Oct 09, 2024 Planning Commission

AND TONIGHT WITH US IS COMMISSION MEMBERS ROGER MCKNIGHT, KEITH BILBROUGH, CAROLINE COUNTY COMMISSIONER

[• Opening]

[00:00:10]

CRYSTAL DEDDS.

LESLIE. GRUNION.

GRUNION. I'LL GET IT RIGHT.

MATT. GUZINSKI.

CATHERINE MCAULEY AND THE ATTORNEY STEWART.

SORRY. I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO MESS UP YOUR LAST NAME.

OKAY. EVERYBODY'S GOT THEIR PACKET THAT WAS MAILED OUT.

WE HAVE AN ADDITION TO THE PACKET, SO I MAKE A MOTION.

I NEED TO MAKE A MOTION.

I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE AMEND THE AGENDA TONIGHT TO INCLUDE A RECOMMENDATION FOR CHANGES TO THE APPEALS SECTION OF THE ZONING CODE. THAT'S A MOTION.

AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A SECOND.

SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

AYE. ALL RIGHT.

SO WE'LL ADD THAT TO THE AGENDA IF WE CAN ADD THAT TO THE AGENDA.

MAKE IT LAST AFTER THE TDR.

SO THE FIRST THING ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT IS THE MARYLAND STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEWS.

[• MD State Clearinghouse Reviews]

AND MISS GRUNION WILL TAKE CARE OF TELLING US ALL ABOUT THAT.

THANK YOU.

THIS IS A CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW REQUEST FROM THE MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR TWO RENOVATION PROJECTS AT AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS IN THE COUNTY TUCKAHOE GARDENS APARTMENTS, WHICH ARE IN RIDGELY, AND UNIVERSITY APARTMENTS, WHICH ARE IN FEDERALSBURG.

THE PROJECTS INCLUDE REHABBING THE TENANT UNITS.

I THINK THERE'S 32 IN THE TUCKAHOE GARDEN APARTMENTS AND 36 IN THE UNIVERSITY APARTMENTS.

SO, ITS INTERIOR RENOVATIONS TO UNITS AND THEN ALSO IMPROVEMENTS AND UPGRADES AT THEIR MAINTENANCE AREAS, PARKING LOTS, THE LANDSCAPING BOTH OF THEM ARE SOMEWHAT ELDERLY.

THE TUCKAHOE GARDENS APARTMENTS IN RIDGELEY WERE BUILT IN 1986, AND THE UNIVERSITY APARTMENTS WERE BUILT IN 1991.

THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IS FINANCING THE IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH BOND.

THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT I FOUND IS 5 MILLION.

AND WHEN I CALLED THE CLEARINGHOUSE FOLKS, THEY SAID IT'S DIVIDED BETWEEN THE TWO.

SO 2.5 AND 2.5 FOR EACH PROPERTY.

SO THE FIRST STEP IN THE REHAB PROJECT IS TO DO AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT THAT'S REQUIRED BY EPA.

AND THIS CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW REQUEST IS ACTUALLY FOR YOU ALL TO PROVIDE A COMMENT RANKING BOTH ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FINDINGS AND THE PROJECT IN GENERAL.

THE RENOVATION PROJECT IN GENERAL.

JUST TO CLARIFY THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS PERFORMED BY ECS MID-ATLANTIC.

THEY'RE LICENSED TO DO THESE.

THEY DID A PRETTY THOROUGH ONE.

AND IN THE PACKAGE YOU ALL GOT, I APOLOGIZE FOR HOW HUGE THEY ARE.

BUT THEY DID A THOROUGH ASSESSMENT OF ANY KIND OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON THE SITE.

AND THEIR CONCLUSION ON BOTH PROPERTIES WAS THERE WERE NONE.

AND THEIR RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT THERE WAS NO NEED TO PROCEED TO A LEVEL TWO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, WHICH DHCD HAS TENTATIVELY APPROVED, BUT THEY NEED TO SEND IT OUT FOR CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW TO US AND SOME OF THE STATE AGENCIES TO GET THEIR APPROVAL OF THIS, TOO, BASED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. SO I'VE GONE THROUGH IT.

AND I'M NOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERT, BUT THIS IS A VERY THOROUGH ASSESSMENT.

AND THEY DID A WIDE RANGING AMOUNT OF RESEARCH AND DATA COLLECTION.

AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S PRETTY SELF-EXPLANATORY.

AND THE BULK, ALL OF THE WORK IS SIMPLY REHABBING.

THEY'RE NOT ADDING ANY NEW FACILITIES OR EXPANDING THE DEVELOPMENTS IN ANY WAY.

SO THE STAFF SUMMARY IS THAT THESE ARE IMPORTANT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS.

THEY'RE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

THE ASSESSMENT CONCLUDED THAT THERE'S NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT THAT WOULD PREVENT THEM FROM IMPLEMENTING THE REHAB PROJECTS.

THEY SUPPORT BOTH THE FEDERALSBURG COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS FOR HOUSING AND THE CAROLINE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS FOR HOUSING FOR RESIDENTS IN CAROLINE COUNTY. SO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO SUBMIT AN APPROVAL CODE C1, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH COUNTY PLANS, PROGRAMS AND OBJECTIVES.

[00:05:05]

ANY QUESTIONS FOR LESLIE? WELL, THEN I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO.

HAVE A CLEARINGHOUSE APPROVAL OF C1 CONSISTENT WITH COUNTY PLANS, PROGRAMS AND OBJECTIVES.

DOES ANYBODY LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION? WAS THAT A MOTION? ARE YOU LOOKING FOR A SECOND? SECOND? WELL, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION.

OKAY. YEAH, I KNOW.

YEAH, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE THAT WE.

I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE DID THIS WITH THESE TWO CLEARINGHOUSE PROJECTS.

GET APPROVED WITH C-1 APPROVAL CODE CONSISTENT WITH COUNTY PLANS, PROGRAMS, AND OBJECTIVES.

SECOND. SECOND.

SECOND. YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

AYE. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU NEED FOR THOSE TWO? NOPE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OKAY. NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS THE TDR PROGRAM, WHICH WE GET TO DO EVERY YEAR.

[• TDR Program]

SO EVERY OCTOBER THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS SUPPOSED TO REVIEW THE TDR RECEIVING AREA PROGRAM AND THE MAP, WHICH INCLUDES THE BOUNDARY. SO I'VE GIVEN AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE LAST YEAR SINCE WE'VE REPORTED SINCE LAST OCTOBER.

SO IN THE PAST YEAR, WE'VE HAD 30 NEW PERMITS FOR DWELLINGS ISSUED IN THE COUNTY.

THAT THAT NUMBER INCLUDES HOMES WITHIN THE OVERALL ZONING DISTRICT, BOTH IN THE SENDING AREA AND THE RECEIVING AREA.

THEY ARE ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT AND WITHIN THE MOBILE HOME ZONING DISTRICT.

SO THOSE NUMBERS ONCE THEY RAN AGAINST OUR CALCULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY, WE'RE AT 2323 DWELLING UNITS. SO BASED ON THESE CURRENT CONDITIONS, WE'RE AT 23.98% OF THE TDR RECEIVING AREA FOR CAPACITY PURPOSES, WHICH IS AN ADDITIONAL 0.18% OF THE TDR RECEIVING AREA.

SO LAST YEAR WE HAD A PRETTY THOROUGH DISCUSSION ABOUT SOILS DATA AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT ADDITIONAL AREAS THAT WE COULD MAYBE DEVELOP FOR, WHETHER IT'S RURAL VILLAGES OR SOME OTHER ASPECT.

WE HAD A PRETTY LENGTHY DISCUSSION ON THAT.

AND SO THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE HAD AND THIS BOARD AGREED, WAS THAT WE WOULD ADOPT THE PROGRAM AS IT CURRENTLY IS, AND LOOK AT ENTERTAINING SOME ADDITIONAL OPTIONS DURING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW.

SO THAT'S GOING TO BE THE RECOMMENDED ACTION.

AGAIN, I THINK IT'S PERTINENT THAT THAT WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION LAST YEAR.

AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, MOVING FORWARD, YES, THERE ARE SOME OPTIONS THAT WE CAN LOOK AT.

BUT AS A PROGRAM CURRENTLY STANDS, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD'S ACTION BE TO APPROVE THE PROGRAM AS IS, INCLUDING THE TDR RECEIVING AREA BOUNDARY.

SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NUMBERS OR ANYTHING ABOUT THE PROGRAM.

BE GLAD TO ANSWER.

DO YOU WANT TO KEEP IT THE SAME AS IN THE RED RIGHT NOW ON THE MAP? RIGHT. YES.

YES. AND THEN, LIKE YOU SAID LAST YEAR, WE TALKED ABOUT MAYBE PUTTING SOME MORE AREAS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY SOMEWHERE THAT.

YEAH, WE KIND OF WE KIND OF GET IT TOWARDS SOILS DATA AND, YOU KNOW MR. BREEDING HAD THE IDEA OF LOOKING AT SOME AREAS AROUND THE VILLAGES, WHICH I THINK IS A GOOD IDEA.

NOT KNOWING HOW WE'LL, YOU KNOW, DEVELOP SOME OF OUR INFO REGARDING LAND USE IN OUR, IN OUR COMP PLAN.

IT'S PROBABLY BEST TO, TO GEAR THAT DURING THAT PROCESS AND FIGURE OUT SOME ADDITIONAL MEANS OF WHETHER IT'S A FLOATING ZONE OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.

I DO THINK IT'S IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO LOOK ELSEWHERE.

SO BUT AS IT CURRENTLY IS WITH US GETTING READY TO DO OUR COMP PLAN, I RECOMMEND THAT YOU ADOPT IT AS THE PROGRAM CURRENTLY IS.

YEAH, I THINK WE LOOK AT THE RURAL VILLAGES DURING THE COMP PLAN JUST TO POTENTIALLY TIE IN A LITTLE BIT OF DEVELOPMENT WITH, WITH HOOKING THOSE VILLAGES ON TO SOME TYPE OF COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM, BECAUSE IT'S A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE I THINK SOME OF THEM START TO HAVE SEPTIC

[00:10:08]

SO. AS THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EVER BROACHED THE TOPIC OF GOING INTO THE WATER AND SEWER BUSINESS? YEAH. AND IT'S BEEN A HARD NO, I YEAH, I DON'T THINK WE'VE GOT MUCH CHOICE.

I THINK WE'VE I MEAN, IT'S NOT UNCOMMON.

I MEAN, YOU RIDE THROUGH DELAWARE, YOU RIDE THROUGH OTHER STATES, AND YOU SEE A FIRE HYDRANT OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FIELD, RIGHT? BECAUSE THEY HAVE WATER AND SEWER MOST.

YEAH. IN DELAWARE, YOU SEE IT A LOT IN MARYLAND.

MOST OF THE COUNTIES HAVE SOME TYPE OF BUT THE COUNTY SEWER SYSTEM AND COUNTY HAS, YOU KNOW, A GRINDER PUMP FORCE MAIN SYSTEM THAT RUNS OUT IN AREAS OF THE COUNTY.

AND SO DOES TOLBERT, DORCHESTER.

SO I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO WE NEED TO START DISCUSSING AND LOOKING INTO, BUT.

ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TDR PROGRAM? NO. ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THE TDR PROGRAM? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CONTINUE WITH THE TDR PROGRAM.

I HAVE ONE THING.

CHRIS AND I HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS.

WE EVERY YEAR WE SUBMIT AN ANNUAL GROWTH REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT REPORT TO THE STATE.

TYPICALLY, WE COMPLETE THAT AROUND JUNE.

AND SO HALF OF THAT INFORMATION THAT WE COMPILE IS INCLUDED IN THIS DATA.

NOW WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO AND MAYBE WE CAN ADD THIS INTO THE MOTION, IS SOMETHING THAT WE'LL HAVE TO DO A TEXT AMENDMENT FOR IT.

BUT IN THE CODE IT SPECIFIES THAT EACH YEAR IN OCTOBER IS WHEN WE SHOULD REVIEW THIS.

SO WE WOULD LIKE TO COMBINE THIS AND DO THIS AT THE SAME TIME THAT WE SUBMIT OUR ANNUAL REPORT TO MDP.

SO WE DON'T SPECIFICALLY WANT TO LIST THE MONTH.

BUT WE'RE GOING TO COME UP WITH SOME LANGUAGE TO REFLECT WHEN WE'RE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THE ANNUAL REPORT TO MDP.

SO THAT WAY WE CAN DO THIS AT THE SAME TIME, BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, THAT HALF, HALF THE INFORMATION I'M ALREADY DOING FOR THAT REPORT.

THIS IS JUST KIND OF MORE DETAILED.

SO IT'S BASICALLY EXTRA WORK.

I'VE GOT TO DO THIS ANYWAY.

DO YOU GUYS SUBMIT IT TO MDP MARYLAND DEPARTMENT M.D.? YES. SO, WE DO AN ANNUAL REPORT.

IT'S MAINLY ABOUT DEVELOPMENT.

IT INCLUDES NOT JUST SUBDIVISION DATA, BUT IT ALSO INCLUDES PERMIT DATA WITHIN TOWNS.

WHICH THIS DOESN'T SPECIFY.

THIS IS JUST UNINCORPORATED AREAS.

SO THIS IS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON TOP OF WHAT WE DO IN JUNE.

SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO AND AGAIN, WE'VE HAD A DISCUSSION, AND I DON'T, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE MONTH OF OCTOBER HOW THAT CAME TO BE.

BUT WE'VE KIND OF BEEN FLOATING THIS IDEA FOR A WHILE.

AND IF YOU GUYS ARE AMENABLE TO THAT, WE WOULD LIKE TO UPDATE AND DO A TEXT AMENDMENT TO MAKE THAT CHANGE.

SO WE SUBMIT THE SAME TIME AS MDP.

NOW WE'LL HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU WITH THAT TEXT AMENDMENT TO DO THAT.

BUT IF WE COULD ADD THAT IN IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO DO.

BUT WE'RE JUST.

HOW ABOUT WE JUST DO TWO MOTIONS AND DO ONE FOR THE PROGRAM, AND THEN ONE TO MOVE IT UP TO, TO COMBINE IT WITH, WITH THE ANNUAL REPORT.

OKAY. ANYBODY GOT ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ANNUAL REPORT THAT HE DOES? IT'S BASICALLY THE SAME REPORT.

YEAH. HE'S JUST DOING IT TWICE A YEAR.

JUST DO IT ONE TIME A YEAR.

SO, WITH TWO MOTIONS.

SO, THE TDR PROGRAM THAT WE DISCUSSED ABOUT LEAVING IT THE SAME AND JUST DOING ANY CHANGES DURING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

SO, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CONTINUE THE TDR PROGRAM AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS, AND REVIEW IT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MAKE CHANGES IN THE FUTURE AS NEEDED.

THERE'S A MOTION.

I SECOND IT. YEAH, THE SECOND MOTION AND THE SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

AYE. ALL RIGHT.

THAT MOTION CARRIES.

AND YOU HAD A SECOND REQUEST.

WE'LL MAKE A MOTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR THAT.

THAT THE TDR PROGRAM REVIEW, THE ANNUAL TDR PROGRAM REVIEW, BE COMBINED AND COMPLETED AT THE SAME TIME

[00:15:01]

WOULD THAT COVER THEIRS? YES. YES.

THAT'S MY MOTION.

ALL RIGHT.

NOW, MATT, YOU SAID.

IS THAT IN CODE, THOUGH? IS THAT REQUIRED IN CODE? SO IN OUR CODE, THE TDR RECEIVING AREA REVIEW LIST OUT EACH YEAR IN OCTOBER.

THE NDP ANNUAL REPORT IS NOT WRITTEN IN CODE, AND THEY DON'T HAVE A RIGHT NOW.

THE STATE JUST REQUIRES THAT WE DO THAT IN JUNE.

AND THIS BOARD APPROVES WHAT WE SUBMIT TO THE STATE AS THE ANNUAL REPORT, SO WE DON'T WANT TO SPECIFY WHAT MONTH IT IS, BECAUSE IF THE STATE ACTUALLY HAS A CERTAIN MONTH, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK AND CHANGE IT AGAIN.

SO, WOULD THIS ACT? THIS MOTION WOULD ACTUALLY BE FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSIONERS TO MAKE A CODE CHANGE.

YES. OKAY. SO THAT'S WHAT THE MOTION.

OKAY. RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSIONERS THAT THAT A CODE CHANGE BE COMPLETED AND THAT THE TDR REVIEW PROGRAM, THE ANNUAL TDR REPORT, REVIEW OF THE TDR PROGRAM BE CONDUCTED AT THE SAME TIME THAT PLANNING AND CODES THAT COMPILES THE ANNUAL REPORT TO THE MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING.

OKAY. I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.

AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. AYE.

THERE'S THAT.

NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS OUR.

WHAT DID WE CALL IT? THE RECOMMENDATION FOR CHANGES TO THE APPEALS SECTION OF THE ZONING CODE, WHICH WE ALL GOT A COPY OF TONIGHT.

[• Text Amendment regarding appeals]

SO ONE OF THE DISCUSSIONS WE HAD IS OUR APPEALS SECTION, AND THOSE ARE APPEALS THAT GO TO OUR BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.

WE DON'T VERY OFTEN GET REQUESTS FOR APPEALS.

I MEAN, MAYBE ONCE EVERY THREE YEARS WE GET A REQUEST AND WE NEED TO CLEAN UP SOME OF THE ITEMS IN THAT SECTION.

AND THE FIRST ONE WOULD BE IS UNDER SECTION 175 161 B, IT STATES THAT A PERSON THAT'S SPECIALLY AGGRIEVED BY A DECISION ORDER REQUIREMENT OR DETERMINATION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, ADMINISTRATOR BASED, OR CLAIMED TO BE BASED IN WHOLE OR IN PART UPON THE APPLICATION OF A ZONING REGULATION TO A PROPERTY, MAY APPEAL SUCH DECISION, ORDER REQUIREMENT OR DETERMINATION TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS BY FILING A REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL.

WE'D LIKE TO ADD TO THAT SECTION TO STATE THAT A PERSON MAY NOT APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, THE ISSUANCE OF A CITATION, WHICH IS BASED UPON A PRIOR DECISION ORDER REQUIREMENT FOR DETERMINATION OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, WHICH WAS NOT APPEALED.

WHICH WAS NOT APPEALED.

SO WHAT THAT'S SAYING IS, IF I MADE A DETERMINATION AND I'LL JUST USE AN EXAMPLE THAT SOMEBODY FELT THEY DIDN'T NEED A PERMIT FOR SOMETHING, AND I REVIEWED IT, AND I MADE A DETERMINATION THAT BASED ON OUR CODE, YOU NEED A PERMIT.

THAT PERSON WOULD HAVE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT CODE, 90 DAYS TO FILE THAT APPEAL WITH THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TO SAY THEY DISAGREE WITH MY DETERMINATION.

AND IF THEY DIDN'T FILE THAT WITHIN THE 90 DAYS, THAT APPEAL PROCESS IS GONE.

BUT IF WE FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD ISSUED A VIOLATION NOTICE SAYING YOU BUILT SOMETHING WITHOUT A PERMIT AND NOW YOU WANT TO COME BACK AND APPEAL, THAT YOU SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT, YOU SHOULD HAVE APPEALED IT THE FIRST TIME THE DETERMINATION WAS MADE.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO CLEAN UP IN THAT LANGUAGE SO THAT SOMEONE COULD NOT DO THAT.

AND STEWART I WOULD THAT'S THE SAME INCIDENT, NOT SEPARATE.

RIGHT? IT'S STILL RELATED.

IT'S STILL RELATED.

RELATED INCIDENT. OKAY. CORRECT.

STEWART, I WOULD SAY MAYBE WE SHOULD SAY VIOLATION NOTICE AND OR CITATION.

OKAY. WHAT SECTION ARE YOU READING ON.

SO THAT WOULD BE ON PAGE TWO.

BOTTOM OF THE BOTTOM PARAGRAPH.

THE LAST SENTENCE IS WHAT IS BEING ADDED.

AND THEN WE WOULD JUST CHANGE THAT TO SAY THE ISSUANCE OF A VIOLATION NOTICE AND OR CITATION.

COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? THE NEW THE NEW WORDS FOR ME.

VIOLATION. NOTICE.

ISSUANCE OF A VIOLATION NOTICE AND OR CITATION.

[00:20:12]

AND THEN THE NEXT CHANGE IN THIS SAME SECTION WOULD BE UNDER 175.162 B4 WHICH CURRENTLY READS AN APPEAL OF ANY DECISION, ORDER, REQUIREMENT OR DETERMINATION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE ACTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THAT IS BEING APPEALED.

WE WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE THAT TO 30 DAYS.

THAT STAYS CONSISTENT WITH APPEALS THAT ARE FILED TO THE DISTRICT COURT OR ANY OTHER APPEAL PROCESS.

WE HAVE TO REDUCE THAT TIME FROM 90 TO 30.

WE DON'T HAVE TO BE. FOR WHAT? WHAT PAGE IS THAT ON? PAGE THREE. PAGE THREE.

PAGE THREE.

YEAH. THIRD PARAGRAPH.

THIRD? THIRD. IT ALREADY SAID IT.

OKAY. OH, OKAY.

GOTCHA. WE CURRENTLY SAY 90.

AND YES, WE CURRENTLY CHANGE IT TO 30 BECAUSE OUR OTHER STUFF SAYS 30.

YOU'RE RIGHT. AND THAT'S CONSISTENT.

STEWART CAN TELL YOU WITH ANY, ANY APPEAL SOMEONE WOULD FILE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT.

SO, IF THE BZA OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE A DECISION THAT'S APPEALABLE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT, THEY WOULD ONLY HAVE 30 DAYS TO DO THAT APPEAL.

AND WE'RE GOING WAY BEYOND THAT WITH 90 DAYS OR 90 IS WHAT THE APPEAL YOUR DECISION? YES, TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.

ANY QUESTION ON THAT ONE.

AND I ACTUALLY HAD QUESTIONS WHY IT EVEN HAD TO GO TO THE BZA.

BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WHY NOT JUST GO TO CIRCUIT COURT TO APPEAL IT RIGHT, TO CIRCUIT COURT.

BUT STATE LAW SAYS THAT IT HAS TO GO TO THE JURISDICTION'S BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FIRST AND THEN GO.

BUT WHAT WE'RE FINDING IS, IS WHEN WE HAVE A SOMEONE WHO WON'T COMPLY, THEY DRAG IT OUT 90 DAYS AND FILE THE APPEAL ON THE 89TH OR 90TH DAY.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST IT MAKES THE PROCESS IS TOO LONG, IT'S TOO MUCH TIME.

SO. OKAY.

AND THEN THE THIRD THING AND FINAL THING IS 175.2B6.

THAT'S TITLED STAY OF PROCEEDINGS.

THE FILING OF AN APPEAL STAYS ALL PROCEEDINGS IN FURTHERANCE OF THE DECISION OR ACTION APPEALED FROM.

UNLESS THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CERTIFIES TO THE BOARD THAT A STAY WOULD, IN HIS OPINION, CAUSE IMMINENT PERIL TO LIFE OR PROPERTY.

IN SUCH CASE, PROCEEDINGS SHALL NOT BE STAYED UNLESS A PROPERLY EXECUTED RESTRAINING ORDER IS ISSUED BY THE BOARD OR BY A COURT OF LAW.

SO WE WANT TO CHANGE THAT SECTION TO SAY NO STAY OF PROCEEDINGS.

THE FILING OF AN APPEAL DOES NOT STAY ANY PROCEEDINGS IN FURTHERANCE OF THE DECISION OR ACTION APPEALED FROM.

SO RIGHT NOW, IF SOMEBODY APPEALED A DECISION AND THERE WAS OTHER ANOTHER CASE BEFORE ANOTHER BOARD, SOMETHING IN COURT, THIS STOPS THE PROCESS.

IT HALTS THE PROCESS UNTIL IT GOES THROUGH THAT APPEAL WITH THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.

AND WE WANT TO CHANGE THAT SO THAT IT DOES NOT STOP THOSE PROCEEDINGS. BUT THEN WHEN YOU FILE AN APPEAL, DOESN'T IT STOP EVERYTHING? THE APPEAL SAYS, WELL, STEWART IN A JUDGMENT, DECIDE IN A COURT.

WOULDN'T A JUDGE? WOULDN'T YOU HAVE TO REQUEST FOR THE JUDGE TO ISSUE A STAY? CORRECT. UNLESS THAT'S GRANTED, THERE IS NO STAY.

FOR EXAMPLE, SUPPOSE YOU GET A MONEY JUDGMENT VERDICT.

THINK OF TRUMP.

REMEMBER THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ENTERED AGAINST HIM.

HE WAS ABLE TO POST AN APPEAL BOND WHICH WAS SET BASICALLY APPROXIMATELY.

THE JUDGE THEY ENDED UP REDUCING THE AMOUNT FROM THE ORIGINAL VERDICT TO WHAT THE APPELLATE COURT THOUGHT WAS FAIRER AND MORE REASONABLE.

AND HE WAS ABLE TO POST IT.

BUT IN OTHER WORDS, IF HE HAD NOT POSTED IT, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN EXECUTION AGAINST HIS ASSETS WHILE HIS APPEAL WOULD BE PENDING.

SO THERE'S NO AUTOMATIC STAY.

AND WE WERE WE WERE GRANTING THAT GRANTING AN AUTOMATIC STAY WITH NO ONE HAVING TO POST A BOND.

THERE'S NO COURT. WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO ENFORCE WHAT WE'VE ISSUED.

SO I THINK IT'S GOOD TO GET RID OF IT.

SO THOSE ARE THE THREE CHANGES.

AND THIS IS A SILLY QUESTION BUT IS IT CONSISTENT WITH OTHER COUNTIES.

[00:25:01]

IS IT? ARE WE? SO, WE'RE NOT LOOKED AT, AS YOU KNOW, FROM THE CONVERSATIONS I'VE HAD, 90 DAYS IS EXCESSIVELY LONG.

IT'S JUST TOO LONG.

AND THAT 90 DAYS IS ONE.

NOW THAT THE APPEAL.

I HAVEN'T ASKED ABOUT THE STAY.

SO I DON'T KNOW HOW SURROUNDING COUNTIES ARE.

YOU KNOW WE.

REALLY? YEAH.

I'VE NOT LOOKED INTO THAT.

SO. SO, IF SOMEBODY IS STEWART, I DON'T KNOW.

THIS IS. WE GOTTA DUMMY IT DOWN HERE FOR ME ANYWAY.

IF SOMEBODY GETS IT AND THEY'RE APPEALING WHAT COMES OUT OF THE BZA OR WHAT? SO BASICALLY.

SO, WHERE IS IT? HERE. HERE WOULD BE A GOOD EXAMPLE.

LIKE SOMEONE HAD TEN UNTAGGED VEHICLES IN THEIR YARD.

CRYSTAL WOULD ISSUE A CITATION.

AND WHAT AN ORDER TO CLEAN IT UP.

WE WOULD ISSUE THEM A VIOLATION NOTICE AND SAY YOU HAVE TO REMOVE THE VEHICLES, BUT PROPERLY REGISTER THEM BY A CERTAIN DATE.

RIGHT. BUT IN ACTUALITY, THE COUNTY DOESN'T REALLY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PHYSICALLY GO IN AND MAKE THAT PERSON REMOVE THOSE VEHICLES.

WE WOULD HAVE TO GO TO CIRCUIT COURT AND GET AN ORDER FROM A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE.

SO WHAT HAPPENS IS, RIGHT NOW YOU WAIT 89 DAYS BEFORE YOU FILE YOUR APPEAL TO THE BZA SAYING CRYSTAL IS WRONG.

I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO REMOVE THOSE TEN CARS.

AND THEN THE DAY YOU FILE THAT APPEAL IT STAYS ALL PROCEEDINGS.

SO WE CAN'T GO TO A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE AND MAKE YOU REMOVE THEM.

SO IT'S 90 DAYS, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE WASTED.

AND THEN WE CAN FURTHER TAKE ANY ENFORCEMENT ACTION OR COURT ACTION TO ACTUALLY GIVE OURSELVES THE TEETH, TO ACTUALLY MAKE YOU DO WHAT YOU SHOULD DO, BECAUSE YOU FILED THIS APPEAL.

SO WE BASICALLY HAVE HANDCUFFED WE'RE FROM AN ENFORCEMENT STANDPOINT, THE CURRENT SETUP REALLY HANDCUFFS US AND DRAGS THE PROCESS OUT.

SO THAT'S WHAT THE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIX HERE WITH REMOVING THE STAY AND SHORTENING THE APPEAL PERIOD.

AND ULTIMATELY IN THE END, IF THEY FILED THAT APPEAL WITH THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AND THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HEARD IT, AND THEY AGREED WITH THE COUNTY THAT, YES, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO REMOVE THOSE VEHICLES.

THEY STILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL AT THE CIRCUIT COURT.

SO IT'S GOING TO IT WOULD END UP IN CIRCUIT COURT.

HOW MANY DAYS IS THAT? 30.

SO YOU GET 30 DAYS TO APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT, AND THEN IT GETS PUT ON THE DOCKET, AND GOD KNOWS WHEN THAT WILL COME UP BEFORE THE JUDGE.

SO THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF REMOVING THE STAY.

THEY'RE SITTING THERE. RIGHT.

AND. BUT WE STILL CAN'T WE STILL IN YOUR EXAMPLE, WE STILL CAN'T DO NOTHING WITH THE COURT BECAUSE YOU STILL HAVEN'T GOT ANYBODY THAT GAVE YOU THE RIGHT TO ABATE THAT PROBLEM, RIGHT? YEAH. YOU STILL GOT TO GET IN FRONT OF A JUDGE AND HAVE A JUDGE GIVE THE COUNTY PERMISSION TO ABATE THE PROBLEM.

YES. BUT WHAT? I GUESS WHAT THIS SHOULD DO IS BUT DON'T WE HAVE IN OUR CODE WHERE IT SAYS YOU CAN FIND EACH DAY THAT YOU'RE IN VIOLATION AFTER A CERTAIN PERIOD? YEAH, THAT'S UNDER A CIVIL CITATION.

YEAH. THAT WOULDN'T STAY THERE.

THAT WOULD JUST KEEP BUILDING UP.

WELL, THERE'S A RECENT APPELLATE CASE ABOUT THAT ISSUE CAME OUT OF, I WANT TO SAY, TALBOT COUNTY THERE, PRIOR COUNTY ATTORNEY TOOK THE POSITION OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID.

AND THE APPELLATE COURT SAID, NO, THAT'S IT.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE DOING.

IN OTHER WORDS, WHILE THE MAN IS APPEALING THE CASE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO SAY EVERY FIVE EVERY DAY IS $500 BECAUSE THEY SENT THE GUY A BILL AFTER THE CASE WAS OVER FOR LIKE, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TONS, A COUPLE OF HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS, WHATEVER IT WAS.

WAS THAT THE HOUSE IN ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY ON THE ISLAND OR SOMETHING THAT HE ENDED UP? I THINK THIS WAS TALBOT.

I KNOW THE ONE YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT MARK TELLS US ABOUT.

HE HAD A CLIENT THAT WAS HIS CLIMB.

I THINK THIS WAS A CRITICAL AREA, LOT COVERAGE.

WAS IT THE CRITICAL AREA? LOT COVERAGE CASE.

I DON'T KNOW THAT.

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT TALBOT THOUGH? I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT THE DETAILS WERE OF IT.

I KNOW IT WAS A LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY.

IT WAS OVERBEARING.

AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO BY THE WAY, BEAR IN MIND THAT YOU AS DIRECTOR, SOMEBODY MIGHT HAVE FILED AN APPEAL WHERE YOU'RE SAYING, YOU KNOW WHAT, THIS IS SOMEWHAT A LITTLE BIT OF A CLOSE CALL.

MAYBE HERE. I'M NOT GOING TO BRING THE HAMMER DOWN UNTIL THE BZA HEARS IT.

[00:30:02]

YOU SEE, THIS DOESN'T COMMAND YOU TO GO EXECUTE.

NO, IT PREVENTS.

IT PREVENTS AN AUTOMATIC STAY OF EXECUTION.

YES. I GUESS I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE EXECUTION. OF WHAT? BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING.

YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE HIM A TICKET, AND THEY'RE GOING TO SAY, I AGREE WITH YOU.

I'M GOING TO APPEAL IT. OKAY.

WELL, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO COLLECT ON YOUR TICKET THOUGH.

AFTER THEY GET DONE WITH THEIR APPEAL AND THEY TAKE IT TO BCA.

AND BCA SAYS I AGREE WITH PLANNING CODES.

WELL, I STILL DON'T AGREE WITH IT.

I MIGHT TAKE A SURROGATE COURT.

YOU'RE STILL NOT GOING TO COLLECT YOUR MONEY? WELL, WE COULD STAY IN. WE COULD START THAT PROCESS SOONER.

OKAY. THAT THAT'S WHAT.

YEAH, THAT'S THE WHOLE.

AND I MEAN, I KNOW THE 90-DAY THING.

I SEE THAT. I GOT THAT PART.

YEAH. BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO STAY IF YOU CAN'T STAY ANYTHING ANYWAY.

OR YOU CAN FILE YOUR INJUNCTION ACTION IN CIRCUIT COURT HERE SOONER.

IT'S NOT JUST THE ISSUANCE OF A CITATION.

IT'S ABATEMENT OF THE NUISANCE OR THE VIOLATION.

YEAH. YEAH.

NO, I THINK RIGHT NOW, IF IT IS A LEGITIMATE NUISANCE THAT IS ADVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORS, THE STATE PROCESS PREVENTS US FROM TRYING TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM OR GET IT RESOLVED.

MAKE THE PERSON CAUSING THE ISSUE ACTUALLY CLEAN UP AND STOP DOING WHAT THEY'RE DOING RIGHT NOW.

WE'RE HANDCUFFING OURSELVES.

BASICALLY, AS SOON AS YOU FILE THAT APPEAL, GUESS WHAT? YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING UNTIL THE APPEAL IS RESOLVED, AT LEAST THROUGH THE BZA.

ONCE IT CLEARS THE BZA, THIS STAY WOULDN'T APPLY.

THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JUDGE WHETHER THE STATE WOULD BE ISSUED.

CORRECT. SO? SO THIS IS A RULE. WE'RE IMPOSING A STAY WE'RE IMPOSING ON OURSELVES.

AND TRADITIONALLY THE COUNTY HAS BEEN VERY PLIABLE AND WORK WITH VIOLATORS.

AND IN THOSE CASES, WE TRADITIONALLY HAVE ALWAYS HAD VIOLATORS WANT TO FIX RESOLVE THE ISSUE.

AND IT'S JUST UNTIL RECENTLY, THE SENTIMENT WITH MULTIPLE PEOPLE HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, NO, WE'RE NOT YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING.

SO, THAT'S WHAT'S PROMPTING THE CHANGE.

I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT.

YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT 90 TO 8030.

I UNDERSTAND. SO IS THAT THE ONLY CHANGES? THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGES 30 DAYS IN THE STATE.

AND THE FIRST ONE WE DID WAS ONE WHICH WAS ADD THAT A PERSON MAY NOT APPEAL TO THE BCA, THE ISSUANCE OF A VIOLATION NOTICE AND OR CITATION. THAT'S BASED UPON A PRIOR DECISION, WHICH WAS NOT APPEALED.

SO IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKES A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT, WE CAN PROCEED WITH INTRODUCING THIS AT THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING NEXT TUESDAY. CRYSTAL, I'M LOOKING AT SECTION 170 5-1 97 TEXT AMENDMENTS IN B.

IT SAYS IT STATES THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHALL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR AT LEAST TWO REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS TO REVIEW PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS AND TO SUBMIT PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.

THIS WAS AMENDED AND ADDED, I GUESS, OR WHATEVER.

JUNE OF 2016.

HOW HAVE YOU ALL BEEN HANDLING THAT? IT REQUIRES TWO.

WELL, IT REQUIRES, I THINK IT'S THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY.

THE OPPORTUNITY. SEE, IT'S NOT THE MOST CLEARLY WORDED NO ORDINANCE HERE.

I DON'T I THINK HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY DOESN'T MEAN YOU, IT DOESN'T SAY REQUIRED.

RIGHT. I THINK IT MEANS YOU COULD TAKE UP TWO REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS, BECAUSE SOME OF THESE MIGHT BE VERY COMPLEX AND CONTROVERSIAL, AND YOU MIGHT EVEN WANT TO HAVE SOME PUBLIC INPUT OR WHATEVER.

BUT I DON'T THINK THIS IS A MANDATORY PROVISION.

BUT I HATE TO SAY IT, BUT THIS MIGHT BE ADDED TO THE NEXT TO THE LIST OF FIXING THESE.

NO, I'M SAYING IF SOMEBODY HERE HAS A PROBLEM WITH IT, WE CAN GATHER MORE INFORMATION, DO IT NEXT MONTH.

[00:35:06]

THEY'RE VERY IMPORTANT CHANGES.

THEY'RE SMALL, BUT THEY'RE IMPORTANT.

AND AGAIN, WHEN I LOOK AT THEM, AS LONG AS WE'RE NOT CHANGING SOMETHING THAT MAKES US LOOK LIKE THE BAD GUYS HERE, 30 DAYS IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL OF OUR OTHER STUFF.

YOU JUST ADDED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO THE SITE.

THERE'S ALREADY A CITATION THERE.

THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION IS.

NO. THAT'S NEW. THAT'S ENTIRELY NEW LANGUAGE.

THAT SENTENCE I JUST WANT TO ADD ONE THING TO WHAT WE HAVE.

SO THEY CAN'T APPEAL THE DECISION.

AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING IS INSTEAD OF MANDATING A STAY WE'RE LEAVING THE STAY UP TO THE JUDGE.

YES. YOU KNOW WHETHER HE DEEMS IT.

YEAH. NOT A LARGE ENOUGH RISK.

TO ISSUE A STAY OR IF YOU KNOW IT IS, IF IT IS A LARGE RISK, YOU CAN SAY, NO, I'M NOT STAYING IT.

YOU NEED TO. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON WITH OUR PROCEEDINGS HERE.

YOU KNOW, IF IT IS A NUISANCE OR, YOU KNOW, A RISK TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OR WHATEVER.

SO. YEAH.

WITHOUT A JUDGE'S ORDER, WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO GO AND ABATE A VIOLATION.

AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING. WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU ADDED THIS THING ABOUT STAYING ON IT THAT'S DIFFICULT TO AFFORD ANYWAY.

WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO STAY THE PROBLEM UNTIL IT JUST SAID YOU CAN'T.

STEWART, I PULLED THAT ORDINANCE THAT 2016 DASH ONE FOR THE YES, THE CHANGE THAT IT'S REFERENCED AND WHAT IT SAID PREVIOUSLY WAS A PUBLIC HEARING WAS REQUIRED.

BEFORE ANY TEXT AMENDMENT CAN BE ADOPTED, A DULY ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING SHALL BE HELD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AS PRESCRIBED BY 175 167 OF THIS CHAPTER. AND THEN THERE WAS A PUBLIC NOTICE SECTION THAT WAS ALSO REMOVED, SO THAT 175.197.B WHERE IT STATES, SHALL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY THAT USED TO SAY THAT IT WAS THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT WAS REQUIRED.

I THINK WE NEED TO FIX IT.

IN WHAT WAY? MAKE IT MORE CLEAR WHETHER IN LIEU OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEING REQUIRED IN PUBLIC NOTICE, OBVIOUSLY BEFORE A PUBLIC HEARING, WHETHER OR NOT THE CURRENT WORDING IS STAYING IN LIEU OF THAT, IT'LL BE HANDLED OR DISCUSSED OR BROUGHT UP ON TWO SEPARATE AGENDAS SO THAT IT'S NOT REQUIRING YOU TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT IT DOES REQUIRE THAT YOU DISCUSS IT, HAVE IT ON YOUR AGENDA TWO CONSECUTIVE, PROBABLY TWO CONSECUTIVE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS.

I MEAN, WHOEVER DID THAT AMENDMENT DIDN'T COME OUT AND SAY WHAT THEY REALLY MEANT.

WHOEVER DRAFTED THAT.

WELL, I WOULD SAY FROM REMEMBERING HOW HE USED TO DO IT, WE'D ALWAYS DO AN INTRODUCTION.

AND THEN THE FOLLOWING MONTH WE WOULD DO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND THAT'S PROBABLY WHY THE TWO CAME TO BE IN THE NEW LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THERE RIGHT NOW.

BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU WOULD KNOW THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CHANGE OR ADD A COUPLE WORDS.

YES. IF YOU CHANGE ONE.

IT USED TO BE THAT WAY.

YOU HAD TO DO A PUBLIC HEARING, PUT A NOTICE IN THE NEWSPAPER, AND WE SAID, WE'RE ALREADY DOING THAT AT THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER LEVEL.

SO IF IT'S GOING TO ADVANCE TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THEN THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.

SO THERE WAS NO POINT TO REALLY HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING HERE IF THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT THREE TIMES WITH THE COMMISSIONERS DURING A LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

SO IF WE LOOK AT THIS AND WE GIVE OUR BLESSING, THEY STILL GOT TO DO A PUBLIC.

YES, YEAH. YES. YEAH.

SO WHY ARE WE DOING THIS? WELL, THAT'S WHY. THAT'S WHY IT WAS REMOVED.

THAT'S WHY. THAT'S WHY IT WAS REMOVED IN 2016.

AND YOU MISSED ALL THAT.

AND AGAIN, I CAN SEE THAT IF YOU WANT AN OPPORTUNITY I THINK EVERYBODY GOT THE OPPORTUNITY.

YOU WOULDN'T DO IT NEXT MONTH. Y'ALL WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT FOR A MONTH.

AND I CAN SEE SOMETHING COMING UP THAT'S BIG IF WE HAVE SOMETHING BIG.

BUT THESE ARE A COUPLE OF WORDS HERE AND THERE.

IF Y'ALL WANT TO SIT ON IT FOR A MONTH, SIT ON IT FOR A MONTH.

NO, I MEAN, WE WE'VE ASKED THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ASKED FOR THESE CHANGES TO HAPPEN.

SO THAT'S KIND OF WHY IT'S IN HERE.

I MEAN, THERE'S THERE'S NOTHING IMMINENT.

I MEAN, WE DON'T KNOW OF ANYTHING ELSE.

WE'VE RAN INTO THIS BEING A PROBLEM IN A COUPLE INSTANCES.

THERE'S NOTHING THAT WE KNOW OF.

BUT THE TREND IS THAT WE'RE HAVING MORE VIOLATORS THAN WE HAVE HAD IN STORE.

SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED.

[00:40:01]

SOMETHING ELSE COMES UP. YOU'LL FIND SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED.

BUT BUT I'M JUST SAYING FOR US TONIGHT, IF ANYBODY WANTS THAT SAYS WE HAVE THE AVAILABILITY.

YEAH. IT DOESN'T SAY YOU'RE GOING TO GO TO MEETINGS.

YEAH. IF EVERYBODY FEELS YOU NEED TWO MEETINGS, SOMEBODY SAY SO.

IF NOT, IF Y'ALL ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THE.

THE WORDING CHANGES AND THE CHANGES ON THE DAYS.

I'LL BE HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION.

WELL, I CAN DO IT IF YOU WANT.

JEFF. GEORGE. TRAVIS, YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT THIS BOARD APPROVES THE AS DISCUSSED, AMENDED VERSION OF LEGISLATIVE BILL 2020 4-007 TO SEND ON TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WITH A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION FOR ADOPTION OF OF THIS LEGISLATIVE BILL WITH THE NOTED CHANGES.

THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND.

NOW, BEFORE WE ASK FOR APPROVAL, HAS ANYBODY GOT ANY MORE DISCUSSION THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ABOUT THIS? ANY MORE QUESTIONS? ANY MORE DISCUSSIONS? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION AS PRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER BREEDING.

SAY AYE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

AYE. ALL OPPOSED? MOTION PASSED. ALRIGHT.

NOTHING ELSE ON THE AGENDA OTHER THAN THAN ANY.

UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT.

NOTHING ELSE EXCEPT DEPARTMENT REPORT.

I DO HAVE THE SEPTEMBER BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS UPDATE.

[• BZA Update]

THE APPELLANT DETERMINED THAT HE WOULD RATHER RESCHEDULE THE MEETING THAN RISK A 1 TO 1 TIE, AND HAVE TO RESCHEDULE THE MEETING ANYWAY.

THE MEETING WILL BE HELD ON OCTOBER 23RD AT 6 P.M..

AND THEY ONLY HAVE THREE PEOPLE.

THEY HAVE THREE PEOPLE AND AN ALTERNATE.

ONE OF THE THREE RECUSED, AND THE ALTERNATE WAS A NO SHOW.

SO YEAH.

OKAY. AND THIS WAS AN APPEAL OF A CITATION ISSUED BY CRYSTAL.

SO HE DROVE OUT EVEN FURTHER.

ALL RIGHT. AND ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE STAFF? FROM THE. NO.

[• Department Update]

OKAY. IT'S TAKEN A YEAR, BUT WE'RE FINALLY THERE.

WE DID OFFER A POSITION FOR A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ASSISTANT INTERNALLY WITHIN OUR DEPARTMENT.

OUR PERMIT TECHNICIAN, TERRY BROOKS, WILL BE TAKING ON THAT POSITION AS OF TODAY.

SHE ACCEPTED THE OFFER, SO SHE WILL BE ASSISTING MATT NOW.

SO HOPEFULLY THAT GIVES HIM A LITTLE RELIEF.

I MEAN, FOR THE TIME BEING, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO JUGGLE HER CURRENT POSITION AS THE PERMIT TECH AND SPLIT HER TIME WITH THAT UNTIL WE CAN GET THAT POSITION FILLED.

BUT WE'RE READY TO READY TO ADVERTISE FOR THAT SO WE CAN WORK ON THAT.

AND THEN WHEN WE ONBOARD SOMEBODY FOR THAT POSITION, SHE'LL TAKE OVER TRAINING THEM AND THEN FULLY ROLE INTO HELPING MATT WITH TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, DOING A LOT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS SO THAT MATT'S FREED UP TO ACTUALLY SPEND TIME ON HIS REVIEWS.

SO THEY HAVE A BUNCH OF FREE TIME? YEAH. WHAT DO YOU DO WITH YOUR FREE TIME? THAT'S WHAT YOU CALL IT. ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE OFFICE? NO. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS.

[Planning Commissioners Open Discussion]

I DID WANT TO ASK YOU.

YOU KIND OF. YOU ALL KIND OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS KIND OF MADE, YOU KNOW, FACEBOOK AND ALL THAT TALKING ABOUT SOLAR.

APPARENTLY SOMETHING.

SO I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT.

I'M GETTING BEAT UP. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, BUT IT DEPENDS ON WHICH FEED YOU GO ON.

ONE FEED I'M GETTING DESTROYED FOR ALLOWING SOLAR FROM GREENSBORO TO GOLDSBORO.

AND WE ALL NEED TO BE KICKED OUT AND RAN AGAINST AND THEN PROBABLY ON ANOTHER FEED.

[00:45:02]

YOU NEED TO GET RID OF THE COMMISSIONER SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU GO.

THE ONLY THING I'VE SEEN THIS STUFF POP UP AND IT'S LIKE, YEAH, HOW DID IT JUST POP UP? WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS STUFF OVER HERE FOR A LONG TIME, AND SO I'M LIKE, SO WHAT HAPPENS OVER WHAT HAPPENED OVER AT THE COURTHOUSE THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN THE COMMISSIONERS ARE LIKE, OH MY GOD.

SO WE WE HAVE BEEN WE'VE BEEN THERE HAS BEEN A DRAFT BILL CIRCULATING AT THE STATE LEVEL. AND THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS OVER THE LAST YEAR, LAST FEW MONTHS, I GUESS, SPECIFICALLY ABOUT A STATE BILL MORE SPECIFICALLY DEFINING THE ROLE OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT IN SOLAR SITING.

SO BASICALLY, IT'S A PREEMPTION BILL.

THEY'RE GOING TO MORE CLEARLY PREEMPT THIS BOARD'S ABILITY TO REGULATE SOLAR.

IF YOU RECALL, WE RECENTLY ADJUSTED OUR SETBACKS TO 200FT.

THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION AT THE STATE LEVEL WOULD SAY THAT THE THAT A COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CANNOT IMPOSE A SETBACK MORE THAN 50FT, AND WE COULD OPT TO GO LESS THAN 50 IF WE WANTED TO, BUT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE COULD WE GO MORE THAN 50.

SO OUR 200FT, THAT CHANGE THAT WE JUST MADE IS GONE OUT THE WINDOW.

I THINK IT MORE CLEARLY PREEMPTS US ON SOLAR SITING.

RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A2000 ACRE CAP.

I THINK WE'RE GETTING CLOSE TO 1600 ACRES IN THE COUNTY.

THEY'RE GOING TO PREEMPT THAT TOTALLY.

TALBOT COUNTY HAS A POINT SYSTEM WHERE THEY RANK HOW PRODUCTIVE THE SOILS ARE.

AND IF IT'S IF IT IS OVER A CERTAIN POINT THRESHOLD FOR PRODUCTIVITY, IT AUTOMATICALLY IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SOLAR SITING. THIS BILL WILL PREEMPT THAT.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY HAS.

I THINK THEY PROBABLY HAVE LIKE A PERCENTAGE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE A STRAIGHT ACREAGE LIKE WE HAVE HERE, BUT I THINK THEY HAVE SOME TYPE OF CAP.

THEY WOULD BE PREEMPTED.

SO THOSE ARE THE MAJOR THINGS.

THE OTHER THING IN THE BILL THAT'S REALLY STIRRED US UP IS THEY HAVE DISCUSSED, AND I THINK THIS IS A PLOY TO APPEASE THE FARM BUREAU AND SOME OF THE AGRICULTURAL GROUPS.

AND THAT IS THERE IS A TWO MILE CORRIDOR ON EITHER SIDE OF 69 KV TRANSMISSION LINES.

SO TWO MILES EITHER SIDE OF A MAJOR TRANSMISSION LINE IS THEY'RE CALLING A SOLAR CORRIDOR NOW.

IT'S KIND OF MISLEADING BECAUSE IT'S NOT IT'S NOT A CORRIDOR WHERE IT CHANGES ANY OF THE RULES.

ALL IT DOES IS INSIDE OF THAT CORRIDOR.

IF YOU HAVE A DESIGNATED LAND PRESERVATION AREA INSIDE OF THAT CORRIDOR THAT YOU WANT TO PUT SOLAR ON, THE EASEMENT HAS NOT BEEN SOLD OFF YET. IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, LIKE OUR RURAL TUCKAHOE AREA OR THE HEARTLAND AREA DOWN SOUTH, YOU HAVE A FARM, YOU HAVEN'T SOLD YOUR EASEMENT OFF YET, BUT IT'S ELIGIBLE TO SELL YOUR EASEMENT WHERE YOU DECIDE, I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT, I'M GOING TO PUT SOLAR ON IT.

THAT SOLAR DEVELOPER WOULD HAVE TO PAY.

IF IT'S INSIDE THE TWO MILE CORRIDOR, THEY WOULD ONLY HAVE TO PAY $3,500 TOWARDS OUR AG LAND PRESERVATION FUND PER ACRE.

IF IT'S OUTSIDE OF THE TWO MILE CORRIDOR IN A LAND PRESERVATION EASEMENT DESIGNATED AREA, IT'S $5,000.

SO THAT'S THE ONLY DIFFERENCE.

THE CORRIDOR, ALL THE TALK ABOUT THE CORRIDOR.

THE ONLY THING IT DOES IS CHANGE IT FROM 3500 TO 5000.

AND OH, BY THE WAY, IF YOU'RE ON FARMLAND ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE COUNTY, THAT'S NOT INSIDE OF ONE OF THOSE TWO AG LAND PRESERVATION EASEMENTS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR PARTICULAR CASE WHETHER IN OR OUTSIDE OF THE TWO MILE CORRIDOR, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY ANYTHING.

YOU CAN PUT SOLAR ON IT. AND THERE IS NO MANDATORY CONTRIBUTION TO LAND PRESERVATION.

SO WHEN IT WAS FIRST DESCRIBED TO US, WE THOUGHT THAT IT WAS ANY AG LAND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT WAS IN OR OUT OF A PRIORITY FUNDING AREA.

THE DEVELOPER WOULD HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE, BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

SO, THAT'S WHAT'S GOT US RECENTLY STIRRED UP.

AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE'RE CATCHING GRIEF ALREADY ABOUT THE LARGE ARRAY THAT'S GOING AT THE NORTH END OF THE COUNTY POLITICALLY FROM SOME SEGMENTS OF, YOU KNOW, OUR CONSTITUENTS.

BUT WE DO HAVE THAT 2000 ACRE CAP, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE THROWN OUT THE WINDOW.

[00:50:02]

RIGHT. IN THE LEGISLATURE.

AND THERE'S TALK WE HAVE HEARD RUMORS ABOUT POTENTIALLY AT LEAST ONE ENTITY THAT MAY BE INTERESTED IN PUTTING AS MANY AS 20,000 ACRES OF PANELS IN CAROLINE COUNTY.

SO, I MEAN, WHAT'S HAPPENING IS THE GOVERNOR HAS SET A RENEWABLE ENERGY GOAL.

HE WANTS TO BE 100% CLEAN ENERGY BY, I FORGET, 2030, 2035.

SO WHAT IS HAPPENING IS WE'RE NOT MEETING THE MILESTONES AS A STATE TO REACH THAT GOAL.

SO THE PERCEPTION IS AMONGST ALL THE DEVELOPERS ARE COUNTING.

PLANNING COMMISSIONS ARE BEING TOO DIFFICULT TO DEAL WITH.

THEY'RE HOLDING US UP. WE'RE NEVER GOING TO MEET THIS GOAL UNLESS WE COME IN AND PREEMPT THEM.

THAT'S WHAT MY TAKE IS, IS WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE.

I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED.

YOU SET A GOAL, AND YOU'RE NOT EVEN GOING TO BE GOVERNOR.

DON'T YOU GET YOU GET EIGHT YEARS.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE HERE IN 35.

WELL, THE PRESIDENT SET GOALS AND HE'S NOT GOING TO SAY, HOW ABOUT WE SET IT? HOW ABOUT WE SET AN EIGHT YEAR GOAL.

HOW ABOUT WE SET AN EIGHT YEAR GOAL.

YEAH BUT 20,000 ACRES.

THAT'S RUMOR. I MEAN, IT'S RUMOR.

IT'S WHAT WE'RE HEARING. BUT UNDER THIS, IT WOULD PREEMPT.

IT WOULD TOTALLY PREEMPT UNDER THIS BILL.

IF THIS BILL GOT ADOPTED, THE DRAFTS THAT WE HAVE SEEN THERE WERE THERE ARE THERE'S NO THROTTLING MECHANISM.

THERE'S NOTHING TO SAY.

YOU KNOW, THAT WAS ONE REQUEST THAT I HAD.

COULD WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT COULD WE AT LEAST SAY, YOU CAN'T DO MORE THAN 500-ACRE ISSUE, MORE THAN 500 ACRES WORTH OF PERMITS IN A YEAR.

CAN WE AT LEAST SO WE CAN SEE HOW IT'S GOING TO CHANGE, WHAT EFFECTS IT'S GOING TO HAVE ON OUR ECONOMY AND THAT, YOU KNOW, THE AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S EVEN GOING TO BE ENTERTAINED OR NOT.

BUT SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT HAS GOT THE BALL ROLLING.

AND THEN ALSO MOVEMENT AT THE NORTH END OF THE COUNTY, PEOPLE START TO SEE, YOU KNOW, SHERMAN COUNCIL'S HOUSE.

YOU CAN SEE IT NOW, THE OLD HOUSE.

AND IT DOESN'T, YOU KNOW, SO THEY KNOW IT'S COMING.

AND WHENEVER IT STARTS COMING YOU START TO, YOU KNOW, STIR UP RUCKUS.

DOESN'T THIS RELY A LOT ON THE FARMER? YOU HAVE TO GIVE IT UP.

YEAH. NOW, I GUESS WE COULD GET TO A POINT WHERE THEY'RE JUST OFFERING SO MUCH MONEY THAT YOU'D BE AN IDIOT TO TURN IT DOWN.

I MEAN I MEAN THAT'S WHERE IT'S AT.

YEAH. I MEAN I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THEY'RE OFFERING AN ACRE NOW, BUT YOU JUST, YOU, IT WOULD BE SO MUCH THAT YOU'D JUST BE AN IDIOT.

SO WHAT IS THE PART? OR WHAT IS THE AVERAGE AGE OF A FARMER? AROUND CAROLINE COUNTY.

WHAT? THE OWNERS.

WHAT IS THE AVERAGE? DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT? THE AVERAGE AGE. I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T KNOW IF LESLIE'S BEEN DOING A LOT OF RESEARCH ON THIS.

I'M GOOGLING THAT RIGHT NOW.

YEAH, IT'S IN THE AG CENSUS, BUT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I WOULD SAY IT'S PROBABLY IN THE EARLY 50S PROBABLY, OR MID EARLY 50S.

I THINK I DID SEE IT IN AN AG CENSUS SOMEWHERE.

IT IS BECAUSE SOMEBODY, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT WAS KRYSTAL OR LESLIE OR SOMEBODY, SOMEBODY AT ONE POINT SAID.

WHY DON'T WE? ONE OF OUR WAYS TO ADDRESS THIS IS TO START WORKING WITH THESE FARMERS, RIGHT.

AND EDUCATING THESE AND WE ARE WE I MEAN, HOW DO WE DO THAT? YEAH. AND WE'RE ACTIVELY DOING THAT RIGHT NOW.

SO I THINK STEWART AND LESLIE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON PAMPHLETS, EDUCATIONAL FLIERS.

YOU KNOW, THESE ARE THE ISSUES.

DON'T YOU KNOW, BEFORE YOU SIGN ON THE DOTTED LINE, THINK ABOUT THIS, THIS, THIS AND THIS.

THINK ABOUT THE TAX IMPLICATIONS.

TAX ALL THOSE THINGS.

BUT THAT'S IT.

BUT TO ROGER'S POINT, FARMING THE AGE IS GOING UP.

BECAUSE IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE A YOUNG FARMER YOUNG PERSON 30 YEARS AGO WANTING TO GET INTO AGRICULTURE LAND WAS A LITTLE MORE REASONABLE.

I THINK ALL, YOU KNOW, COST, YOUR INPUT COST.

YOU MIGHT HAVE YOU MAY HAVE HAD A LEGITIMATE CHANCE AT SUCCEEDING RIGHT NOW WITH LAND VALUES WHERE THEY ARE.

EQUIPMENT COSTS THE WAY THEY ARE, INPUTS THE WAY THEY ARE.

THERE'S NO WAY SOMEONE, A FIRST GENERATION FARMER, IS GOING TO GET STARTED.

THE PRESSURES AND A LOT OF IT.

LAND COST IS DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT'S ALSO THE SOLAR STUFF.

THERE ARE PEOPLE NOW BUYING FARMS, KNOWING THAT, WELL, IF I DON'T GET AG LAND PRESERVATION, I MIGHT BE ABLE TO PUT IT IN SOLAR.

YOU KNOW, THIS GREEN ENERGY PUSH IS COMING AND IT'S DRIVING LAND VALUES THROUGH THE ROOF.

YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THEY YOU FACTOR IN A BUSINESS MODEL.

I MEAN, ANYBODY, YOU KNOW, IT'S MY BUSINESS VIABLE.

[00:55:03]

NOW, IF I PUT SOLAR PANELS ON IT, THEN I MIGHT CLEAR THREE GRAND AN ACRE A YEAR OR SOMETHING CRAZY.

YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.

AND THAT'S WHAT'S DRIVING I FEEL LIKE.

I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE ANY DATA, BUT I THINK MY GUT FEEL IS THAT THAT'S WHY LAND PRICES ARE GOING UP.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE.

FARMERS. IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH GENERATION FARMERS.

THE NEW STARTUP, SOMEONE WANTING TO GET INTO AGRICULTURE IS JUST NOT GOING TO BE ME.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE IT.

SO THE AVERAGE AGE RANGE FOR CAROLINE COUNTY, ACCORDING TO THE 2022 USDA AG CENSUS, THEY'VE BROKEN IT INTO GROUPS UNDER 35 IS 9.8%.

OF THE PRODUCERS, 35 TO 64 IS 58.3%.

THAT'S THE LARGEST PERCENT.

65 AND OLDER IS 31.9%.

001. YEAH.

YEAH. BUT SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE AVERAGE RENT FOR FARMLAND, WHICH I THINK IN CAROLINE WAS ANYWHERE FROM 32 TO A COUPLE HUNDRED DOLLARS AN ACRE, AND THE PRICES THAT WE'RE HEARING PER ACRE ARE 2500 AND UP FOR SOLAR.

FOR SOLAR. AND I HEARD ABOUT A PROJECT IN THE SOUTHERN END OF THE COUNTY WHERE THE OFFER I CAN'T REMEMBER THE PER ACRE COST, BUT IT WAS 20 ACRES OR LESS.

HE WAS MAKING MAYBE 20 OR 30,000 ON IT, AND HIS FIRST YEAR ANNUALLY HE'LL GET $81,000 TO LEASE IT TO SOLAR.

YEAH. SO IT'S BIG MONEY.

IT'S A BIG MONEY DIFFERENCE.

BUT I THINK WHAT WE'RE REALLY STRUGGLING WITH IS, IS THAT WE'RE SEEING A TREND NOW.

I MEAN, IF YOU ALL RECALL WITH CANNABIS CITING SO THE CANNABIS BILL, IT BASICALLY TOOK AWAY THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY TO DO ANYTHING.

YOU KNOW, IT JUST IT JUST SAID THIS IS WHERE IT CAN AND CAN'T GO.

AND THESE ARE THE SETBACKS.

YOU CAN GO.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF IT HAD PROVISIONS IN IT WHERE WE COULD GO LESS.

I THINK WE CAN GO LESS.

JUST CAN'T GO GREATER, RIGHT.

THERE WAS ONLY ONE AREA THEY WOULD ALLOW US TO GO LATER, AND IT WAS LIKE UP TO A HALF A MILE.

YOU COULD GO GREATER ON THE ONE SETBACK FOR A HALF A MILE, BUT EVERYTHING ELSE WAS.

SO NOW WE'RE SEEING IT HERE AND IT'S REALLY, IT'S FRUSTRATING THE THREE OF US BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT? WHAT ARE WE EVEN HERE? IF YOU'RE GOING TO TELL US EVERYTHING TO DO, WE'RE JUST GOING TO GET DRESSED UP ON TUESDAY MORNING AND COME BE YOUR PUPPETS.

THAT'S NOT WHAT I SIGNED UP TO DO, YOU KNOW.

AND SO THIS WHOLE PREEMPTION BATTLE IS, IS REALLY AGGRAVATED, I THINK, OR PERTURBED THE THREE OF US AND IT'S YOU KNOW, WE'RE THE CLOSEST TO I MEAN I LOOK I UNDERSTAND THAT IT YOU DON'T WANT A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT BUT YOU NEED A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT.

I MEAN, IN SOME CASES, THE STATE DOES HAVE TO PREEMPT LOCAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE GREATER GOOD.

BUT I THINK WE'RE THE PENDULUM IS SWINGING INTO AN AREA WHERE THEY'RE WAY OVER TAKING AUTHORITY.

AND THERE'S A LOT OF IMPLICATIONS TO OUR LOCAL ECONOMY, IF THEY GET THIS WRONG, YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S THE POINT THAT I'VE MADE TO, TO SOME OF THE LEGISLATORS IS, YOU KNOW, OKAY, YOU THINK YOU'RE SO SMART AND WE'RE DOING THE WRONG THING YOU WANT TO OCCUPY THIS TERRITORY AND REGULATE YOU.

DON'T TRUST US TO DO IT.

IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO EDUCATE, EDUCATE YOURSELF AND MAKE SURE YOU'RE MAKING AN INFORMED DECISION AND NOT, YOU KNOW, GOING TO HURT US.

YOU KNOW, THE COUNTY NEEDS SOMEBODY WHO'S GOING TO CLEAN IT UP.

WE GOT 20,000 ACRES OF SOLAR PANELS AND THEY GO, OH, THAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT'S NOT WORKING.

THAT'S ANOTHER THING IN THE BILL.

THE BILL DOES SAY THAT SALVAGE VALUE, THE DRAFT THAT I'VE SEEN SAYS THAT SALVAGE VALUE CAN BE FACTORED INTO THE DECOMMISSIONING BOND.

SO THAT REDUCES YOUR BOND.

YEAH. AND INCREASES OUR COST.

YEAH. TO CLEAN IT UP IN THE END.

BUT THE CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LANDOWNER AND THE SOLAR COMPANY THE STATE CAN'T INTERFERE IN, CAN THEY? LIKE THEY CAN TELL US YOU CAN'T BE SO HARD ON THESE COMPANIES.

BUT CAN THEY TELL THE LANDOWNER? OH, YOU CAN'T BE SO HARD ON.

NO. COULD IT ALL REST WITH THE LANDOWNER TO REQUIRE SOME SURETY.

YES. YEAH. THAT THAT MAY BE THE ONLY CERTAINTY YOU CAN MAKE.

WHEN YOU GOT $81,000 COMPARED TO 20,000.

THE THING IS, AND AGAIN, THAT'S EXACTLY IF YOU TAKE SOME OF THESE FORMS. I KNOW THEY HAVE JUST SOLAR PANELS ON A FAMILY FARM.

YEAH. THAT COULD BE SOMEBODY'S PENSION.

I WOULD THINK THAT FAMILY WANTS SOMETHING.

[01:00:02]

THE ONLY IS THAT SOCIAL SECURITY.

THE ONLY HOPE THAT I, THE ONLY HOPE THAT I WOULD HAVE IF WE GET IT.

I MEAN, IF THE SOLAR PANELS FAIL BECAUSE OF SOME TECHNOLOGICAL BREAKTHROUGH, MAYBE THAT TECHNOLOGICAL BREAKTHROUGH WOULD GENERATE ENOUGH REVENUE THAT THEY COULD SKIM OFF OF THAT TO DO THE DECOMMISSIONING.

I MEAN, THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE WISHFUL THINKING IF IT FAILS ON ITS FACE BECAUSE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RUNS OUT OF MONEY AND STOPS SUBSIDIZING IT.

AND THEN THAT'S THE DOOMSDAY SCENARIO, BECAUSE THERE'S NO TECHNOLOGICAL BREAKTHROUGH THAT MAKES THE ECONOMY OPERATE MORE EFFICIENTLY, WHERE YOU COULD SKIM MONEY OFF OF THAT COMMISSION, YOU KNOW, NOW YOU'RE JUST IN A STRAIGHT UP DEPRESSION, RECESSION TYPE ECONOMY WHERE THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY MONEY TO CLEAN IT UP. SO I DON'T KNOW.

BUT, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU GET WHEN YOU SET A GOAL AND YOU HAVE BLINDERS AND YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT ANYTHING OTHER THAN ATTAINING THAT GOAL, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE EXPERIENCING RIGHT NOW. SO THE SAD THING IS THE SACRIFICE OF THE EASTERN SHORE, AND OUR ECONOMY ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE THE CLIMATE ONE IOTA. IT IS SIMPLY SYMBOLIC.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT FITS MY PERSONAL OPINION.

I PROBABLY SHOULD EMBRACE IT, BUT IT'S NOT BENEFITING MARYLAND THE WAY IT IS GOING TO WRECK US.

AT LEAST THIS PART OF MARYLAND, AND IT'S BY PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIVE HERE MAKING THESE LAWS IS THE WORST OF ALL. YEAH, YEAH, BUT I MEAN, THAT'S A GIVEN, RIGHT? IT'S, I THINK IT'S SOLAR LIGHT.

IT'S SOLAR LOBBYISTS.

YEAH, BUT I'M JUST SAYING IF YOU GOT A COUNTY THAT'S ONE OF THE MAJOR METROPOLITAN COUNTIES AND THEY'RE SUPPORTING THIS BILL AGAIN, THEY'RE DUMPING THEIR SHIT ON MY FLOOR BECAUSE WE'RE THE ONES WITH THE MOST FARMLAND.

WELL, IT'S A CHEAP LEASE, VOTERS.

YEAH. LEASE VOTERS.

CHEAPEST LAND TO GET.

GET YOUR HAND ON. THE EASIEST WAY TO INSTALL IT.

BUT. BUT WE'RE GEARED UP, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GETTING GEARED UP TO FIGHT IT AND YOU KNOW, BUT YOU HAVE A SEGMENT IN THE AGRICULTURE COMMUNITY WHO ALSO DOESN'T WANT US TO FIGHT IT.

YOU KNOW, THEY SAY IT'S MY LAND.

I SHOULD DO WHAT I WANT WITH IT.

AND I STRUGGLE WITH THAT PERSONALLY BECAUSE I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT PREMISE.

BUT YOU ALSO HAVE TO STEP BACK AND LOOK AT THIS AS HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED.

SO IT'S AN ARTIFICIAL MARKET.

IT'S NOT A TRUE FREE ECONOMY EITHER, YOU KNOW.

YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A TRUE, YOU KNOW, FREE MARKET EXPERIMENT HERE.

SO, YOU KNOW THAT THAT PART OF IT, YOU KNOW, COMPLICATES IT.

AND THAT'S WHY, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, I THINK EDUCATING THE FARMERS OR THE LANDOWNERS AS MUCH AS WE CAN, WE JUST CALL THEM FARMERS, YOU KNOW, AND REALLY DIDN'T SAY TO THEM, WHERE ARE THE STATE LEGISLATORS OF PROTECTIVE MEASURES THAT'S GOING TO PROTECT YOU 20 YEARS FROM NOW? RIGHT. DO YOU? DO THEY HAVE QUESTIONS TO ASK? I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I KNOW, I KNOW, YOU'RE TELLING THEM RIGHT THERE.

HEY. YEAH.

THIS THIS THIS COULD BE A PRETTY BAD SITUATION IN 20 YEARS WHEN THESE GUYS START BELLYING UP ON US AND LEAVING THESE FARMERS OUT THERE HANGING. WELL, WE HAD OUR GROUP REPRESENTATIVE OF MARYLAND ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, HAS A REPRESENTATIVE THAT THAT HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN THESE NEGOTIATIONS. AND HE CAME INTO OUR MEETING AND GAVE US A BRIEFING ON IT A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO.

AND HE DESCRIBED IT THIS WAY THAT WE'RE ALL ON A PLANE AND IT'S GOING TO CRASH.

WELL, MAKO'S TRYING TO DO IS MAKE THE LANDING AS SOFT AS POSSIBLE.

SO WE COME AWAY WITH A FEW BROKEN BONES AS OPPOSED TO WALKING AWAY OR NOT WALKING AWAY AT ALL.

BUT I DON'T SEE WHERE THERE'S ANYTHING SOFT ABOUT THE DRAFT THAT I'VE SEEN.

I MEAN, IT BASICALLY TAKES EVERYTHING AWAY.

I MEAN, 50 FOOT SETBACK AT THAT POINT.

YEAH, PUT IT RIGHT ON THE ROAD, I DON'T CARE.

ROAD? YEAH. I'D RATHER STARVE TO DEATH THAN EAT A SANDWICH.

SO I MEAN, THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GETTING FED HERE, SO I.

YOU WANT IT? TAKE IT ALL.

I MEAN, I DON'T SEE I DON'T SEE WHERE THEY COULD GO ANY LESS.

LESS STRICT OR PREEMPTIVE THAN THEY HAVE.

I MEAN, THEY'RE BASICALLY TAKING IT ALL RIGHT FROM WHAT WE'VE SEEN.

YES. THEY'VE TAKEN THE GROUND AND TAKEN THE MONEY.

YEAH. SO THEY THROW YOU A LITTLE BIT OF A TOKEN WITH THE AG LAND PRESERVATION STUFF, BUT IT'S ONLY AGAIN, IT'S ONLY IN OUR PRIORITY FUNDING AREAS.

OUTSIDE OF THOSE, THERE'S NO MANDATORY CONTRIBUTIONS OR ANYTHING.

SO HOW ARE THE HOW ARE THOSE DONE.

[01:05:03]

WE DON'T HAVE, WE DON'T.

I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT. MAKE IT THE WHOLE COUNTY.

IT'S THE R IT'S THE R AREA.

SO AND THE GOAL IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH THE LAND USE ELEMENT NOW IS.

WELL I THOUGHT WE HAD TWO.

SO WE HAVE OUR OWN PRIORITY PRESERVATION AREA WHICH IS THE ENTIRE R ZONING DISTRICT.

AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE RURAL LEGACY AREAS IN THE COUNTY WHICH ARE RUN THROUGH THE LOCAL LAND TRUST IS EASTERN SHORE LAND CONSERVANCY.

BUT IT'S A STATE AG PRESERVATION PROGRAM.

AND WE HAVE TWO RURAL LEGACY AREAS.

THE TUCKAHOE RUNS ALONG THE WESTERN EDGE OF THE COUNTY, ALONG THE TUCKAHOE RIVER AND THEN THE HEARTLAND RURAL LEGACY AREA IS DOWN IN THE SOUTH EASTERN CORNER OF THE COUNTY, AND THEY WERE BOTH EXPANDED.

I CAN'T REMEMBER 5 OR 6 YEARS AGO.

SO THEY'RE PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL ACREAGE.

THEY'RE DESIGNATED AREAS, BUT THEY'RE NOT ALL IN EASEMENTS.

SO SOME OF THE PROPERTIES ARE IN EASEMENTS NOW.

AND IF SOMEONE TRIES TO DEVELOP A SOLAR PROJECT IN EITHER ONE OF THOSE RURAL LEGACY AREAS, THEY WILL HAVE TO PAY THAT NOW THE REST OF THE COUNTY WOULD THEY HAVE TO OR AM I WRONG THERE? YES, WE HAVE A PRIORITY PRESERVATION AREA IN ALL THE DISTRICTS.

SO THAT IS THEY WOULD HAVE TO.

YES. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT.

I THOUGHT WE ONLY HAD THE TWO.

SO ANY OTHER FORM.

SO THERE'S VERY LITTLE IF.

AND I WOULD, I WOULD HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK THIS.

BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY AG LAND THAT ISN'T IN A PRESERVATION AREA.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

WE NEED TO CHECK THAT. YEAH, WE NEED TO CHECK THAT.

I KNOW THE R IS I DON'T THINK IT EXTENDS BEYOND THE R DISTRICT, BUT, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE SIZABLE FARMS ARE IN THE R DISTRICT, SO THERE'S, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY LAND THAT THAT'S OF ANY SIZE THAT THEY WOULD WANT THAT ISN'T GOING TO BE IMPACTED BY THAT EASEMENT REQUEST.

OKAY. BUT AGAIN, YOU'RE NOT GAINING AG LAND THROUGH THAT EASEMENT PROGRAM.

IT'S STILL A NET LOSS.

BECAUSE IF YOU PURCHASE AN EASEMENT ON A FARM SO THAT YOU CAN PUT SOLAR ON IT, AND YOU TAKE THAT EASEMENT MONEY AND GO PUT IT ON ANOTHER FARM, YOU'RE PUTTING IT ON ANOTHER EXISTING FARM, YOU'RE NOT GOING OUT AND CREATING A BRAND NEW FARM.

THAT FARM IS ALREADY A FARM.

SO YOU'RE STILL A NET LOSS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND.

3500 AN ACRE IS NOT, MIGHT NOT GET YOU AN ACRE PRESERVE.

SOME MAY WANT MORE THAN 3500.

WELL YOU'RE COMPETING. YOU'RE GOING TO BE COMPETING WITH WHAT THE SOLAR PERSON IS OFFERING, RIGHT? NOT TO SOUND.

REALLY DEPRESSING.

WELL, THE RUMOR, THE RUMOR IS THERE'S GOING TO BE A BILL IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY THAT ALLOWS SOLAR ON AGRICULTURALLY PRESERVED LAND.

WE WERE TOLD BY MAKO THAT WILL NEVER, EVER HAPPEN.

THAT I HOPE THEY'RE RIGHT.

SO DO I. AND WE HAVEN'T HEARD.

WE NEED TO GO.

YOU GOTTA MEET THE GOAL.

THEY'RE DEFINITELY LOOKING AT THE AG PRESERVATION AREAS AND AREAS UNDER EXISTING EASEMENTS.

BUT OUR QUESTION WAS ALSO OUR PRIORITY FUNDING AREAS PROTECTED FROM SOLAR.

YEAH. AND GROWTH AREAS.

BECAUSE NOW YOU'RE IMPACTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOUSING AND AGRICULTURE.

BUT THOSE OTHER IMPACTS I'LL BE INTERESTED TO SEE IF PFAS ARE PROTECTED AND MUNICIPAL GROWTH AREAS, BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE EATING AWAY AT HOUSING OPPORTUNITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE.

PEOPLE DON'T HAVE A TOUGH TIME WHEN THEY TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO EAT METAL AND GLASS, OR THE ROLLING BLACKOUTS THAT COME WITH COVID.

KATHERINE'S GOING.

KATHERINE'S GOING TO PUT UP THE MAP THAT WILL SHOW YOU OUR LAND USE PPA AND OUR LR.

IT'S OUR LAND USE ACREAGES IN THE COUNTY.

BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE FIGHTING.

WE'RE GETTING GEARED UP AND READY FOR IT.

THERE'S THE MAP, SO THERE'S YOUR CORRIDORS.

THERE'S ONE AT THE BOTTOM LEFT.

AND THEN THE CROSS THROUGH THE CENTER OF THE COUNTY ARE YOUR TWO MILE WIDE CORRIDORS.

YEAH, I'VE GOT THIS ONE HERE.

I'M JUST GOING TO SAY THIS ONE HERE.

SO WHAT'S THE GREEN? WHAT'S THE GREEN? THOSE ARE THE RURAL, THE GREEN AND THE BLUE.

I CAN'T READ IT. LAND CONSERVANCY.

YEAH, EASTERN SHORE LAND CONSERVANCY.

SO THOSE ARE THE RURAL LEGACY AREAS.

SO YOU CAN PUT STUFF THERE.

YOU CAN, BUT YOU WOULD HAVE TO PAY $5,000 AN ACRE OUTSIDE OF THE CORRIDOR.

INSIDE OF THE CORRIDOR, IT'S 3500 AN ACRE AND THE AVERAGE EASEMENT.

SO LET'S MAKE IT AS CONFUSING NOW IS AROUND 25,800.

SO THEY ARE OFFERING HIGHER THAN WHAT? LIKE THE MARYLAND LIKE WHAT RURAL LEGACY AND WHAT THEY ARE OFFERING, WHICH IS SOME BENEFIT.

AND THEY DO HAVE AN ESCALATOR ON THAT I THINK 5% A YEAR.

[01:10:03]

THE OTHER THING IN THERE IS THAT THERE IS AN $8,000 PER MEGAWATT PILOT TAX.

THAT IS MANDATED.

NOW, I HAVE CONCERN WITH IT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE AN ESCALATOR ON IT.

IT'S 8000 PERIOD IN PERPETUITY.

RIGHT. AND WE RECENTLY NEGOTIATED ONE FOR I THINK IT'S 8600 AN ACRE OR 8600 SOMETHING AN ACRE.

SO WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THAT? WHAT'S THAT? NO, IT'S A PILOT.

IT'S PROTECTED BECAUSE IT'S A SIGNED CONTRACT.

SO EVEN IF THEY DID AWAY WITH OUR ABILITY, THE COUNTY'S ABILITY TO TAX THE POWER GENERATION EQUIPMENT, THAT CONTRACT WOULD STAY INTACT.

FOR HOW LONG? FOREVER.

AS LONG AS IT'S IN.

WELL, NOT FOREVER. I THINK I THINK IT'S 20 YEARS.

25 YEARS? YEAH.

I DIDN'T KNOW HOW LONG. YOUR CONTRACT.

IT WAS 2025.

20, 25 OR 30 YEARS, I THINK.

SO THE DIFFERENT COLORS ON THAT MAP, THE LIGHT, YOU SEE LIGHT BLUE AND DARK BLUE, LIGHT GREEN AND DARK GREEN.

SHE SIMPLY MADE THE AREAS OF THE RURAL LEGACY, AREAS THAT ARE IN CORRIDORS, THE BRIGHTER COLORS.

SO THE BRIGHT BLUE IS RURAL LEGACY IN THE QUARTER, AND THE BRIGHT GREEN IS RURAL LEGACY IN THE QUARTER.

AND THEN THE PALE BLUE AND THE PALE GREEN ARE RURAL LEGACY OUTSIDE OF THE QUARTER.

AND THIS IS WHERE THIS MAP HERE IS THE 43,000 ACRES THAT KNOW THE 40 SOME THOUSAND.

THAT WAS THE MAP THAT YOU SAW WHERE WE TOOK OUT THE AREA IN THAT TWO MILE BUFFER.

WE EXCLUDED WOODLAND.

70% OR MORE OF THE PARCEL WAS WOODED BY 70% OR MORE WETLANDS, EASEMENT AREAS THAT WE ALREADY HAD, EASEMENT PROPERTIES, NOT AREAS, MUNICIPALITIES. WE TOOK ALL OF THAT ACREAGE OUT AND IN THE END IT RESULTED IN 44,000.

BUT WE ALSO. WELL, SHE'S GOT IT IN THERE A LOT.

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE 14,000 IN INSIDE THE CORRIDOR IN THE HEARTLAND.

PLUS, WHATEVER THAT LITTLE SLIVER IS.

15,000 OUT THERE.

OVER THERE. AND THEN UP IN, I THINK, CRYSTAL.

I THINK CRYSTAL TOLD ME THE OTHER DAY BECAUSE I ASKED THIS.

THE COUNTY IS ABOUT 200,000 ACRES.

WE HAVE ABOUT 100,000 IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION RIGHT NOW ACCORDING TO THE AG CENSUS DATA THAT WE HAVE.

SO YOU HAVE ABOUT 100,000 IN AG RIGHT NOW.

AND YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAD TAKE 20,000 OF THAT OUT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S YOU'RE TALKING 20% OF YOUR AG BEING GONE COULD BE GONE IN 1 OR 2 YEARS COVERED IN SOLAR.

THAT'S A BIG ECONOMIC IMPACT.

YOU KNOW, AND VIEW AND, YOU KNOW, LOOK AND LOOK OF CAROLINE COUNTY CHANGE.

SO BUT IT'S NOT JUST AG.

YOU CAN'T PUT HOUSING THERE.

YOU CAN'T DO MINING THERE.

YOU ONLY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SOLAR.

YOU CAN'T HUNT THERE EITHER.

NO. I THINK ALL THE WILDLIFE THAT GETS DISPLACED FROM SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

WELL, YEAH. ATLANTIC FLYWAY IMPACT.

I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYBODY I PRESUME SOMEBODY IS LOOKING AT THAT RIGHT NOW, BUT THESE ARE ALL QUESTIONS THAT WE SUBMITTED WITH THE COUNTY'S COMMENTS TO MAKO, THE LADY FROM THE CHICKEN PEOPLE.

LET'S JUST PUT THEM ALL ON OUR CHICKEN HANDS.

KATHLEEN, I DON'T KNOW IF SHE'S HAD A CHANCE TO TALK TO YOU ALL YET, BUT COMING BACK FROM CHESTERTOWN, WE DISCUSSED STUDIES THAT WERE DONE, I GUESS, WHEN SHE WAS DIRECTOR YEARS AGO ABOUT FLIGHT ZONES, MILITARY, THE JAILHOUSE, THE JOINT LAND USE AGREEMENT WITH THE ARMY THAT WENT ALL THE WAY TO.

BUT THAT WAS MORE REAL TALL STUFF.

WELL, WHAT'S OF INTEREST IS MY RESEARCH IS INDICATING SOMETHING THAT WE ALL PROBABLY KNOW.

BUT PILOTS COMPLAIN ABOUT THE GLARE.

AND WE'VE GOT DOVER, DOVER AIR FORCE BASE, AND WE'VE GOT THE MARYLAND AIR NATIONAL GUARD, WHICH FLIES OVER HERE.

PATUXENT. PATUXENT.

AND THEY HAVE AREAS THAT ARE ON THESE MAPS, APPARENTLY.

PROBABLY YOUR OFFICE HAS THEM SOMEWHERE, BUT IT'S ANOTHER ANGLE.

YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

I'M PUTTING THAT ON MY CALENDAR.

WE'VE GOT THE SOLAR TASK FORCE WE'RE PUTTING TOGETHER THAT IS GOING TO HAVE A MULTIFACETED DEFENSE.

AND PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU HAVE LARGE TRACKS OF THESE MODULES ALL TOGETHER.

[01:15:02]

THAT'S TRUE. NO, I'M SURE SOMEBODY'S DONE THE EVEN THAT.

WHERE WOULD HE LAND WITH THE EFFECT OF THE CLIMATE IS, WHERE WOULD HE LIVE? REFLECTION OF THE SOLAR BACKUP.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE HEAT INSTEAD OF GOING BACK INTO THE GROUND.

I NEVER THOUGHT OF THAT. A HELICOPTER, I THINK IT AFFECTS.

I THINK IT AFFECTS A LOT OF THE HEAVY STORMS AND STUFF THAT WE'RE HAVING AS WELL.

SO TO NOT [INAUDIBLE] CLIMATE CHANGE, OF COURSE, IS BEING AFFECTED BY THE GREEN SOLAR THAT WE'RE PUTTING IN.

INTERESTING THOUGHT ABOUT THAT SENSE, DOESN'T IT, WHEN YOU REFLECT THE HEAT BACK UP INTO THE GROUND? YEAH, I HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT THAT.

I'M NO SCIENTIST, BUT I HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT IT.

NOW, ONCE UPON A TIME, SOMEBODY TOLD ME, HE SAID THIS WOULD PROBABLY BE THE OFFICE THAT WOULD KNOW THAT RIDGELY AIRPORT, ONCE UPON A TIME, WAS APPROVED TO ACTUALLY BE AS BIG AS BWI OR SOMETHING.

YOU COULD LAND COMMERCIAL JETS THERE OR SOMETHING, BUT THAT.

NO, THAT WAS BEFORE MY TIME.

I'VE HEARD THAT THE RUNWAY WAS BIG.

WELL, I LIVE OUT THAT WAY.

SO, I GET RIGHT IN MY BACKYARD OR WHATEVER TO IT THAT IT HAD BEEN RESEARCHED AND APPROVED.

IF THEY WANTED TO PUT A RUNWAY OUT THERE TO LAND BIG AIRPLANES, LARGE PLANES, YOU KNOW, IT WAS GOOD AIR FORCE WISE, YOU WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST A 435 MILE RUNWAY, BUT THAT'S 4 OR 5 YEARS AGO.

THAT'S WHAT SOMEBODY WE KNEW THAT IT WAS.

WE COULD LOOK IT UP. YOU COULD EXPAND IT, AT LEAST THE CAROLINE COUNTY TALL TALES.

AND MAYBE IT WAS, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IT WAS.

I'M PUTTING THAT ON THE CALENDAR.

ORIGINALLY IT WAS GOING TO BE AS LARGE AS BALTIMORE, TOO.

SO, I MEAN, IT JUST I JUST KNOW I MEAN, WHEN BACK YEARS AGO, WHEN THEY WERE SKYDIVING OUT THERE, I SEE THEY GOT A SKYDIVE INSIDE OUT THERE TO GET THAT ONE. YEAH.

AND YOU AIN'T SEEN NOBODY OUT THERE WHEN THEY NEED HIM.

BUT THANK YOU.

WHEN? BUT YEARS AND YEARS AGO, IT WAS SAID THAT THAT THAT WAS APPROVED, THAT THAT RUNWAY COULD GO OUT FAR ENOUGH.

THE FAA HAD APPROVED WHATEVER GAVE THEIR BLESSING.

SO IS THAT PRESERVED LAND? IS THAT CAN YOU DO ANYTHING? IT'S KIND OF BAD WHEN YOU BUILD A PUT A, YOU KNOW, 100 ACRES OF SOLAR PANELS RIGHT WHERE THE RUNWAY HAS GOT TO GO? I DON'T KNOW, BUT I WILL DIG THAT UP FOR YOU.

I DON'T KNOW, BECAUSE NOW I WANT TO.

MAYBE IT'S ANOTHER ONE OF THEM.

LIKE PAPER ALLEYS. IT'S A PAPER RUNWAY.

THEY JUST SIT DOWN AND NEVER DO ANYTHING.

YEAH. WELL TRAVIS, I JUST, I DIDN'T BEAT YOUR MARK.

WE WERE ALMOST THEN.

YEAH. THEN WE GOT STARTED TALKING.

SO IT'S ON TRACK.

ALRIGHT I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

WE ADJOURN. SECOND.

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OKAY.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.