM PREEXISTING SCHOOLS AND PLAYGROUNDS AND REC CENTERS, THAT KIND OF STUFF.
IT'S BEEN REDUCED STATE WIDE AND IT WOULD BE A 500 FOOT SETBACK.
I DON'T GET TOO FAR INTO DETAILS BUT WHAT CRYSTAL IS GOING TO DO.
WE'RE GOING TO COME WORKSHOP IT WITH THE COMMISSIONERS, SEE IF THEY HAVE ANY IDEAS ON REGULATIONS AND THEN BRING IT BACK BEFORE THIS BOARD WITH SOME ACTUAL TEXT AMENDMENTS BECAUSE WE'RE ACTUALLY JUST DO A REWRITE ON WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN.
>> KATHERINE WENT THROUGH THE DRAFT LEGISLATION YOU ALL WORKED ON AND HIGHLIGHTED AREAS THAT ARE SHOT DOWN IN THE STATE LEGISLATION, WHICH IS ALSO ATTACHED.
YOU CAN SEE THE AREAS THAT WE ADDRESSED AND WHERE THEY WERE UNDONE IN THE STATE LEGISLATION. SHE HIGHLIGHTED BOTH.
>> OBVIOUSLY, WE CAN'T BE MORE RESTRICTIVE.
WE CAN ONLY BE LESS RESTRICTIVE.
THEY EVEN SPECIFICALLY CALL THAT OUT FOR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THERE.
BUT THAT'S WITH ANY STATE LAW.
WE CAN'T BE LESS RESTRICTIVE THAN THE STATE MINIMUM STANDARD.
AS MUCH AS WE'D LIKE TO BE ON SOME CASES, STORM WATER MANAGEMENT OR CRITICAL AREA WE JUST CAN'T. IT'S THE SAME THING WITH US.
THIS IS GOING TO, I THINK, PROBABLY GOING TO BE A MAJOR POINT OF CONTENTION FOR US TO TRY TO GET SOME REGULATIONS THERE THAT WE FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH.
BECAUSE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE WAS ORIGINALLY IN THIS ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT.
I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS A BAD IDEA BY ANY MEANS, BUT THE STATE LAW, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE HELPFUL FOR US TO EVEN REMOTELY COME CLOSE TO WHAT WE WERE THINKING BEFORE.
>> WE CAN ONLY FILE A STATE, WE CAN'T ADD?
>> YES, THAT WILL BE. THAT'S WILL BE THE MINIMUM STANDARD AND THERE'S THINGS IN HERE THAT'S UP IN THE AIR, AND I DON'T KNOW IF CRYSTAL HAD TALKED TO YOU MORE ABOUT THE AG USE THING.
WE'VE BEEN BACK AND FORTH ON THIS ONE SECTION IN HERE ABOUT, SAYS POLITICAL SUBDIVISION MAY NOT ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A ZONING REQUIREMENT FOR A LICENSED GROWER CULTIVATING CANNABIS EXCLUSIVELY OUTDOORS IN AN AREA ZONE ONLY FOR AGRICULTURAL USE.
THAT'S WHERE WE'RE LEANING ON THAT.
[01:50:02]
THINK, WELL, WE DON'T HAVE ANY ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ARE STRICTLY AGRICULTURAL USE.BUT THEN IN THE SAME SENTENCE, IT TALKS ABOUT, IT CAN'T BE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE ZONING REQUIREMENT GOVERNING A HEMP FARM, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THAT YEARS AND YEARS AGO, WHEN HEMP STARTED GETTING BIG.
LIKE I SAID, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION IN ANY AND ZONING DISTRICT.
THE ISSUE IS THAT, WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE FOR A LICENSED GROWER.
YOU'RE LOOKING AT FENCING REQUIREMENTS AND LIGHTS AND SECURITY FEATURES, AND THAT'S JUST OUT IN THE COUNTRY.
IT LOOKS LIKE A COMMERCIAL TYPE DEVELOPMENT ON A FARM IS WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE.
I THINK WE'LL PROBABLY GET INTO SOME SCREENING REQUIREMENTS, AND THAT'S PROBABLY THE ONLY WAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO MITIGATE THAT BUT WE'LL SEE.
LIKE I SAID, WE'RE GOING TO WORK SHARPLY WITH THE COMMISSIONERS, PROBABLY FAIRLY SOON SINCE THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE EFFECTIVE JUNE 1ST.
NOW I DON'T THINK THERE'S CURRENTLY ANY LICENSE GROWERS YET.
KATHERINE'S BEEN KEEPING AN EYE ON THAT STUFF.
>> IS THERE ANY ISSUE WITH DISPENSARY LICENSE?
>> THERE'S ONE DISPENSARY LICENSE FOR SOMEONE WHO CURRENTLY IS OPERATING A BUSINESS IN VEEDERSBURG I BELIEVE HE CAME IN AND WAS ASKING QUESTIONS BUT AGAIN, WE DIDN'T HAVE CODE IN PLACE, SO WE'RE NOT SURE IF HE WOULD BE IN VEEDERSBURG OR IF HE'S LOOKING TO LOCATE THE DISPENSARY IN THE COUNTY.
>> I GOT A BUILDING VEEDERSBURG.
THERE'S ONE GUY THAT WAS DOWN THERE.
HE WAS RENOVATING THAT BUILDING TO BE A DISPENSER.
I THOUGHT HE WAS AN INSIDE GROWER.
HE WAS NOT AN INSIDE GROWER. THAT'S AN INSIDE GROWER
>> BUT THERE WERE NO GROWERS LICENSE ISSUED TO CAROLINE.
THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT WITH THAT.
IT'S UP IN THE AIR UNTIL WE GOT A WORKSHOP WITH COMMISSIONERS AND COME BACK BEFORE YOU WITH SOME SOME LANGUAGE.
LIKE I SAID, MORE LIKELY, I THINK SCREENING IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE THE ONLY THING WE CAN REALLY ENFORCE.
THEY CALL OUT THAT WE CAN'T BE OVER CALLING AND UNDULY BURDEN ON IMPOSING SOME ZONING REQUIREMENT OR RESTRICTION.
I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK A SCREENING REQUIREMENT IS A BURDEN
>> WELL, IF YOU'RE PUTTING SCREENING, ALSO REQUIREMENTS.
>> WE HAVE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL PROJECTS.
I DON'T SEE WHY. BUT WE'LL SEE.
AGAIN, WE'LL WORKSHOP IT AND PROBABLY GET.
HAVING SOMEONE THAT'S AT LEAST GOT ISSUED A DISPENSARY LICENSE.
YES, THEY HAVE SOME INFRASTRUCTURE IN TOWN OF VEEDERSBURG AND THAT MIGHT BE THE BEST PLACE FOR HIM TO START AND HOPEFULLY, THAT'S WHAT HE DOES.
BECAUSE THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO PUSH REGULATIONS THROUGH ANY FASTER THAN WE NEED TO.
WE DON'T WANT TO PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER AND THEN HAVE TO COME BACK AND MODIFY IT JUST BECAUSE WE TRIED TO RUSH IT THROUGH.
IT SEEMS TO BE THE CASE A LOT OF TIMES.
THE STATE OF MARYLAND SAID, AS DISPENSARY COULD BE 100 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
>> THEY'RE TREATING IT LIKE A LIQUOR STORE.
THERE'S A DIFFERENCE IN STATUTORY TO GROW.
BUT THEY FOUND THAT MISTAKE AND THEY'RE TREATING IT LIKE A LIQUOR STORE.
IF YOU CAN PUT A LIQUOR STORE THERE, YOU CAN PUT A DISPENSARY THERE.
>> ALL THE STATE REGULATIONS ARE JUST GOING TO BE WRITTEN IN WITH ALCOHOL, SO THAT'S HOW IT'S GOING TO BE ENFORCED.
>> SECURITY AT THOSE PLACES IS MASSIVELY TIGHT.
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DISPENSER?
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT DISPENSER, BUT I KNOW THE GROWTH PLANS THEY GOT.
>> RIGHT. BUT THEY ONLY ALLOW SO MANY PEOPLE IN.
IT'S NOT LIKE WALKING ON THE BARGAIN LEVERAGE.
>> JUST DO A LITTLE FIELD TRIP.
>> THEY GOT ONE ON OCEAN CITY. IT SEEMS PRETTY BIG.
>> YOU DON'T HANG AROUND THERE.
>> THEY EVEN GOT SOMETHING LIKE A DRIVE TO SOMEWHERE ON OCEAN CITY.
I TRIED THROUGH THE BACK DOOR.
[01:55:01]
>> YES. ONCE YOU'RE SHOOK DOWN, YOU'RE CHECKED OUT.
IT'S A LONG LINE OF CARS GOING ON. [LAUGHTER]
>> IS THERE SUCH A THING AS A DRIVE-THROUGH LIQUOR STORE? [OVERLAPPING]
>> I TOLD YOU DOWN IN FLORIDA.
>> CHARLES COUNTY, MARYLAND, [OVERLAPPING] THERE'S A DRIVE-THROUGH WAY BACK.
>> YOU DON'T NEED TO BE GETTING OUT OF YOUR CAR. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S RIGHT. [LAUGHTER] CHARLES COUNTY, MARYLAND, YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO GET OUT OF YOUR CAR.
YOU JUST ROLL UP TO THE DRIVE-THROUGH, ROLL YOUR WINDOW DOWN.
[LAUGHTER] THAT WAS 25 YEARS AGO.
>> WE DO STILL HAVE OUR JOB POSTINGS OUT THERE, AND WE'RE NOT REALLY GETTING ANY BITES.
WE'VE GOT TWO IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS.
>> TWO BITES, TWO OPEN. [LAUGHTER]
>> IT'S GOING TO BE OPEN FOR A WHILE.
I THINK WE JUST SAY JULY IF WE WOULDN'T HAVE ANY SPOT FROM THE PLANNER, WE WERE GOING TO TRY TO [NOISE] CONTRACT THAT OUT FOR SERVICE FOR CAR PLANNING STUFF.
>> WE'RE HAVING AN ISSUE WITH IT, BUT [NOISE] WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
HOPEFULLY, WE GET SOME MORE APPLICANTS IN [INAUDIBLE]. [NOISE]
>> WELL, I'M HOPING WITH A LITTLE BIT TONIGHT TO TIGHTEN UP ON YOUR ISSUES A LITTLE BIT.
[Planning Commissioners Open Discussion]
I DON'T KNOW HOW THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS FEEL, BUT WE'RE NOT DOING THIS.>> WELL, CRYSTAL AND I HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS ON TRYING TO PUT TOGETHER SOME RESUBMITTAL FEES.
[OVERLAPPING] PRETTY MUCH ALL THE OTHER JURISDICTIONS DO HAVE RESUBMITTAL FEES. WE DON'T.
OUR FEES ARE MINUSCULE COMPARED TO TALBOT AND QUEEN ANNE AND EVEN DORCHESTER'S GOT BETTER FEES.
>> WELL, THAT'S ONE THING THAT WE GET IN IF YOU'RE DONE THE COMMENTS IN DISCUSSING THIS 17-ACRE PROJECT.
I WAS TOLD THEY PAID THEY PAID A $400 SITE PLAN FEE, AND THEY PAID A $500 SPECIAL USE FEE.
>> BUT THAT'S FOR BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.
>> RIGHT NOW, THAT 17 ACRES IN THE HOPE FOR FEES, I GUESS, TO THE COUNTY.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER FEES THEY PAID, BUT THEY'RE IN $900 AND WE'RE ON REVIEW 6.
THERE WILL BE SEVEN BECAUSE WE GOT NUMBER 6.
SO WE'RE GETTING TO ABOUT 100.
HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE FOR YOU TO REVIEW?
>> DEPENDS ON THE WORKLOAD, BUT IT'S NOT LIKE I CAN SIT DOWN AND CLOSE MY DOOR AND SAY DON'T BOTHER ME.
[NOISE] IT'S NOT THE ONLY THING I DO IN THE OFFICE.
IT'LL TAKE ME TWO OR THREE DAYS TO GET THROUGH IT WITHOUT INTERRUPTIONS.
>> NOW, I THINK WITH ANY PROJECT, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME BACK AND FORTH.
I THOUGHT SIX ON 17 ACRES WAS A LITTLE EXCESSIVE.
WHAT ARE THE ISSUES? WHY DID THEY HAVE FOUR?
>> THE BIGGEST ISSUE AND PRETTY MUCH EVERY SOLAR PROJECT HAS IS A LACK OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT.
THEY CAN'T SEEM TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO SUBMIT EVERYTHING AT ONE TIME.
YOU GET A SITE PLAN APPLICATION AND A SPECIAL AND WITH A SET OF SITE PLANS.
WHEN YOU REVIEW IT, YOU SUPPLY COMMENTS.
OBVIOUSLY, YOU DON'T HAVE EVERYTHING SUBMITTED BECAUSE YOU STILL NEED FOREST CONSERVATION DOCUMENTS.
YOU STILL NEED A STORM WATER MANAGER REPORT.
IT'S A PRELIMINARY DESIGN WHEN IT COMES IN.
SOME OF THOSE THINGS I EXPECT TO HAVE AFTER THE FIRST REVIEW.
TYPICALLY, YOU'RE LOOKING AT 2, 3 MAYBE REVIEW LETTERS ON A PROJECT IF IT'S GOT TO GO THROUGH A SITE PLAN AND A SPECIAL USE.
IT'S GOING TO BE SEVEN WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT, BUT A LOT OF IT HAD TO DO WITH THEM SUBMITTING STUFF PIECEMEAL.
>> FROM A LOT OF DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.
>> BECAUSE I'VE PUT TOGETHER A TIMELINE, I'LL JUST GIVE YOU A BRIEF REVIEW OF HOW THIS PROJECT'S [NOISE] BEEN FOR ME.
IT'S BEEN A LITTLE FRUSTRATING, BUT I GOT A SIMILAR PROJECT IN NOW THAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO CUT A BIT DOWN ON.
THEY FIRST SUBMITTED A SITE PLAN APPLICATION IN APRIL OF 2022.
BASICALLY HAD TO SUBMIT TO THE COUNTY IN ORDER TO SUBMIT TO THE STATE FOR THIS PILOT PROGRAM FOR THIS COMMUNITY SOLAR.
THEY'RE TRYING TO GET THE STATE FUNDING AS A PILOT FOR COMMUNITY SOLAR.
SO THEY JUST HAD TO START THE APPLICATION WITH US. SUBMIT IT.
I'M NOT GOING TO LOOK AT IT BECAUSE IT'S AN INCOMPLETE APPLICATION.
THEY SUBMIT IT JUST SO THEY CAN SAY, LOOK, WE'VE SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY SO THEY CAN START THEIR PROCESS.
[02:00:02]
THAT'S APRIL OF '22.I GET THE SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION APPLICATION IN OCTOBER OF '22.
SIX MONTHS DOWN THE ROAD, YES, WE'VE GOT THROUGH SIX MONTHS OF STATE REVIEW, AND NOW I'M GOING TO SUBMIT THE REST OF OUR APPLICATION.
WELL, THAT'S WHEN WE ACTUALLY PROCESS IT, OCTOBER.
IT GOES THROUGH NOVEMBER TACK.
I SUPPLY MY FIRST LETTER IN DECEMBER.
GOES TO PLANNING COMMISSION IN JANUARY, BZA IN FEBRUARY.
THEN THEY SUBMIT WHAT'S A FINAL SITE PLAN IN JULY OF '23.
>> WHAT'S YOUR LETTER THAT YOU SENT OUT? YOUR FIRST LETTER.
>> THE VERY FIRST LETTER WAS COMING OUT OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEW IN DECEMBER OF '22.
>> YOU'RE BASICALLY GIVING A POINT A, B, SAY THIS IS WHAT I DIDN'T SAY. [OVERLAPPING]
>> TWO PAGES WORTH OF COMMENTS.
THAT'S TYPICALLY HOW WE DO IS, LOOK, THIS IS A PRELIMINARY SET OF PLANS.
I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THESE COMMENTS UP FRONT AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENTS UNTIL WE GET THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION TO BZA BECAUSE YOU GOT TO GET IT THROUGH BOTH BOARDS.
SO ESSENTIALLY, I WANT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BZA TO LOOK AT THE SAME EXACT THING.
I DON'T WANT YOU TO SUBMIT CHANGES, AND THEN I GOT TO REVIEW [NOISE] THEM AGAIN.
THEN YOU GOT TO COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION SAYS, WELL, WE WANT YOU TO DO THIS AND THIS.
IT'S LIKE, OKAY, WELL, NOW, YOU GOT TO CHANGE IT BEFORE YOU GO TO BZA.
SO I GUESS I HAVE TO REVIEW IT AGAIN.
THAT'S JUST PART OF THE THESE.
HERE'S THE INITIAL COMMENTS ON SUBMITTAL.
YOU GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION.
PLANNING COMMISSION SAYS, YEAH, IT LOOKS GOOD. GO TO BZA.
LET'S JUST SAY THERE WAS NO CONDITIONS. THERE WASN'T IN THIS CASE.
BZA DOESN'T HAVE ANY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. WE'VE GOT YOUR COMMENTS.
WE'VE BEEN THROUGH BOTH BOARDS.
TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, AT THAT POINT, THEY SHOULD HAVE MOST OF IT DONE. THAT'S DECEMBER.
YOU GET THROUGH BZA IN FEBRUARY.
FIVE MONTHS LATER, I GET A SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL.
TWO MONTHS AFTER THAT, I GET A FOREST CONSERVATION PLAN SUBMITTAL.
SO YOU SHOULD HAVE SUBMITTED THAT AT THE SAME TIME YOU DID YOUR SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL.
THAT, IN THEORY, YOU KNOW YOU NEED TO DO IT, BUT YOU'RE SUBMITTING THAT TWO MONTHS AFTER YOU JUST SUBMITTED MY SITE PLAN.
>> BUT THEY HAD A LETTER THAT SAID THEY NEEDED IT.
>> CORRECT. I SENT OUT A REVIEW LETTER IN SEPTEMBER SPECIFICALLY FOR THE SITE PLAN, IN OCTOBER, SPECIFICALLY FOR THE FOREST CONSERVATION PLAN.
LOOK, I'VE ALREADY REVIEWED THIS STUFF AND YOU TAKE FOREVER TO GET BACK TO ME.
I'M NOT GOING TO WAIT ANOTHER MONTH TO SEND OUT EVERYTHING TOGETHER.
THE LAST THING SAYS I STILL HAVEN'T REVIEWED THIS YET.
I'LL GET TO IT WHEN I GET TO IT BECAUSE WHEN STUFF COMES IN, IT'S IN A QUEUE.
IT'S NOT THIS PROJECT AND THAT PROJECT, IT'S IF YOU'RE SUBMITTING THIS SET OF SITE PLANS AND I STILL DON'T HAVE DOCUMENTS, WELL, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO REVIEW IT AT SOME POINT, SO I'M JUST GOING TO GO AHEAD AND DO IT BECAUSE IT'S IN THE QUEUE.
I HAVE TO BECAUSE IT TAKES THE TIME TO DO IT.
I'VE GOTTEN TO THE POINT NOW WHERE I JUST CAN'T DO IT ANYMORE BECAUSE OF THIS SITUATION.
[NOISE] NOW, THEY'RE SAYING THEY SUBMITTED A DECOMMISSIONING PLAN IN MARCH.
THEY DIDN'T. THEY PUT ONE TOGETHER OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE THEY HAD THAT DATE ON THERE.
WELL, THE FIRST TIME THEY SUBMITTED THAT WAS IN OCTOBER.
I TOLD YOU BACK IN DECEMBER OF '22 THAT A DECOMMISSIONING PLAN WAS REQUIRED.
YOU'VE BEEN THROUGH TWO SITE PLAN REVIEWS AT THAT POINT AND I FINALLY GET A DECOMMISSIONING PLAN AND I REVIEW IT AND I SUBMIT IT AND THEY SUBMIT IT BACK AND, GUESS WHAT, I REVIEWED THAT ONE, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU SAW TODAY.
IT'S CONSTANT RESUBMITTALS BECAUSE THEY JUST DON'T DO IT ALL TOGETHER.
IT'S LIKE EVERY OTHER MONTH THEY'RE SUBMITTING SOMETHING THAT THEY'VE REVISED THAT I TOLD THEM TWO MONTHS AGO.
>> THE ANSWER MIGHT BE [OVERLAPPING] YOU DO THAT TO ALL THE PEOPLE.
>> THAT'S WHAT I'VE HAD TO DO.
I'VE GOT ONE SOLAR COMPANY THAT I CAN'T GET THEM OFF THE BACK BECAUSE I TOLD THEM, LOOK, YOU NEED TO SUBMIT EVERYTHING UP FRONT.
WE'VE CHANGED OUR PROCESS NOW.
INSTEAD OF GOING PRELIMINARY PLANNING COMMISSION THEN BZA THEN BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION, WE'VE SKIPPED APART TO TRY TO SAVE TIME.
INSTEAD OF COMING TO PLANNING COMMISSION WITH A PRELIMINARY, JUST GO TO BZA FIRST.
THEN WHEN IT COMES TO YOU, IT SHOULD BE DONE.
INSTEAD OF HAVING TWO MEETINGS, NOW, YOU COULD SAY, WELL, WE WANT TO SEE SOMETHING ELSE AND YOU CAN TABLE IT AND YOU CAN REQUEST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. THAT'S FINE.
[NOISE] I WOULD RATHER DO THAT THAN JUST BRING A PRELIMINARY SET OF PLANS IN FRONT OF YOU WITH THIS ENTIRE LIST OF THINGS SAYING, WELL, THIS IS WHAT THEY HAVE TO ADDRESS.
WHAT'S THE POINT? YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? WE CHANGED THAT PROCESS TO DROP A MONTH OFF.
NOW, DROPPING THE MONTH OFF HASN'T HELPED OTHER PEOPLE THAT CAN'T GET [NOISE] THEIR STUFF TOGETHER.
>> MATT, WHEN YOU SEND THAT WHEN YOU RESPOND BACK TO THEM WITH YOUR LETTER, IT'S STUCK.
>> POINT BY POINT. JUST LIKE WHAT WAS IN THAT PACKAGE IS EVERYTHING.
WHAT I'M LOOKING AT, I'M LOOKING AT AS A FINAL.
IF THIS STUFF IS NOT ON THERE, YOU'RE NOT READY.
YOU NEED ALL THIS STUFF AND YOU'RE NOT THERE.
>> WELL, CAN'T WE [NOISE] PUT A CHECK BOX THERE AND IT
[02:05:04]
SITS ON A DESK SOMEWHERE UNTIL ALL THE BOXES [OVERLAPPING]?>> THAT'S WHAT IT'S COME TO. [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE SAID WE DIDN'T WANT TO SEE IT UNTIL IT WAS READY.
THESE PEOPLE DEMANDED TO BE IN FRONT OF THE BOARD.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THAT'S WASTING.
I UNDERSTAND, IN YOUR FREE TIME, YOU WANT TO SAY, OKAY, WELL, I'VE GOT THAT IN MY QUEUE, SO I NEED TO REVIEW THAT BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE DONE.
BUT THEN YOU'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO IT AGAIN WHEN YOU GET FOR STATION PLAN, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO IT AGAIN.
I THINK THAT IT'S GOT TO BE STREAMLINED SOME WAY.
IF YOU COULD SIT DOWN FOR A DAY AND REVIEW EVERYTHING THAT YOU HAD COMPLETE, WOULD THAT NOT STREAMLINE YOU BEING ABLE TO REVIEW IT? THE PIECEMEAL ON IT.
WELL, IF YOU SUBMIT SOMETHING TO ME IN SEPTEMBER, AND I'M NOT LOOKING AT IT FOR TWO MONTHS BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T SUBMIT SOMETHING, THAT'S FINE.
YOU DIDN'T SUBMIT IT. IN THE CASE OF, SAY, THE DECOMMISSIONING PLAN, WHEN THAT CAME IN THE SECOND TIME, I DIDN'T LOOK AT IT UNTIL I GOT THE REVISED SITE PLAN.
I COULDN'T BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF THEIR NUMBERS CHANGED BECAUSE I HAD COMMENTS ON THE SITE PLAN THAT MAY HAVE REFLECTED A CHANGE IN NUMBER OF PANELS.
IF I CAN LOOK AT ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER IS ONE THING.
BUT IF THEY'RE SPECIFICALLY TIED TOGETHER, IT JUST SITS THERE AND WAITS AND IT'S ALL ON THEM FOR NOT SUBMITTING IT.
THAT'S WHERE I'M AT WITH THIS OTHER PROJECT THAT HASN'T MADE ANY HEADWAY, WHICH I SAT DOWN AND HAD A PRE-APPLICATION MEETING WITH THEM AND WENT OVER EVERYTHING THAT THEY HAD TO DO AND HAD TO SUBMIT.
>> YEAH, THERE WAS SIX PEOPLE ON A CALL WITH ME AND THEY WERE TAKING NOTES THE WHOLE TIME.
I EVEN FOLLOWED UP WITH AN EMAIL.
I WAS LIKE, LOOK, THIS IS WHAT'S REQUIRED, THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO SUBMIT.
I GET AN APPLICATION IN THE MAIL, AND IT'S JUST THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION.
FUNNY. I OPENED UP THE FEDEX BOX I'M LIKE, WHERE'S A SPECIAL USE APPLICATION? I IMMEDIATELY SEND AN EMAIL TO THEIR ENGINEER.
>> I'VE GOT A FUNNY FEELING IN THIS.
JUST THAT IT'S THEIR PROJECT WITH ALL THE PLAYERS THEY GOT INTO THAT'S JUST [OVERLAPPING] TOO MANY PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY NEED.
>> THERE IS TOO MANY PEOPLE. THAT'S THE OTHER PROBLEM.
THE THREE PEOPLE THAT WERE SITTING HERE PRESENTING THAT, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM HAS SENT ME EMAILS AND PHONE CALLS TO ME AND CRYSTAL.
I SAID, THERE IS ONE POINT OF CONTACT.
I'M NOT GOING TO RESPOND TO YOUR EMAIL, I'M NOT GOING TO CALL YOU BACK.
YOUR ATTORNEY THAT YOU'RE PAYING FOR IS LISTED ON THAT APPLICATION AS A CONTACT, SO IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE STATUS IS, YOU NEED TO TALK TO HIM.
DON'T CALL ME AGAIN AND CRYSTAL SAID THE SAME THING.
>> BUT THEY CALLED THE OFFICE AND WE ALL FEARED THEIR QUESTIONS.
>> ANYBODY THAT THEY CAN GET A HOLD OF.
>> SEE, AND THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT I JUST HAD.
>> THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM.
THEIR LAWYER IS SAYING, IF YOU ALL WANT TO CALL. I DON'T NEED TO HIM.
>> WE SAID THE SAME THING TO RYAN.
IN THE LAST TIME THAT CHERRY WOOD SUBMITTED SOMETHING, WHICH WAS BACK IN JANUARY, WAS THE LAST TIME I REVIEWED THEIR SUBMITTAL.
I STILL HAD THREE PAGES OF COMMENTS.
NOW, MIND YOU, THE SOLAR COMPANY CHANGED AND THE ENGINEERING FIRM CHANGED ABOUT FOUR YEARS AGO.
THEN IT SAT THERE AND NOTHING HAPPENED, ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE'RE READY TO GET THAT.
BUT WE HAD THAT CONVERSATION WITH RYAN BECAUSE THEY'RE SUBMITTING APPLICATIONS AND THEY'RE LIKE, WELL, WE ADDRESSED ALL MATT'S COMMENTS, HERE'S THE BULLET POINT RESPONSE LETTER.
I'M SITTING THERE WITH CRYSTAL I'M LIKE, READ THIS, THIS AND YOU LOOK AT THIS PLAN SENTENCE AND TELL ME THAT THESE THINGS ARE ADDRESSED AND THEY'RE SAYING THEY ADDRESSED.
SHE'S LOOKING AT IT AND SHE'S LIKE, NO.
SHE CALLS RYAN AND SAYS, IF YOU'RE GOING TO SUBMIT SOMETHING AND SAY IT'S BEEN COMPLETED, YOU'VE ADDRESSED THE COMMENT, THEN MAYBE YOU NEED TO CHECK IT YOURSELF BEFORE IT GETS SUBMITTED.
WE HAD THAT MOMENT TO SAY, LOOK, IF YOU WANT TO BE THE MAIN POINT OF CONTACT, THEN YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY RIGHT BEFORE YOU SUBMIT IT.
DON'T SAY IT IS WHEN IT'S NOT. IT'S THE SAME THING.
IT'S EVERY SOLAR PROJECT. IT'S EVERY ONE.
THEY'RE THE BIGGEST DEFENDERS OF THIS. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
ANY OTHER PROJECT IN THE SELF STORAGE FACILITY ON 404, I GOT THEM THROUGH THE ENTIRE REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS BEFORE IT EVER CAME TO THIS BOARD AND THERE WAS NOT ONE CONDITION OF APPROVAL ON THAT THING. IT WAS SIX MONTHS.
>> I GUESS KEITH IS GOING THE SAME WAY, WE'RE THINKING THE SAME.
YOU HAND THEM A PAGE WITH BULLET POINTS ON IT.
ALL YOU GOT TO DO IS ADDRESS THE BULLET POINTS.
>> JUST FOLLOW THE BULLET. THE THING IS,
[02:10:03]
IT'S NOT LIKE I'M MAKING STUFF UP AS I GO ALONG. THE STUFF IS IN THE CODE.HERE'S THE SITE PLAN, SECTION IN THE CODE, THIS IS THE MINIMUM STANDARDS, HERE'S THE SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS FOR THAT SPECIFIC USE.
IT SAYS IT IN THERE. WHY ARE WE NOT PROVIDING IT? IF I SAY THAT THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED, WHY I'M I GETTING TWO, THREE SUBMITTALS IN BEFORE YOU FINALLY DECIDE TO ADDRESS IT? BECAUSE YOU'RE TIRED OF ME TELLING YOU THAT IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED? I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM. I CAN'T FORCE SOMEONE TO SUBMIT SOMETHING.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S BEEN ADDRESSED UNTIL I REVIEW IT. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
YOU CAN GIVE A RESPONSE LETTER LIKE THEY DID, LIKE THEIR DECOMMISSIONING COMMENT LETTER RESPONSE TO MINE, BUT UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY GO BACK AND LOOK AT IT, WELL, YOU'RE TELLING ME THIS IS IN THERE, IT'S NOT.
YOU'RE SAYING THIS IS REFLECTIVE OF THIS THIRD PARTY, IT'S NOT.
THE ONLY WAY TO STOP IT IS RESUBMITTAL FEES.
THIS IS THE WAY IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
>> INSPECTION AGENCIES ARE CHARGING FOR IT?
>> CAN IT BE LATE FEES ON CERTAIN THINGS?
>> OR A REQUIREMENT THAT IT ALL HAS TO BE SUBMITTED BEFORE YOU BEGIN YOUR REVIEW?
>> AFTER THIS PROJECT, THAT'S WHAT I'VE DONE.
EVERY PROJECT THAT'S COME IN SINCE THEN, THEY'RE LIKE, WHY CAN'T WE BE REVIEWED? BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE EVERYTHING.
JUST GET IT TO ME. I CAN'T WASTE MY TIME.
>> IF YOU SAY A PROJECT CAN HAVE TWO OR THREE, AND IT'S NORMAL.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT A FAIR FEE IS.
BUT I THINK ONCE YOU DIG IN THEIR POCKET ONCE THEY MIGHT SIT DOWN AND TALK TO EACH OTHER BEFORE THEY TALK TO US.
>> WE BASE IT ON HIS HOURLY RATE.
>> IT'S THE SOLAR ONES THAT HAVE ISSUES.
EVEN WITH NOT NECESSARILY CHERRY WOOD AS MUCH AS THE OTHER BIG PROJECT WAY PAST, IS THAT THEY'VE HAD THESE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FROM THEIR CPCN AND SO A LOT OF THOSE THINGS ARE REQUIRED THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT, LIKE FOREST CONSERVATION.
LIKE CHERRY WOOD FOR INSTANCE, WHERE THEY SAID SOMETHING ABOUT HAVING TO SUBMIT FOREST CONSERVATION APPLICATION.
WELL, THEY GOT THAT CPCN ISSUED DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR.
DO YOU THINK I HAVE A FOREST CONSERVATION APPLICATION YET? I DON'T. I'VE HAD A WHOLE SECTION ON THAT REVIEW LETTER OF, THESE ARE CPCN COMMENTS, AND THEY NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BECAUSE THESE ARE ONES THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO ENFORCE.
THE STATE SAID, YOU HAVE TO DO THIS AND CAROLINE COUNTY HAS TO APPROVE IT.
ORIGINALLY, WE EXEMPTED CHERRY WOOD FROM FORCED CONSERVATION AT THE ONSLAUGHT OF THE APPLICATION BECAUSE WE CONSIDERED IT.
YOU GET YOUR CPCN, YOU BECOME A PUBLIC UTILITY.
PUBLIC UTILITIES ARE EXEMPT IN THE FOREST CONSERVATION LAW.
WE THOUGHT, WELL, THAT'S OKAY.
THAT'S WHAT WE DID. WELL, THEY GOT THROUGH THEIR REVIEW PROCESS.
THE [INAUDIBLE] RESEARCH GROUP SAID, "NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO EXEMPT YOU, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE YOU COMPLY WITH FOREST CONSERVATION." THE PROBLEM IS WE'RE THE ONES THAT HAVE TO ENFORCE IT.
WE EXEMPT THEM, STATE SAYS, NO, YOU HAVE TO DO IT AND THIS IS A CONDITION OF THEIR APPROVAL, BUT IT'S STILL NOT ADDRESSED.
THEY'VE HAD THEIR APPROVAL. THERE'S THINGS IN THERE.
THERE'S TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLANS AND ALL THAT STUFF, JUST ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION.
THE STUFF THAT I'VE BEEN TELLING THEM, THEY'VE ADDRESSED MOST OF THEIR SITE PLAN RELATED STUFF OTHER THAN THE SUBSTATION.
THAT'S IMMENSE AT THIS POINT, BUT YOU GET THE STATE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND YOU'VE KNOWN ABOUT THEM.
YOU KNEW ABOUT IT BEFORE WE KNEW ABOUT IT.
BEFORE I GOT ON THEIR WEBSITE AND DOWNLOADED THE WRITTEN DECISION, THE 40 PAGE IS THE WRITTEN DECISION.
IT COMES DOWN TO THE APPLICANT NOT SUBMITTING STUFF AND I GUESS THEY ASSUME THAT THE COUNTY IS GOING TO OVERLOOK THINGS, BUT THAT'S THE ONLY THING I CAN GET OUT OF IT.
IS THAT MAYBE THEY'RE JUST CHARGING THEIR CLIENTS EVERY TIME THEY GOT TO RESUBMIT SOMETHING.
THAT'S THE OTHER THING THAT I'VE SEEN.
>> WHO PUTS IN PLACE THE FEES? IS THAT ON THE COMMISSIONERS?
>> WE SUBMIT STUFF TO THE COMMISSIONERS, SAY, THIS IS THE FEES.
BASICALLY, WE SET THEM UP AND THEY HAVE TO APPROVE THEM.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED.
>> CAN IT BE DONE AT ANY TIME?
>> IT CAN BE DONE AT ANY TIME.
IT'S BEST TO DO IT AT TIME WHEN WE'RE DOING BUDGET STUFF, BUT WE CAN MODIFY IT AT ANY TIME.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER COUNTIES ARE CHARGING.
WHAT IS FAIR, WHAT'S COMMONLY PRACTICED, WE SHOULD BE DOING THE SAME.
WE'LL CALL IT COWBORN ROOM FEE.
THEN MY OTHER THING WAS IF YOU'RE ON 17 ACRES, LIKE HE SAID, THERE'S PEOPLE HERE CUTTING GRASS BIGGER THAN THAT.
[02:15:02]
HOW DO WE HAVE FAITH THAT YOU CAN MANAGE THIS PROJECT? WE'RE NOT GOING TO END UP WITH A PIT OF JUNK SITTING UP ON OUTSIDE OF [INAUDIBLE].AT LEAST THESE PEOPLE ARE A CORPORATION, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A CLUE.
>> HERE LATELY, IT'S NOT JUST PROJECTS THAT I'VE NOTICED IT ON.
IT'S ON PLOTS, IT'S IN BUILDING PERMITS.
I FEEL LIKE PEOPLE ARE JUST NOT SUBMITTING STUFF ON PURPOSE SO THAT WE TELL THEM THEY HAVE TO FIX SOMETHING SO THEY CAN CHARGE A CLIENT.
THAT'S WHAT I THINK IS REALLY HAPPENING.
BECAUSE I'M SEEING STUFF ON PLOTS THAT SHOULD NOT BE SEEN ON PLOTS.
>> BUT WHAT WE CAN DO IS TO GET OUR CUT.
>> WE'RE JUST GOING TO PASS THE BUCK ON.
>> WELL, THEY CAN PASS IT BUT, RIGHT NOW, WE'RE THE DAMN DUMPING GROUND.
WE'RE JUST THE DUMPING GROUND THAT YOU CAN DUMP ON.
BECAUSE YOU CAN COME HERE 16 TIMES AND GET YOUR STUFF REVIEWED BECAUSE YOU CAN'T FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS.
>> WELL, AND THE THING IS, THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE THAT COMPLAINING ABOUT THE PROCESS WHEN THEY DON'T SUBMIT EVERYTHING AT THE SAME TIME.
>> NOT TAKE IT IN UNTIL EVERYTHING IS SUBMITTED. THAT'S WHAT IT'S COME TO.
>> I'VE ALREADY IMPLEMENTED BECAUSE OF THIS.
>> WHEN IS THE NEXT BUDGET MEETING?
>> YEAH. BUT I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO WAIT FOR THAT UNLESS THERE IS A REASON.
[OVERLAPPING] SCHEDULE A COMMENT TO PLAN FOR THAT.
>> I THINK AFTER THE THIRD REVIEW.
>> YOU'RE A PERSON THAT DOES IT.
HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU GOT TO BE TOLD SO? [LAUGHTER] NOT BY YOUR VOICE.
>> ELECTRICALLY, THERE IS A REINSPECTION FEE ON A REVISIT THE SECOND TIME.
YOU GUYS ARE CHARGED THAT WELL.
>> WE'RE CHARGED THROUGH MEDAL DEPARTMENT FIRST STATE OR WHOEVER FIRST STATE COMES THROUGH.
>> THAT WAS MY THING THAT I WAS GOING TO BRING UP HERE THAT WE NEED A FEE WHEN THEY TOLD ME THAT THEY'RE 900 BUCKS FOR THE 900 BUCKS.
>> OF COURSE WE ANNOUNCED THAT.
I'M NOT TALKING NECESSARILY THESE PROJECTS HERE, BUT IN THE NEXT PROJECTS AND THAT THEY'RE WELL AWARE OF THAT FROM THE GET GO.
I THINK, OF COURSE, LIKE I SAID, THESE OTHER ONES PROBABLY, YOU HAVE TO JUST GO THROUGH WHAT WE GOT TO GO THROUGH.
BUT THE NEXT PROJECTS, AND IF THAT'S WRITTEN IN THERE AND THEY CLEARLY UNDERSTAND THAT OUR FEE PROCESS WILL BE INCREASED ON THESE REVIEWS, ESPECIALLY WHEN EVERYTHING HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU, PRESENT TO US.
AS LONG AS THEY KNOW IN THE BEGINNING.
>> YOU CHANGE YOUR. IF IT COMES IN, IT'S NOTHING, IT JUST GET SET OVER.
>> THAT'S SITTING THERE SO I GET WHAT'S REQUIRED.
>> THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE STIPULATIONS TOO.
>> WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING WE NEED TO WRITE.
IN OTHER WORDS WHEN MATT OR WHOEVER GIVES THAT LIST, THE CRITERIA, THIS IS WHAT'S REQUIRED BEFORE WE REVIEW ANYTHING.
>> THEY JUST CHOOSE NOT TO SUBMIT.
>> IT'S ONE THING IF IT'S LIKE, WELL, IF I DON'T HAVE LIKE FOREST CONSERVATION, FOR INSTANCE.
FOREST CONSERVATION AREAS IS BASED ON THE LIMITED DISTURBANCE BECAUSE THAT'S THE CHANGE IN LAND USE.
IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO AFFECT THE LIMITED DISTURBANCE, YOU CAN'T REALLY MAKE CHANGES ON THE FOREST CONSERVATION PLAN UNTIL YOU GET FAR ENOUGH ALONG.
NOW, THE THING IS, YOU CAN SUBMIT A PRELIMINARY FOREST CONSERVATION PLAN AT THE SAME TIME.
YOU ALREADY HAVE TO DO IT ANYWAY.
YOU MIGHT AS WELL JUST SUBMIT IT UPFRONT.
IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER, IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE DONE.
BUT THE INITIAL COMMENTS ARE PROBABLY GOING TO TRIGGER A CHANGE TO THAT PLAN AND YOUR SITE PLAN.
>> YES. IF YOU GIVE ME A PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND I HAVE STORM WATER RELATED ISSUES WITH IT, IT MIGHT CHANGE THAT LED, WHICH THEN CHANGES THE SITE PLAN, WHICH THEN CHANGES THE FOREST CONSERVATION.
IT'S I TRY TO TELL PEOPLE WHEN THEY SUBMIT, THE BEST METHOD IS TO GET IT ABOUT 80-85% CONSTRUCTION READY.
I SAID, WHEN YOU GET TO THAT POINT, THE COMMENTS ARE A LOT LESS AND THEY'RE A LOT EASIER TO FIX.
[02:20:01]
>> IT COSTS SOME MONEY UPFRONT.
>> THE COUPLE THAT WAS THERE LEFT THERE.
WERE THEY THE LANDOWNERS WHO WILL BE LEASING THIS PROPERTY?
IN OTHER WORDS, THEY DON'T GET PAID UNTIL WHEN?
>> THE AGREEMENT THAT THEY HAVE.
>> I WOULD IMAGINE THEY DON'T GET PAID.
>> THEY GETTING FRUSTRATED WITH THE PRICE.
>> THEY GOT TO BE GETTING FRUSTRATED. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WHEN I GIVE THEM FIVE, SIX COPIES OF A REVIEW LETTER AND SAY, THIS IS WHAT I SUBMITTED TO THE PERSON THAT IS GOING TO REPRESENT THE PROPERTY.
>> THIS IS WHAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED.
>> WE HAD AN ISSUE WITH ANOTHER SOLAR PROJECT AND THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS NOT HAPPY.
BECAUSE WHAT THEY WERE TELLING HIM WAS NOT THE TRUTH AND HE HAD TO COME FIND OUT FOR HIMSELF.
LET'S JUST SAY HE LEFT THERE A VERY UNPLEASANT MAN, SAY THE LEAST. [LAUGHTER]
>> THAT JUST OPENS UP THE DOOR WHEN WE HAVE A COUPLE IN HERE AND THEN WHEN WE ASKED THEM, DO THEY WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY? THE FIRST THING THEY WOULD DO IS ATTACK OUR PROCESS.
NORMALLY, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD DO.
I WOULD SAY, BUT I WANT TO KNOW WHAT TAKE YOU GUYS SO LONG.
>> THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SHARE THAT.
>> BUT FROM THE BEGINNING, WE TOLD THEM YOUR SIX LETTERS, WE'RE SIX DEEPENED.
>> I KNOW THAT IT'S KIND OF A.
>> LIKE I SAID, I DIDN'T GET INTO THE GUT.
YOU'RE NOT EVEN BUILDING ANYTHING.
>> YOU'RE NOT DOING A REAL STORM WATER DESIGN, YOU'RE JUST TREATING IT LIKE A ROOFTOP DISCONNECT, WHICH IS BASICALLY, HERE'S YOUR SIDEWALK AND YOU JUST HAVE TO HAVE EQUAL DISCONNECT FOR WATER RUNOFF.
THAT'S WHAT THEIR STORM WATER IS.
>> ON A SUBSTATION, YOU GOT ACTUALLY FACILITIES AND YOU GOT TO DO A STORM WATER REPORT, SIL BOARDS.
THAT'S REAL STORM WATER DESIGN.
>> IT'S NOT EVEN A REAL STORM WATER DESIGN.
THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S REALLY LEARNED ABOUT THAT PROJECT AT ALL FROM A DESIGN AND ENGINEERING STANDPOINT.
AGAIN, FOUR OR FOUR, THEY GET MODIFYING AN ENTIRE EXISTING STORM WATER FACILITY, BUILDING A NEW ONE, PUTTING UP TWO BRAND NEW BUILDINGS, AND THEY'RE IN AND OUT WITH APPROVALS AND PERMIT ISSUED IN SIX, SEVEN MONTHS.
AND HERE WE ARE FROM APRIL 22 ON LIKE THEY'RE NOT EVEN BUILDING ANYTHING.
JUST JAM AND POSTING THE GROUND, SETTING PANELS.
IT'S THE SAME REQUIREMENTS, THE STORM WATER.
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS BECAUSE IT'S A STORM WATER MANAGEMENT, FOREST CONSERVATION PLAN.
IT'S THE SAME EXACT DOCUMENTS.
IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT TYPE OF PROJECT. BUT THEY'RE ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTING.
>> I'M BE AWFUL FRUSTRATED WHEN I WAS ON THAT LEAVE FOR TWO YEARS.
>> BUT IT'S EVER SOLD. THEY'RE ALL THE [OVERLAPPING]
>> TOO MANY IN THE COOK JAR IS. NOW WE'LL TALK TO EACH OTHER.
>> I WOULD LIKE YOU ALL TO KNOW SOMETHING TOO, WHICH IS [NOISE] REALLY SOMETHING ONLY I REALLY SEE, [NOISE] WHICH IS MATT HAS ALWAYS MADE HIMSELF AVAILABLE THE THREE YEARS I'VE BEEN HERE AND WE'VE GOT LITIGATION PENDING AND I NEED A CONSULT WITH HIM.
HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN IMMEDIATELY RESPONSIVE, [NOISE] INCLUDING THIS WEEK, TO ISSUES THAT ARE BEYOND MY KNOWLEDGE BUT WITHIN HIS.
HE HAS BEEN NOTHING BUT STELLAR IN TO THE OFFICE OF LAW AND TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BECAUSE I'M SERVING THEM AND WE GOT SOMETHING PENDING AND I NEED AN ANSWER.
EVERYBODY KNOWS IT, HE'S WORKING HARDER THAN HE SHOULD.
WE'RE SHORT ON STAFF AND THESE PEOPLE CAN'T GET IT RIGHT.
THE ONLY THING MATT HADN'T DONE IS JUST WENT TO THEIR OFFICES AND HELD THEIR HAND.
>> I WILL TELL YOU, HONESTLY, THE THING WITH ME, AND, MCATEE, WHEN WE HAD THE WORKSHOP, PLEASE TELL ME WE'RE NOT BEING DIFFICULT. IT'S NOT OUR FAULT.
THAT SOMEBODY IS GOING OUT AND SAYING THAT CAROLINE COUNTY THAT THEY ASKED TO DEAL WITH AND THEY'RE DIFFICULT TO DEAL WITH BLAH, BLAH.
IT'S LIKE, NO, IT'S WRITTEN RIGHT IN THE RULES AND WE DO WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE DOES AND WE GIVE YOU FOR 900 BUCKS,
[02:25:03]
WE GIVE YOU ALL THIS TIME.BUT BECAUSE I'M PRO BUSINESS, WE WANT BUT WE TALKED ABOUT IT WITH SHIFTER, WE TALKED ABOUT IT WITH OTHER PROJECTS.
>> JUST FOLLOW THE RULES, A LOT EASIER.
>> THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE TO MAKE IT UP.
THEY JUST GET TO FOLLOW THE LIST THAT YOU GIVE THEM.
>> I LIKE THE OTHER COMPANY WHERE HE SAYS, WE GOT A PROJECTED DATE OF A CERTAIN TIME AND HE'S WILLING TO BECAUSE HE'S SOMEWHERE DOWN LINE.
HE'S TRYING TO STICK TO THAT. [NOISE]
>> WELL, YOU CAN SEE THE START DATE.
YOU SEE THE LOOK WHEN MATT SAID IT, PROBABLY.
>> BUT IT GAVE HIM A LITTLE, WELL, YOU BROUGHT HIM BACK TO REALITY.
>> [OVERLAPPING] FOR A LONG TIME TOO.
>> EXTRA MONTH GOING TO HURT YOU IN SIX YEARS?
>> BUT HE ALSO FOUND OUT THAT HE ALSO KNOWS THAT IF YOU SAY JULY, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GO BY.
>> OH, BUT IF HE HASN'T DONE SOMETHING THAT HE KNOWS ALREADY SUPPOSED TO HAVE DONE, THAT'S NOT ON US. THAT'S ANOTHER THING.
>> THE BALL IS IN THEIR COURT BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO FINALIZE STUFF WITH [INAUDIBLE] POWER FOR THE SUBSTATION.
THEY CAN'T MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT FINAL DESIGN ON THE SUBSTATION.
I'VE GOT FINAL DESIGN FOR EVERYTHING ELSE BUT THAT AND I WON'T REVIEW IT TILL I GET THAT.
>> THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO A DREAM FIELD OR SUBJECT PRESERVING?
>> TECHNICALLY, THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BUT NDE AND THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE HAVING A CALL THIS FRIDAY.
>> YOU GET HIT FOR TESTING RIGHT NOW.
>> IT'S A LITTLE TOO LATE NOW.
SHOULD HAVE APPLIED IN JANUARY.
>> THE LATEST YOU CAN ROUTE, BECAUSE THEY GET SO MANY IN.
>> MOST OF THE TIME, IF YOU DON'T GET IT IN BEFORE THE FIRST WEEK IN MARCH, IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO GET DONE.
>> THAT'S THE SEASON. BUT IF YOU DON'T GET IT IN TIME, THEY CAN'T GET ENOUGH TESTING.
>> THAT'S SOMETHING IF THEY'RE REQUIRING THEM TO DO A DRAIN FIELD ON A PROJECT THAT DOESN'T NEED A DRAIN FIELD.
IS THAT ONE OF THOSE CONDITIONS WHERE YOU CAN GIVE THEM APPROVAL, THEY CAN GO AHEAD AND START THEIR WORK.
THE SEASON WILL COME IN BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE USING A DRAIN.
THE PROBLEM IS IF NDE TELLS THEM THAT THEY HAVE TO DO IT AND WE'VE ALREADY LOOKED AT A STORM WATER DESIGN.
THERE'S SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR STORM WATER FACILITIES FROM SRAS.
ANY GROUND PENETRATING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR STORM WATER REQUIRES 100 FOOT SETBACK.
WHAT THEY COULD HAVE HAD FOR A LOT, NOW, THEY'VE GOT TO EXPAND THAT AREA NOW TO PICK UP SO THEY CAN MEET THEIR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
IT'LL BE A HUGE ISSUE IF THEY HAVE TO DO IT BECAUSE THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE THE ROOM TO DO IT.
THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE A PERFECT TEST AREA TO DO IT.
>> YOU CAN'T PUT THE PANELS ON THE [INAUDIBLE]?
>> EXACTLY. THAT'S YET TO BE DETERMINED.
WE DID SUBSTATION 4 [INAUDIBLE].
WE DID A TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW IT.
>> BUT JUST SUPERSEDES THAT BECAUSE OF THE CPCN.
>> IF THEY MAKE THEM DO IT AS PART OF THAT, THEN THEY JUST HAVE TO DO THAT.
>> SOME OF THIS IS CERTAINLY NOT US.
>> BUT THEN HE WANTS TO GET THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND WORRY ABOUT THAT LATER.
EVERY TIME SOMEBODY COMES IN FOR A PLOT AND THEY DON'T HAVE THEIR SRA LOCATION ESTABLISHED, IT'S AN ISSUE.
I TELL PEOPLE WHEN YOU WANT TO SUBDIVIDE OFF A PIECE OF YOUR PROPERTY, IF YOU HAVEN'T EVEN HAD A DISCUSSION WITH THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, DON'T SUBMIT ANYTHING TO US.
BECAUSE IF YOU CAN'T PERK IT, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO REFUND YOU MONEY AFTER I'VE ALREADY REVIEWED THIS BECAUSE I ALREADY GOT TIME SPENT ON IT, AND NOW YOU CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T PERK.
GET THROUGH YOUR WET SEASON TESTING AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS AND THEN THAT'S HOW YOU LAY OUT YOUR LOTS WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO DO A SUBDIVISION.
IT'S NOT, OH, I WANT IT TO BE THIS. IT'S NO.
WHERE CAN I PERK, AND THEN I MAKE MY LOTS AROUND THOSE.
SO A LOT OF PEOPLE TRY TO DO THE OPPOSITE AND I TELL THEM ALL THE TIME LIKE, IT'S JUST GOING TO SIT HERE.
YOU CAN SUBMIT IT IF YOU WANT, BUT IT'S GOING TO SIT HERE.
IF WE HAVE TO REFUND YOUR MONEY, WE HAVE TO REFUND YOUR MONEY, BUT WE CAN'T MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT THE APPROVAL.
IF IT HAPPENS WITH THIS, IT'S GOING TO BE AN ISSUE HERE.
THAT JULY DATE MIGHT BE JULY OF 25 AND NOT 24 [LAUGHTER] BUT THAT IS YET TO BE DETERMINED.
[02:30:01]
IF THE STATE SAYS ONE THING AND ARIZONA WHATEVER IS MORE RESTRICTIVE.OUR CODE SAYS THAT. IF STATE LAW IS MORE RESTRICTIVE, WE GOT TO GO MORE RESTRICTIVE.
>> HE WANTED TO NOSE AROUND ABOUT.
WE APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT THE STATE SAYS THIS, THAT YOU REALLY DON'T HAVE IT.
>> STEWART AND I HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT STATE PREEMPTION AND THAT STUFF.
>> IT'S OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AT THIS POINT.
THE STATE HASN'T MADE ANY FINDINGS ON THAT.
>> BUT I THINK WHEN THEY BROUGHT THIS DECOMMISSIONING PLAN, AND THEY WERE BRINGING IT UP, CALBORN ROAD WAS BRINGING IT UP AND THEY'RE RIGHT.
THERE'S OTHER PLACES THAT DO IT DIFFERENTLY.
WE COMMONLY REQUIRE IT UPFRONT.
THERE'S OTHER PLACES THAT LET THEM SUBMIT IT LATER.
THERE'S NO RULE THAT SAYS, YEAH.
BUT COMMONLY WE GET IT UPFRONT SO THAT'S THE RULE.
WE GET IT UP FRONT. I'M SORRY IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THAT BECAUSE YOU DO THINK SOMEWHERE ELSE, THEY DO IT DIFFERENT.
>> YOU'RE NOT THERE. NOT IN KANSAS, ANYMORE.
>> WELL, I WAS READY FOR THEM TO BE ARGUMENTATIVE. BUT THEY WEREN'T.
>> WELL, I THINK THEY GOT THE POINT.
>> I THINK CHERRY AND WE'VE GOT THE POINT TOO BECAUSE THEY GOT TO SIT IN THE BACK AND LISTEN.
>> THAT'S BEEN ONE THAT'S WANTED TO HAVE CONDITIONAL APPROVALS TO AND NOT FLAT OUTSIDE, NO.
>> AND THEY GOT TO HEAR THAT [INAUDIBLE]. [OVERLAPPING]
CAN WE JUST GET IT. RYAN, THERE'S TWO PAGES OF COMMENTS.
YOU'RE NOT GETTING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION FOR TWO PAGES OF COMMENTS.
ONE OR TWO MAYBE THREE THINGS BUT TWO PAGES OF COMMENT? [OVERLAPPING]
>> SOMEBODY TELL ME, WHAT'S THE BENEFIT?
>> THERE'S NO BENEFIT. YOU STILL HAVE TO ADDRESS IT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE BENEFIT IS THAT THEY CAN START CONSTRUCTION.
>> BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE THEM A PERMIT.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT THAT'S THE BENEFIT THAT YOU START CONSTRUCTION, AND THEN THEY FORCE YOUR HAND ON THE BACK END.
>> THEY'VE GOT FIVE MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF SOLAR PANEL SITTING OUT THERE AND THEY SAY, WE GOT TO RELEASE.
>> NO, HOLD THEM. [LAUGHTER] WHERE YOU HAD THEM BEFORE YOU STARTED PUTTING UP.
>> BUT THE THING IS, LIKE [INAUDIBLE] THEY GOT CONDITIONAL APPROVAL, RIGHT?
>> WELL, WE JUST BASICALLY TOLD HIM, YOUR SITE PLAN IS GOOD, STILL GOT TO ADDRESS ALL THE COMMENTS THAT HE SAYS.
>> AGAIN, JUST BECAUSE YOU CAME BEFORE THIS BOARD AND YOU APPROVED IT, DOESN'T MEAN EVERYTHING IS STILL NOT BEEN SUBMITTED.
THE FOREST CONSERVATION PLANS NEED TO BE FINALIZED, THE DEED OF FORCE CONSERVATION EASEMENT NEEDS TO BE SIGNED BY THE COMMISSIONERS RECORDING LAND RECORDS, THE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT NEEDS TO BE RECORDING LAND RECORDS, THE [INAUDIBLE].
THERE'S ALL THESE OTHER THING AND THIS IS EVERY PROJECT.
THOSE ARE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE DONE AFTERWARDS.
GET TO YOU AND YOU SAY, YEP, THOSE ARE THE ONLY THINGS, USUALLY.
IT'S OKAY, WELL, YOU'VE MADE ALL YOUR SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS, GET THESE EXTRA DOCUMENTS IN.
WE'LL GET THESE THINGS RECORDED.
WHEN THEY'RE RECORDED AND WE HAVE EVERYTHING, THEN YOU GET YOUR WRITTEN NOTICE OF APPROVAL.
THAT SAYS YOU CAN NOW APPLY FOR YOUR ZONING CERTIFICATES OR BILLING PERMITS TO COMPLY WITH THE SITE PLAN SECTION CODE.
FOR SOME REASON, THERE'S A DISCONNECT.
WHAT PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE IS THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU CAME HERE DOESN'T MEAN THAT'S IT, YOU'RE DONE.
YOU HAVE TO RECEIVE FINAL NOTICE OF APPROVAL.
THERE IS A LETTER THAT IS WRITTEN FOR A SITE PLAN APPLICATION THAT SAYS THAT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR HAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BASED ON THE CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
YOU MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SITE PLAN SECTION. THAT'S WHAT YOU GET.
NOW YOU CAN APPLY FOR THE REST OF THE CERTIFICATES FOR BILLING PURPOSE.
>> THE THING IS THEY CAN'T START CONSTRUCTION.
>> THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITHOUT THE FINAL NOTICE OF APPROVAL AND THE FINAL NOTICE OF APPROVAL IS ALL THAT STUFF THAT STILL NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THOSE CONDITIONS.
>> THEY STILL NEED TO ADDRESS IT.
THAT'S WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
LIKE WHY? UNLESS THERE'S SOME FUNDING TIED TO IT THAT THEY NEED TO HAVE THAT SAYS, WE GOT LOCAL APPROVAL WHEN IN ACTUALITY REALLY HAVEN'T GOT IT.
NOT UNTIL YOU GET A WRITTEN NOTICE THAT SAYS THAT YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY GET IT.
>> THEY MIGHT RELEASE A LITTLE FUNDING FORM. I DON'T KNOW. YOU'RE RIGHT.
>> I THINK THAT'S USUALLY [INAUDIBLE] [OVERLAPPING] BECAUSE NONE OF THE OTHER TYPES OF PROJECTS WANT THAT.
THEY'RE JUST LIKE, I JUST WANT TO BE DONE WHEN I GET TO PLANNING COMMISSION.
THAT'S WHERE YOU SHOULD BE. IT JUST SHOULD BE
[02:35:01]
THERE'S OUTSTANDING EASEMENT AGREEMENTS THAT NEED TO BE DONE BECAUSE I'M NOT GOING TO HOLD UP A SITE PLAN APPROVAL IF I GOT TO GET IT ON THE COMMISSIONER'S AGENDA OR STEWART STILL HAS TO REVIEW IT BEFORE WE GET IT ON THERE, THAT COULD BE TWO MONTHS BEFORE THAT'S.I'M NOT GOING TO WAIT. IF YOU'VE SUBMITTED IT AND I REVIEWED IT, IT LOOKS GOOD.
STEWART REVIEWED, IT LOOKS GOOD.
WELL, NOW WE CAN SCHEDULE IT TO BE ON THE COMMISSIONER'S AGENDA.
ONCE I GET IT IN RECORDED, THEN THERE'S YOUR WRITTEN NOTICE.
FOR SOME REASON, SOLAR COMPANIES THINK WE PICK ON THEM, BUT IT'S THE SAME PROCESS FOR EVERY PROJECT.
IT'S THE SAME SAME DOCUMENTS. SAME APPROVALS.
>> WELL, I THINK IT'S NOT A MOTION OR ANYTHING, BUT YOU NEED TO LOOK INTO REVIEW FEES.
>> NO, YOU DON'T. [NOISE] SOMEBODY SAID THAT APPLICANTS HAVE DEMANDED TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION, DEMANDED TO BE ON THE AGENDA.
>> WE WERE DISCUSSING THIS, AND I THINK THIS IS WHAT WASN'T IT THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO TALK TO YOU.
THEY WANTED TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD.
>> WHO LET THEM ON THE AGENDA?
>> NOW, THE QUESTION TONIGHT, THIS IS WHAT I ASK TONIGHT.
WE STILL WEREN'T READY, BUT THEY'RE ON THE AGENDA.
>> WHO DECIDED TO PUT THEM ON THE AGENDA.
>> CRYSTAL AND I DECIDED TO PUT THEM ON THERE.
WE WERE TRYING TO TELL THEM NO.
WE SAID, WELL, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS WE'RE GOING TO PUT IT IN THE LAPSE OF PLANNING COMMISSION.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE HEARING NO FROM US, THEN MAYBE YOU'LL HEAR NO FROM THEM. THAT'S WHAT IT CAME TO.
>> THAT'S FINE. IN THE FUTURE, NOBODY HAS A RIGHT TO BE ON YOUR AGENDA.
YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? YOU CONTROL YOUR OWN AGENDA.
>> JEFF, YOU SET THE AGENDA WORKSHOP.
>> THAT'S THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD AND I WAS LIKE, LOOK, THIS IS WHAT I SEE.
YOU CAN TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT. WE CAN PUT IT ON, WE CANNOT.
>> HE HAS THE POWER TO SAY, LOOK, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH SO YOU CAN MOVE FORWARD THIS.
WE'VE DONE THAT ON OUR PROJECTS. WE HAVE DONE.
>> [INAUDIBLE] QUESTION. MATCH THE PROBLEM.
>> I'M ALWAYS WORKING ON THAT.
>> LISTEN. NOW, THIS IS MY QUESTION. MATCH THE PROBLEM. HOW DO THEY AIR THEIR GRIEVANCE?
THEY'LL COMPLAIN TO THE DEPARTMENT HEAD.
>> OR TO CALL ONE OF OUR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND RAISE OUT.
THE HEAD OF COMMISSIONER CHECKS IT OUT.
HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE BEEN THROUGH THIS MATT SINCE I'VE ONLY BEEN HERE THREE YEARS? HOW MANY TIMES HAS THIS HAPPENED?
>> IT'S A LOT MORE IN ELECTION YEAR.
>> THEN THE STORY COMES BACK THAT IT WAS TOTALLY CONFLATED, EXAGGERATED, SOMETIMES OUTRIGHT LIES TOLD TO TRY TO SPUR THE PLANNING OFFICE TO GET IT FRONT OF THE LINE.
>> NOW THAT'S THE BS WAY OF DOING IT. YOU'RE GOING TO GO COMPLAIN.
MY BUDDY TRIED THIS. I'M GOING TO TRY THIS.
I'M GOING TO GO SEE. WE'VE ALL HEARD THAT.
AS THE PROS, THEY DON'T LIKE HIM.
THEY CAN REQUEST FROM HIM, I WANT TO SEE YOUR DEPARTMENT HEAD JUST LIKE IN ANY GOVERNMENT.
WHEN THEY GET IN THERE AND GET INTO PISSING CONTEST WITH HER, AND THEY GO, I DON'T LIKE YOUR ANSWERS.
SHE CAN SIMPLY SAY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS YOUR CONCERN WITH THE BOARD? NOT THEIR FINAL SITE PLAN.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH TELLING THEM THAT.
WHEN YOU SAID THAT APPROVING THEIR AGENDA AND BEFORE THEY EVEN COME IN, AND YOU TELL US EXACTLY ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING WRONG WITH WHERE WE CAN'T APPROVE THIS.
BUT THEY INSIST ON MEETING WITH YOU GUYS.
WELL, I WANT TO KNOW ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU LEAVE BECAUSE THE FIRST THING WHEN THEY SET UP THERE, I'M GOING TO SAY, I HAVE A LIST OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE, THAT IF YOU ARE SEEKING AN APPROVAL TONIGHT.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU'VE MET THESE THINGS.
I'M JUST SAYING THIS, IF I WAS IN YOUR CHAIR. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
I WOULD GO ITEM TO ITEM AND I SAID, IF YOU'VE FULFILLED THOSE REQUIREMENTS, AND THEN YOU'RE HERE ON THE MEETING TO VERIFY WHETHER THEY'VE DONE IT OR NOT.
THEN I SAY, WELL, DID THEY DO THAT? YOU'LL SAY, NO. THEN I'LL GO TO THE NEXT ONE. DID THEY DO THAT? NO. AT THE END OF ME SAYING ALL THAT,
[02:40:04]
FIRST THING I'LL SAY WELL, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PROBABLY REQUEST ANOTHER.WE'RE NOT READY TO MAKE A DECISION.
END OF THE STORY. SORRY YOU CAME.
>> WE SHOULD BE DOING THAT ON THE WORKSHOP.
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. EASILY JUST SAY, WELL, I'M SORRY YOU CAME BUT WE'RE NOT PREPARED TO MAKE A DECISION UNTIL THESE ITEMS ARE ADDRESSED OR WHAT YOU'VE DONE.
>> BECAUSE THEY CAN AT THE WORKSHOP.
>> BRING YOUR 20 PEOPLE, AND IF YOU AIN'T GOT IT TOGETHER, I'M SORRY BY WASTING SOME TIME.
>> WE DISCUSSED THIS AND MATT, HE HAD HIS RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS IN THERE.
YOU CAN APPROVE WITH SOME CONDITIONS.
THEIR SITE PLAN, IT HAS REACHED A POINT, IT WAS AT A POINT.
YOU COULD PROVE IT WITH SOME CONDITIONS.
BECAUSE IN LISTENING TO THIS WORKSHOP, IT'S LIKE I KNOW WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY.
I'M NOT GOING TO APPROVE ANYTHING.
I MAKE A MOTION, WE DON'T APPROVE.
BUT TO YOUR POINT, WHY WERE THEY HERE? I ALSO THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT SOMEBODY HERE WHAT OUR POSITION WAS, AND THAT WE SUPPORT OUR STAFF.
WHY DO WE WANT TO HEAR THIS? THEY HAD CHERRY WOOD.
THAT'S WHY I ASKED FOR CHERRY WOOD TO BE SECOND BECAUSE I WANT THEM TO SIT BACK AND LISTEN THAT THE 17 ACRE PROJECT CAN'T GET IT RIGHT AND THIS IS WHAT YOU GOT TO DEAL WITH.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM IN THE WORKSHOP BECAUSE WE SAID IF STAFF SAYS THAT THIS IS NOT READY FOR A REVIEW, THEN WE DON'T WANT TO SEE IT, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE BEEN TELLING THESE PEOPLE.
THEY'RE LIKE, NO, WE WANT TO SEE IT.
WE WANT TO BE ON. WE WANT TO GO BEFORE THE COMMISSION.
>> BECAUSE, FIRST OF ALL, THAT'S WHY I MADE THAT STATEMENT OUT THERE ABOUT PEOPLE ON BOARD BEING QUALIFIED.
DON'T COME IN HERE JUST THINKING THAT WE'RE A BUNCH OF LITTLE PUMPKINS SITTING UP IN HERE AND YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE WITH THE KNOWLEDGE.
IF WELL, SINCE WE QUIETED HIM DOWN, WE'LL JUST THROW OUT.
GET IT OUT AND THEN THEY'RE NOT GOING TO QUESTION WHAT WE DID AND THEN I DON'T THINK THEY WERE PREPARED FOR THAT. THAT WAS MY POINT.
>> I DON'T WANT APPLICATIONS TO COME TO YOU AND HAVE TO GIVE CONDITIONAL APPROVALS.
IT'S ONE THING WITH BCA WITH GRANTING CONDITIONALS APPROVALS.
IT'S PRETTY CLEAR CUT WHEN YOU'RE COMING FOR A SITE PLAN.
EVERYTHING'S OUTLINED IN CODE.
A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION PERSPECTIVE SHOULD BE VERY SLIM. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?
>> WHAT YOU THINK THERE'S TWO THINGS THAT WERE ON THAT LIST.
>> THIS NORMAL STUFF THAT'S NOT EVEN WORTH A CONDITION OF APPROVAL. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? THAT'S HOW I FORESEE THIS BOARD LOOKING AT APPLICATIONS, AND THAT'S BEEN MY MO SINCE I'VE STARTED DOING SOME PLANNING REVIEWS.
I GOT A LOT OF SLACK EARLY ON FOR REQUIRING SOMETHING BETTER THAN A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN COMING BEFORE A PLANNING COMMISSION.
OVER THE YEARS, IT'S GOTTEN TO, LIKE I SAID, IF YOU CAN GET 80% CONSTRUCTION READY.
THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE HARDLY ANY ISSUES THAT YOU NEED TO ADDRESS.
BUT IT'S JUST GETTING APPLICATIONS IN THAT DO THAT.
I TELL PEOPLE THAT ALL THE TIME AND IT'S JUST ALL YOU'RE DOING IS SLOWING YOURSELF DOWN.
I DON'T WANT THIS SITTING ON MY DESK FOR TWO YEARS.
I WANT TO LOOK AT TWO OR THREE TIMES AND BE DONE.
I DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH YOU FOR FOUR YEARS, SIX YEARS ON A SINGLE PROJECT.
IT'S YOU'RE NOT DOING YOURSELF ANY FAVORS BY NOT JUST DOING WHAT YOU NEED TO DO.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT I TELL THEM, BUT I DON'T WANT THIS BOARD TO HAVE TO BE IN A POSITION WHERE YOU'RE QUESTIONING STAFF ON WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING SHOULD BE APPROVED.
I DON'T WANT THAT QUESTIONING TO COME UP.
>> I WANT IT TO BE CLEAR. IF THERE'S AN ISSUE WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT AND, LIKE, THOSE CONDITIONS THAT I'M READING OFF THOSE EIGHT THINGS.
AT ANY POINT IN TIME, YOU STOP ME LIKE, WELL, I DON'T REALLY NECESSARILY AGREE WITH THAT.
I'M MAKING A STAFF RECOMMENDATION BUT YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? I'M JUST OUT THERE BASED ON HOW I'VE INTERPRETED THE CODE, AND YOU MIGHT INTERPRET SOMETHING A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
I USE ZONING AS THE MAIN POINT FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE, BUT YOU MIGHT SEE SOMETHING DIFFERENT IN THE PLAN AND SAY, WELL, I'M NOT SURE THAT REALLY COMPLIES WITH THAT.
IN ALL HONESTY, IT COMPLIES FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE, DOES IT REALLY COMPLY WITH OUR GOALS FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION? NO, IT DOESN'T.
BUT IT COMPLIES WITH EVERYTHING ELSE.
BUT THEN YOU'VE GOT STATE PREEMPTION THAT THEY DON'T REALLY CARE IF YOU'VE GOT A PRIORITY PRESERVATION AREA.
FREDERICK COUNTY HAS ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT.
[02:45:02]
HOW IS OUR 2,000 ACRES HOLDING UP?>> WE'VE PAUSED GRINNING WHEN HE CUSTOM.
>> BECAUSE HE'S ALL ABOUT PREEMPTION.
WE'VE GOT SOME ACRES LEFT IN THE CAP.
>> THAT WOULD BE TRAGIC AND THEN IT WILL BE KNOWN
>> IT WAS DISCUSSED EARLIER ON.
THE STATE WAS PROBABLY GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THAT FOR US.
>> BUT THEY DID IT IN THE SESSION.
>> THEY DID AND THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON THAT.
>> THE BIG THING WAS, IT WAS TIED TO AG PRESERVATION.
A LOT OF THE JURISDICTIONS HAVE SOME PRETTY LOFTY GOALS FOR PRESERVING AG LAND, AND THIS GOES DIRECTLY AGAINST IT.
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE A COMP PLAN THAT YOU'RE DESIGNATING AREAS THAT YOU WANT TO PRESERVE FOREVER IS FORMALLY.
>> NOW THAT'S A PRIORITY PRESERVATION AREA AT THE PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATION OF THE STATE.
THIS SAYS, ABSOLUTELY NOW THAT DOES STOP THIS.
>> FREDERICK COUNTY HAD A CPCN PROJECT APPROVED IN A PRIORITY PRESERVATION AREA.
THE STATE REACTED ON IN THEIR OWN TRAMP AREAS THAT'S WHAT WE'RE UP AGAINST THE LAW OR IT'S OVER.
IS THAT EVEN THE STATE LAW THAT SAYS, YOU GOT TO PUT THIS IN YOUR COMP PLAN, AND THIS NEEDS TO BE A GOAL ON YOUR COMP PLAN.
BUT THEN YOU ALLOW LEGISLATION AND PREEMPTION THAT GOES COMPLETELY AGAINST WHAT WE WANT TO DO IN OUR COUNTY AS A GOAL.
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT AS A GOAL TO DO YOUR JOB.
YOU GOT TO TAKE EVERYTHING FOR GRAIN OF SALT AND EVERYTHING THAT COMES OUT OF ANNAPOLIS BECAUSE IT'S NEVER REALLY ANYTHING GOOD FOR US.
>> WELL, IT JUST REMINDS ME OF SOME PROJECTS I'VE WORKED ON BEFORE.
I REMEMBER ONE TIME, SOUTH CAROLINA, THEY WANTED US TO EXTEND THE RUNWAY BECAUSE NOW THEY'RE GOING TO BRING IN A C5 AIRCRAFT AROUND AND THEN WE FOUND OUT THAT THE EXISTING RUNWAY, THE NEW LAND WE HAD PURCHASED ALL SWAMP LAND.
GOVERNMENT PURCHASED IT PRIOR TO BEING PARKA-BOOM TO SEE HOW.
NOW IF ANYBODY KNOWS THE WEIGHT OF A C5 AIRCRAFT, YOU KNOW WHAT WE HAD TO DO TO FILL THAT UP.
THAT WAS A LOT OF OUR TAXPAYER MONEY SPENT ON THAT PROJECT.
>> CAN YOU DO IT? CUTTING THE TREE [INAUDIBLE]
>> THANK YOU. I JUST WANT LET THEM PEOPLE TO KNOW.
THERE ARE PEOPLE UP HERE TO KNOW HOW PEOPLE TRY TO OPERATE.
BUT I SEE THEY TRIED TO MAKE YOU THE BAD GUY, BUT I WAS GOING TO MAKE SURE I DIDN'T.
>> IT DOESN'T HURT MY FEELINGS. THAT EVERYBODY SAYS THAT EVERYBODY BLAMES THE COUNTY FOR.
>> I WORK AT THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, SO YOU KNOW I KNOW.
>> I ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, BUT DOES CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE CAUSE YOU MORE WORK?
>> NO. THEY GOT TO DO IT ANYWAY.
>> THEY GOT TO DO THE STEP FURTHER BEFORE TONIGHT OR AFTER?
>> NOW IF HE HAD A CONDITION THAT HAD SOME CHANGE THEY HAD TO MAKE, THEN THAT'S BUT I ALREADY HAVE TO LOOK AT IT ANYWAY.
>> THE ONLY THING IS IF YOU SAY NO, AND COME BACK IS JUST I HAVE TO COME TO ANOTHER MEETING.
THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. I STILL HAVE TO LOOK AT THE SAME EXACT STUFF.
>> TECHNICALLY, YOU'RE AT A POINT NOW WHERE HE CAN LOOK.
HE CAN LOOK AT IT GO, NOW WE'RE HAPPY AND WE DON'T HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT AGAIN.
>> THEY ADDRESS THAT STUFF, AND I GOT A COPY OF THAT ACCESS PERMIT FROM STATE HIGHWAY.
>> IN SIX YEARS, HOW MANY TIMES DID THAT COMPANY CHANGE HANDS? [OVERLAPPING]
>> JUST ONCE. BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONE THING THE GUY IN QUEEN ANNE'S SIMON WAS TELLING ME, HE SAID BE CAREFUL BECAUSE THEY CHANGED HANDS A LOT.
THE DECOMMISSIONED AGREEMENTS WE HAVE, WE REALLY HAVE TO HOLD OUR FEET TO FIRE ON THAT.
>> HE SAID WE HEARD YOU WERE ALL GOING TO BE HERE FOR A LONG TIME. THE COMMUNITY.
>> YEAH, WELL, THAT'S IT [LAUGHTER].
>> DIDN'T BOTH OF THEM SAY THAT?
>> THAT WENT RIGHT OVER. I HEARD THIS.
I'M STILL STUCK ON THAT [LAUGHTER].
SOMEBODY WALKED IN HERE AND SAID, LET IT GET IT UP AND RUNNING.
SOMEBODY WALK IN WITH FIGURE. IT'LL BE GO.
>> NOW, THE OTHER ONE RUNNING A BIG CORPORATION, THEY'RE RUNNING A PORTFOLIO, YOUR CHECK MIGHT HAVE TO BE A LITTLE BIGGER TO GET THAT AWAY FROM THEM.
[02:50:02]
THAT GUY'S IN TO BUILD IT AND SELL IT.>> WE'VE HAD TWO THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND BUILT AND BOTH OF THEM CHANGED HANDS.
>> THAT'S INDUSTRY STANDARD FOR THOSE, IS THAT COMPANY THROUGH THE PERMIT PROCESS AND CONSTRUCTION AND THEN THEY DON'T WANT TO OPERATE IT SO THEY SELL IT.
>> THE LARGER ONES, I DON'T KNOW, BUT THE TWO SMALLER ONES THAT WE'VE HAD, THEY'RE BOTH ON THAT.
>> WELL, I'M LOOKING AT THEIR SLIDESHOW.
DELMARVA POWER THE TRANSMISSION PEOPLE, [OVERLAPPING] NEW JERSEY, OR WHATEVER IS OPERATED IN [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT COULD BE A PROBLEM WITH THE SELLING OF IT, TOO, WHEN YOU PUT THAT ON THAT BACK END THING.
THEY LOOK AT THE PAPERWORK AND SAID, WELL, WAIT MINUTE, WE GOT TO COME UP WITH [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE'VE HAD A PROJECT THAT WENT ALL THE WAY THROUGH AND GOT APPROVAL, ISSUED A BILLING PERMIT AND SIMILAR SIZE TO THE CAVALIER SOLAR AND WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE PROPERTY OWNER PASSED AWAY.
WELL, HE HAD IN HIS WILL HIS KIDS AND HIS NIECES AND NEPHEWS.
WELL, DELMARVA POWER WANTED TO CHANGE THE AGREEMENT THAT WAS DONE, AND THEY WERE LIKE, YOU CAN'T CHANGE, WE DON'T WANT YOU TO DO THAT.
WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE PERMIT EXPIRED, AND THAT WAS THAT.
THEY WENT ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS, YOU APPROVED, PERMIT ISSUED.
ALL THEY DID WAS STAKE THE LOCATION OUT, AND THAT WAS AS FAR AS THEY GOT.
>> THAT WAS THE THING WITH THE DECOMMISSIONING PLAN.
IT'S GOING TO SELL WITH THE BUSINESS [OVERLAPPING].
>> THE DECOMMISSIONING COST IS 15 MILLION.
>> WHEN HE SAID 15 MILLION, I ALMOST SWALLOWED MY TONGUE.
I HAD NO IDEA. BUT THEN YOU START THINKING ABOUT IT AND YOU'RE LIKE, WELL [OVERLAPPING].
>> GOT TO BE. BUT LOOK AT ALL THE LOCATION.
>> AND IT'S FUNNY THAT YOU ASKED THAT QUESTION, HOW MUCH PER ACRE, THAT THEY COULDN'T HOOK YOU UP.
>> THEY'RE AN INVESTMENT COMPANY. YOU COULDN'T HOLD OFF A FORMULA.
>> THEY'RE GOING TO BE SELLING SOME GRIDS.
>> THEY'RE FIGURING OUT HOW MUCH THEY'RE MAKING.
IT MAY NOT BE FIGURED ON THE ACREAGE.
>> IF YOU DO THE RESEARCH ON THIS, THE COST OF DECOMMISSIONING IS USUALLY DETERMINED BY LOOKING AT THE CAPACITY, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT.
THEY HAVE AN AVERAGE IN THE INDUSTRY.
THAT'S HOW IT DETERMINE, NOT THE ACREAGE.
>> BUT WHAT WAS THEIR FORMULA TO EVEN GO TO SIT DOWN AROUND THE TABLE AND CONSIDER BUILDING THAT? WHAT WAS THEIR COST? WHAT'S GOING TO COST US?
>> X AMOUNT OF MILLION? WE CAN EXPECT TO GENERATE THIS MUCH MONEY.
>> THEY GOT A FORMULA BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T GO INTO A PROJECT THAT SAW BLOWING UP.
>> WELL, I GUESS IT'S THE CHEAPEST PART.
>> AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE SELLING THE GRID TO NORTH CAROLINA TO BE BUYING SOME AND THIS AND THAT.
IT'S A BIG COMMODITY OF HOW, LIKE YOUR ELECTRICITY YOU KNOW ALL ABOUT HOW BIG POWER COMES.
>> CARS TO PLUG IN [LAUGHTER].
>> IT'S GOING TO BE MONEY MADE.
>> WHATEVER BECAME A BIG THING WITH BATTERY STORAGE.
>> THEY JUST EXTENDED MORATORIA.
>> I'M GOING TO TALK TO TRAVIS ABOUT THAT.
SO BATTERY STORAGE UNITS, THERE'S NFPA CODE RELATED STRICTLY TO BATTERY.
>> BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS?
>> YES. IT'S PRETTY STRANGE. THAT IS STRANGE ENOUGH THAT WE DON'T NEED TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
>> SHE WAS USING THE NFPA CODE, I THOUGHT.
>> THAT WAS A BIG THING IN OUR MEETING AND THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT.
NOW I'VE HEARD NO MORE ABOUT BATTERY STORAGE. NOW WE GOT SUBSTATIONS.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I'LL HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK, I THINK THERE ARE SETBACKS AS WELL.
>> SO DID TERRY REQUEST TO BE ON THE AGENDA OR WHOSE IDEA WAS THAT?
>> RYAN TALKED TO CRYSTAL AND REQUESTED IT.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM. THE WOULD HAVE COME DOWN.
>> HE WAS GOOD. HE SAID IT OCCURRED TO HIM THAT NONE OF YOU WERE IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHEN THEY INTRODUCED THE FIRST TIME.
>> SO HE SAID, I WANT TO INTRODUCE US TO THESE.
>> I HAD THAT SUGGESTION TO HIM MONTHS AGO WHEN HE WAS TRYING TO GET SOME STUFF SUBMITTED.
[02:55:04]
I SAID, NONE OF THESE BOARD MEMBERS HAD BEEN THERE.IT MIGHT BE NICE TO HAVE AN OVERVIEW BEFORE YOU DO.
NOW, THAT WAS MONTHS AGO, AND NEVER REALLY HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
>> WELL, I'M GLAD IT HAPPENED TO THEM [LAUGHTER].
>> THEY GOT A LITTLE WHILE TO GET IT.
THE OTHER BIG PROJECT IS GOING TO BE HOLD UP FOR A WHILE. THE WAY COAST.
>> THAT'S THE ONE ALL THE WAY UP IN NEWARK COUNTY, THE ONE THAT'S COMPRISED OF SEVERAL DIFFERENT PARCELS.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THIS ONE HAS GOT A WHOLE DIFFERENT ONE, YEAH.
>> I'M LOOKING AT BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD.
>> YEAH. THEY'VE GOT SOME ISSUES TO DEAL WITH MAINLY ROADS.
THEIR EQUIPMENT IS TOO BIG TO GET TO THE LOCATION FOR THE STAGING AREA.
THEY CAN'T MAKE TURNS ON LIKE THREE OR FOUR OF OUR ROADS.
>> WELL, ACTUALLY, WHERE THEY DELIVER LIKE ALL THEIR LAY DOWN AREAS OR STAGING AREAS FOR CONSTRUCTION.
THEIR TRUCKS ARE SO BIG, THEY CAN'T MAKE TURNS TO EVEN GET THERE.
>> WHAT ARE THEY TURNING ON THAT'S TOO BIG?
>> THE LENGTH OF THOSE. BECAUSE OF THE SEVERE WEIGHT OF THOSE INVERTERS, THE TRUCK SIZES ON THESE THINGS ARE LIKE 35 FOOT LONG AT LEAST.
>> DO YOU REMEMBER THE TRANSFER THEY BROUGHT IN HERE A COUPLE OF YEARS BACK OFF OF KEMP ROAD?
>> NO.BUT WHAT DID THEY DO? BRING HEAVY HOLE TRAILER?
>> I WAS LIKE, HAD THREE SETS OF AXES TO TURN.
THEY HAD TO TAKE IT AROUND THE CORNER THERE AT BULLOCKS. PRETTY INTERESTING TO THINK.
>> THEY COULDN'T HAVE GOT IT IN THERE EASILY.
>> I JUST DROPPED IT RIGHT THERE [LAUGHTER].
>> WHEN IN DULCEY LUGGAGE WAS OUT TO THE INDUSTRIAL PART, AND THEY BROUGHT THAT BIG EXTRUDER IN.
THEY BROUGHT IT IN ON AND ACTUALLY HAD A GUY ON THE BACK OF THE TRAILER DRIVING THE TRAILER AND IT WAS ESCORTED DOWN.
THEY HAD BRIDGES THEY COULDN'T GO ACROSS TO GO AROUND.
>> THE STATE REQUIRED THEM TO DO A TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND THEY SUBMITTED THIS DOCUMENT TO US AND THEIR ENGINEER THAT DID IT, THERE WAS LIKE FOUR OR FIVE INTERSECTIONS.
JUST SOMETHING WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE AT THOSE INTERSECTIONS, WHETHER IT'S ROAD IMPROVEMENTS.
SOMETHING WOULD HAVE TO BE BECAUSE THEY JUST CAN'T GET THE EQUIPMENT THEY NEED TO GET.
>> SO YOU GOT ALL THIS IN PLACE AND THEN YOU CAN'T EVEN [OVERLAPPING].
>> [OVERLAPPING] NO PLANNER ON THAT.
>> THIS IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, SOLAR PROCESS.
WE'RE 90% DONE ON CONSTRUCTION AND WE CAN'T GET THERE.
>> WHAT DID THEY LEFT IT DOWN.
[LAUGHTER] THAT'S ALL I CAN SAY.
>> HERE'S SOME OUTSTANDING STUFF.
>> I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING LEFT. OFF THE TRUCK.
>> WELL, I'M GOING TO GUESS THAT THE GENTLEMEN THAT WAS SITTING HERE HAVE SOME DEEP POCKETS. THERE INVESTMENT.
THEY'RE NOT A FLY BY NIGHT, SO IF THEY GOT ONE ROUTE [OVERLAPPING].
>> I FELT BAD THEY ALL HAVE ALL THIS STUFF.
WERE WE SUPPOSED TO ASK MORE QUESTIONS?
>> THEY'RE JUST IN THERE WITH INFO.
>> YEAH. IF YOU ASKED THE QUESTION.
THERE WAS SOMEBODY BACK THERE THAT WAS BAD.
>> I SAW PAPER ROAMING AROUND, LIKE ALL THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY.
[Adjournment]
>> THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.