Carroll County, MD Board of County Commissioners Open Sessions, 1 Sep 2022

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: Board of Carroll County Commissioners Work Session, Thursday, September 1, 2022

Description

https://www.carrollcountymd.gov

A

One during the day would be here during normal session and then the other one.

A

Would be if the proposal is virtual, but the board has to decide that you have.

A

To you know give permission to go to public hearings, so we're not right. Now you haven't.

B

Done that yet no that's what our request was going to be at the end of today's meeting.

A

Yeah and then that would follow through with the rest of the schedule that you see there. Okay.

C

So with that said, unless there is anything further, while we jump right into it, where we left off.

C

All right well good afternoon, everyone- and hopefully this will be the last meeting prior to.

B

The public hearing and again, even if there's still additional items, we can still go to public hearing.

B

And then, after the public hearing, we have program time in to come back and have discussions about.

B

You know anything that you would like to see change as a result of the public hearing comments.

B

That you've heard etc as long as it's as long as any changes aren't so far out of the realm of.

B

What we've proposed there's still that opportunity post-public hearing to make changes, um so we.

B

Have done, as commissioner rothstein has said, we've gone through all of the text. The text.

B

As you have adopted or approved it, as we've been going through, is put on on the board here in.

B

Front of you we're happy to run through it. There are no additional outstanding items, except for.

B

The remaining um portions that we need to discuss so is there anything on the text itself other than.

B

Remaining portions, that you all feel that we need further discussion on, and this is the text you got.

D

um Sent up to you on monday, I believe, okay, and it's also been on the website. So you thought.

E

We looked at this in advance. I can run bruised it with all the discussion you had. It was really only.

D

Okay, with all the discussion you had, there was really only about five changes that were.

D

Made um were there any occasional comments from the community? Not yet. No, but linda did you want.

D

To run through how we planned, on kind of reaching out before the public hearing to different groups,.

D

um No just yet we'll do that when we get to that okay. So with all that said, um the.

C

Ag remainders, I'm sorry, commissioner, if you don't mind if I could interrupt for a second.

F

There was one item before we move on to that remainder said. I did have a question on um the.

F

Accessory dwelling units, so I think we talked, I wasn't sure if it ever got resolved.

F

So if the change is made where you can have a detached accessory dwelling without.

F

Subdivision potential that might have the unintended consequence of the situation.

F

We run into often, which is people wanting to build another house on their property and they do have.

F

Subdivision potential: they just don't want to go through the subdivision process right now, but they.

F

Want to build that second house for a child or whichever, if we, as the last version, that I saw.

F

Changed that they would be limited on the size and scope of that. Second, dwelling on that property.

F

Well, they would be limited unless they went through subdivision they still as far as it being.

D

Unintended, I think it would be understood that they would still have that option, then to exercise.

D

Their right to subdivide it to do that so, but you're right. What the issue is is that some people.

F

Want to build the house which they're allowed to do under the current code without having.

F

To go through the subdivision process and then sometime in the future, when the child moves out.

F

And they want to sell the property, then they can go through the subdivision process, but they would.

F

No longer be able to do that or well, they could but they'd be limited. It would be the edu right.

B

Yes, so I wanted to that's a consequence. I want to make sure everybody's aware of, as we discuss.

F

The change to the code for detached accessory goals well currently they're not.

A

I mean this is just my question: they're currently they're not allowed to build that second unit.

A

Unless they go through the subdivision process, no they can do without they can't.

D

Even though it can be bigger than the original one so but they, but they just.

A

Have to promise to subdivide it later. No, they just have to have the subdivision potential.

B

They don't have to subdivide, they don't have to subdivide, though, and that happens.

F

Relatively frequently as people want and they build a larger house as a second house and so.

F

On for the for a child and and uh there's no issue, but they lose their subdivision right.

F

They couldn't build a third house, no, they could not third house right. Well, they can they build.

F

The second one they still have the subdivision potential, so they subdivide in the future. If.

F

They want to and they, but just that they still have two houses at the end of the day when they.

D

Subdivide yeah: I think this is actually better in tightening food sure I get my if I don't subdivide.

A

I have subdivision rights. I have two rights on on this one lot just to keep it simple yeah. I.

A

Can build a second house without going subdivision? Yes, but then- um and I can sell it separately from.

A

Us okay, but if I I can't sell it separately from my own house, if I don't subdivide, correct.

A

I haven't done any subdivision, I can come in and subdivide the property. Can I or can.

A

I not build a third house on that same no, you need to have subdivision potential in order to.

F

Build that so I do get rid of my subdivision potential as soon as I build that second house.

G

Yeah because I've used the defense, I've used it. Yes, you're correct. Yes, I may not have subdivided.

A

But I've used my right yeah, you couldn't you. Couldn't I see what you're saying you couldn't.

F

Build two houses on one property and you've got one one additional lot and then subdivide another.

F

Property off and sell that you need to maintain that subdivision potential with that. Second.

F

Dwelling, so if that was the direction you wanted to go to retain that right for people.

D

That would have nothing to do with your new proposal for detached accessory dwelling units.

D

As price just passed on to me, we could call it a secondary dwelling unit and allow them.

D

To keep their right to build that second house without subdividing, if that's what you wanted.

D

To be able to allow them to do I mean I I don't know, I guess we were thinking all along. Yes, this.

D

Is forcing them to subdivide for that? Second house, it just is what it is right actually keeps. Has us.

B

Keep better track of what is happening, and why do we allow them not to subdivide yeah? That's a good.

A

Question yeah, I don't know if that was the right thing to begin with. Anyway, I can understand where.

F

Where there are people that would want to do that, because I mean going through the.

F

Subdivision process costs money, yeah and if it's just for a child, they just want to build them. Yeah.

F

They'll build a second house for them and they're within the confines of the current law that they.

F

Are allowed to do that, but there's nothing in the code that says it has to be for a child. It can be.

D

For anybody right, so they can just build that second house. They could rent that second house.

F

But I think from uh from a comprehensive plan perspective and zoning perspective and all that.

F

They have the subdivision potential, so we're not increasing density or anything like that.

F

It was expected that they would someday subdivide that property in that house.

F

So there's no real change to what's predicted right right right. Is this something that shouldn't.

H

Be allowed to begin with you think or oh I think it should be allowed. I think it's okay, just yeah.

F

But if we change the code, how we've discussed it it would go away, people would no longer be.

F

Able to do that and it is without subdividing. They still have that right to that second home. That's.

D

What I want to make sure it's clear: they could still build that second home for their child.

D

They would just have to go through whatever the minor subdivision process is to create that new.

D

Lot, that's all it is so either you want to make them go through the process to create the do new.

D

Lot or you want to keep it where they don't have to, and we can write this. However, you would want.

D

A

Or they could build an attached a detached accessory drilling with the limitations.

A

Yes, that are set forth in the new proposal, but that wouldn't take away their right then to build.

D

That other second house later, because it would only be 50 feet from their home, and I thought.

D

It would be a detached, so that's why I'm trying to make sure we keep those two issues separate.

D

The detached accessory and disability, if I had subdivision rights, I um would be able to put.

A

That third house, so to speak on that property, I'd have them the main house, so to speak. The little.

A

House for the family, member and then I'd still be able to subdivide or not or not, attention.

G

And build that second third house: yes, it gets quite dwelling you're talking.

G

About excuse me, the third house would be accessory dwelling. Is that why it's allowed.

A

So the first house would be, let's call the main house. The second one in my brain would be this.

A

Detached accessory accessory drawing it would have to be close to the main.

E

Small and small, and all that but and then accessory drilling could be a house.

D

Well, it could be two bedrooms: a thousand square feet 50 feet right. It has to be livable you'd.

E

Have to when you say, accessory drilling, I don't think of a house. I think right, like an in-laws.

I

Garage correct, it's the same as the attached, just whatever agriculture or whatever happens,.

E

To be, basically that's what I think of, I don't think of a house, you can say that okay, yeah, no.

A

They're yeah all right now I got you yeah and then you could put in and then, if I had subdivision.

A

Rights I could put in more houses, house or houses, depending on how many lot rights I had.

E

Well, I think, since we're we are basically allowing the accessory dwelling, which could be a house.

E

To be built without subdividing, if they want to put another.

E

House on here, I think they just have to subdivide first, this gets into trouble with the next owner.

H

The original owner is usually not the problems, and when they sell the property, then they have.

H

That extra uh house or part of it, and then they want to do whatever with it. And it is where the.

H

Problem occurs with most of those. Am I wrong jay? No, look. What we've run into is, after the second.

J

House is built on the property and the first owner wants to sell a property a lot of times. It's.

J

Investors want to come in and buy the property with two houses on it and rent both houses out.

J

Which you can't do the owner has to live in one of the houses, so he can't rent both of the houses.

J

Out but that's what a lot of people want to do, because it's accessory dwell and you can't bother.

J

Now, if they had subdivided put a second house in here, they can do anything to own it right. Yes,.

D

That's a total yeah, so the subdivision in that case would be beneficial at that point because.

B

They could rent that out without having a owner either because there would be no confusion.

B

So, in that case the subdivision is beneficial in that.

B

And they'd have to be forced to any if that was their intent.

E

So what are you saying, commissioner weaver? What are you saying, I'm not sure what you where's.

E

The problem come in, usually you know the first owner has legitimate reasons to add that right.

H

Accessory drilling when they sell the property or the next owner or third owner down the road they.

H

Either want to sell that house out, they want to rent them, uh they get themselves in all kind of.

H

uh Difficulties with that uh so but the next owner comes in they could rent that house out. They could.

E

Rent the one if they live in the other yeah, but if they don't and some of them want to just rent.

H

Buy it as rental units okay, but they would know that when they're purchasing the property, though.

E

It's not like we're hiding information, no they wouldn't well, then they should check on it because.

E

We can't tell, even if you put all the information out there, they probably wouldn't read it all, but.

E

You have to they have to some of this illness is on them. They have to know what can can and can't.

E

Happen well, people don't yeah. Believe me, I know you know, there's a place for them. Definitely, but.

H

You got to be careful because down the road every uh new owner, okay. So what are you proposing? Then?.

H

Leave it basically the way it is, we don't want to have to be, I mean if they got to go through.

H

Subdivision that's going to deter a lot, but if it's a small house there.

H

It has to stay with the other. The way it is, my understanding is, if you have a house put accessory.

E

Dwelling there, which could be a second house and then you could actually put another house on.

E

On that same property, subdivision was only supposed to be for two houses. Now you have three.

E

So now you're looking at water, sewer and all the other stuff for three years.

H

The accessory house has to stay an accessory to the first house right, which is why you can.

E

Rent that, but you can't rent both, but what I'm saying is you have three houses now and the same.

E

Piece of property that you originally was only intended for two well, that's where it falls apart,.

A

Yeah, that's why I that's the whole concept of an accessory dwelling unit, yeah the the idea of an.

A

Accessory dwelling union is attached or detached are actually uh allowable increases in density.

A

Right I mean you're you're, allowing some. You know some increase. I mean it's not yeah.

A

But but well not with the current code, it's a lower cost, but you could have the attachment. It's.

D

No different than the attach that's currently allowed. You've just moved it out a maximum of.

D

50 feet, so it's not increasing the density, because that was always foreseen in the existing code. That.

D

You could have the attached, so I would argue, it doesn't increase and you can have two two.

B

Two, a duplex, essentially two right, that's the other thing in the egg. You can have a two family.

D

Dwelling okay, it, but it provides that lower cost housing for the in-laws kids, something.

H

Like that right, I I don't have any objections to that, but I don't want at the if the piece of land.

E

Zoned, basically for two houses: let's just say that, so you could, whether you look at it as a.

E

House, an accessory drawing or whatever you want to take the loopholes out of it yeah. I.

E

Want to make it just, you can only put two houses there yeah, you can't put the house.

E

Accessory drilling in the third house right, okay or a second house, what have we done? Division say.

B

It again without subdivision potential. Yes, if you have the subdivision right, are you saying.

E

You're, I think what I'm saying is: if you build the accessory dwelling on that thing, then you're.

E

Taking your subdivision right, I don't think you should be able to subdivide after that.

E

My opinion, because then that's our currently how our code is: that's currently how the code.

B

Is now for a detached for details right, that's what I'm talking about right, yeah,.

D

The way we countered that was making sure it was small and close to the house so that really.

D

Wasn't the intent right because the detect are able to subdivide that right right, it'd be too.

D

Close to even do that really, and it wouldn't be like a fully unit. I mean it's sub sub. It's much.

B

More an accessory to the primary principal unit and the only difference that's being proposed.

B

Is that it's offset from the main structure now so same thing's allowed as we currently have, but just.

B

Offset from the main structure, it could be 50 feet away. Can you change that to if they do a detached.

H

Structure, they lose the subdivision potential. Well, that's the way it is now that's the way it is now.

E

Yeah, that's what I'm saying so currently our you, you can do an attached accessory dwelling in it.

A

um As long as it meets the criteria for attached and then, but if you want to do a.

A

Detached you have to have subdivision potential, but you don't have to use the right for future.

H

Subdivision by doing it, yeah yeah and you can and it does have to be accessory. It could be.

B

A full-blown home, so it's one or two homes, I'm okay, with the way it is now, though, yeah that's.

H

What we started with, I know, 20 minutes later I got it now. Okay, my director hi, you have to speak.

F

I'm just we we do frequently have now. I can't quantify frequently, but it is a commonplace.

F

Practice for people to want to build that second dwelling on their property with subdivision.

F

Potential, why not go through the subdivision process? Well, I'm glad you brought it up because.

I

This has been educational for me, so just so we're clear, though what this does has nothing to do with.

B

What chris is talking about, what now you're saying is: we are no longer allowing, as we have proposed.

B

Detached accessory dwelling units yeah yeah, that's what I'm saying you have to have subdivision right.

B

Yeah, so that's exactly what we're saying you were happy with the way it was written here.

D

No, no, no, not not revised, no, the original way he wants to how it is currently in.

B

The code, so there we won't. I believe it's what I said. Yes, actuality is not a detox.

D

Detached accessory only allowing on subdividable lots a second dwelling, it could be detached.

B

Attached a full-blown dwelling doesn't matter, you could have that 100 feet, you could have it.

B

Two feet: it's whatever you want, but we're not having the accessory portion any longer. That's.

B

Detached that's what I'm understanding! So that's exactly how so, basically, no change yes to the.

D

Current to the current right, yeah, that's yes, it's pretty clear, you'll be quizzed on this later. Don't.

E

The way it is that weaver, that's what we're looking for. You happy.

E

He looks happy as well as I can understand, there's a lot. There is, I think, some significant pressure.

A

Out in the world now whether you want to bow to that pressure or not, it's totally your decision.

A

For detached accessory dwelling units without on properties that don't have subdivision rights.

A

There there is, you know that you alluded to it, commissioner, weaver, when you said you know.

A

Smaller homes, for you know, elderly or new kids, starting out things like that, affordable housing.

G

This gives that that family that opportunity to um to do that, it makes it more flexible.

H

As long as they can't divide them off in the future, they're still part of that home right.

B

That was that's right, that's the way is, I believe, is written currently and or the new revised.

K

And I think the just calling something a secondary dwelling unit and making that a use and definition.

K

Allows for what chris is asking and pretty much use the definition of what we have now.

K

For detached accessory dwellings, that is the secondary dwelling that you're allowed to have.

K

A secondary dwelling on a property as loud as long as you're allowed to have subdivision potential.

B

And on three acres or greater correct because of septic? Yes, so if I could suggest this is a very.

F

Convoluted topic to understand, maybe what we can do is table it until the next time we get together.

F

And we could produce some exhibits that illustrate kind of the different scenarios, so we have done.

B

That, chris, to be honest, we've done that multiple times work session, planning, commission and here.

B

And that's how we got to where this proposal is now so now. I feel like we're going back.

B

To the very beginning of when we started these discussions and rehashing it so I appreciate that.

B

But I think we just need to move forward at this point and you're dealing with slow learners here.

A

So, for example, mr frazier you've been to my house: yes, okay, so you know about that. My back garage.

A

Right yep accessory drilling, you have there yeah, it is not I mean I couldn't and I couldn't make it.

A

One because I don't have subdivision a potential and it's not considered. Even though there's a.

A

Breezeway, it's not considered attached, so um I couldn't convert that garage into a dwelling unit.

A

As the code stands currently, but if this were to pass as it's written, the proposal is, I could.

A

Convert that garage into a um unit just that's sort of the idea gotcha, so it would be close.

A

To the house like that, um but not attached like those ones down them, the top left is what we're.

D

Talking about being a detached, it has to be so much smaller. It has to be no more than 50 feet.

D

You even have to have the three acres even to attempt it, because you need the septic.

D

um Yeah, so I still might not be able to do it because I don't have three things, but the.

D

Concept, it's just and you're in the residential and we're only talking about the egg right.

J

One thing also about this whole issue is currently in the county. There are a lot of accessory.

J

Detached dwellings already existing on a property that cannot be subdivided because people take a.

J

Garage or an outbuilding, they convert it into an apartment without any permits or anything without.

J

Any approvals- and it's born a lot that cannot be subdivided and it's detached from the house. It's.

J

Above the garage or something like that, so in a way this will also take care of that situation.

J

That those illegal apartments that are out there now would become legal, and it might encourage.

A

People to do things with permits for stuff that they, you know, rather than skirting those goals.

A

Just a thought, I think the way you went through this originally and in your work sessions you.

H

Had it hammered out pretty well, I mean the way we need to pursue and you're right. We don't need to.

H

Go back to this point, but I think you know through the work sessions I happen to attend and it was.

H

Put together very well, thank you. Thank you. So the proposal is to really and uh correct me if.

B

I'm wrong jay, definitely add one that's separate from and actually add two because if the garage.

B

Isn't attached to livable space? That would also be considered a detached as well, so the top.

B

Top left so the left top left, detach and attached above a garage. The proposal is to allow those only.

B

In the egg zone, yes correct only in the ag zone on on three acres, no more than 50 feet from the main.

D

Dwelling and no more than one thousand square feet and two bedrooms: okay and conservation.

D

And conservation- yes- and this can be quite timely too- with their aging.

I

Population, because I think you don't see more elderly parents wanting to live closer kids.

I

E

I

Dennis is happy, I'm okay with it. That's that's good. Okay,.

F

Sorry at the beginning, linda said that this is going to be an hour and I took the over so.

B

I had a five-minute spread.

B

B

We'll go for it as it's proposed currently on the website, then that'll, okay, okay, okay, thank you.

B

Anything else from the initial before we get into the um uh remaining portions, not.

B

Agreements remaining portions, anything with the text that's been presented and again. This reflects.

B

All of our discussions, all of your comments, all of the changes you wanted to see um in the code so is.

B

There anything specific that you can recall here was there anything else that we needed to come.

B

Back on not really the most significant thing that you made a change in the last three work sessions.

D

Was your lengthy discussion on daycare schools and religious establishments and agreeing in the use.

D

Table yeah and the use table that they should be conditional in the actual district. So that's been.

D

Changed a lot of smaller things, with definitions of garden, center purpose of conservation, district.

D

There's a couple numbering issues and clarifying about contractors, equipment, storage, size limits.

D

Things like that, but those are all reflected in there and have been on the website this week.

B

So is there any further discussion you'd like to have on this part before moving on.

B

Okay, all right, so um the last item then, um for your consideration is uh chapter 155.

B

Regarding, oh yeah, I'm sorry you'd like it. Yes, please! Yes, um the subdivision in the ag zone for.

B

um The remaining portion and what to do what to do with those, and so we came up with a proposal.

B

We looked at multiple jurisdictions to see how they handle the remaining portion of ag land after.

B

The subdivision of residential rights have been.

B

Used, so that's what we're talking about that that remaining part of the ag land.

B

And some it really does vary. I think frederick is most close to what we do.

B

But other jurisdictions, they call them residual parcels, some extinguish them all together. Just.

B

There's nothing else once the residential, unless it's an ag use gone frederick is like us where.

B

They have correct me if I'm wrong married the other types of rights, some restrictions we had.

B

A really hard time- and I put a survey out to make a understanding um what did they even do with that.

B

Because it's not really cut and dry and clear, I know some jurisdictions are doing what chris.

B

Is proposing purchasing those remaining commercial rights off of that off of that property at a lower.

B

Value than when you had full blown rates of residential and commercial, so what we thought.

B

Would be a good proposal, for you all to consider is on page two of what mary just handed out.

B

Was limiting the number of subdivisions off of that for non-agricultural.

B

And for commercial purposes! So if you look at four further the development.

B

Of remaining portion for the purpose other than agriculture, as allowed in 158.07101.

B

Be limited limited, as shown in the chart below.

B

For purposes of this subsection: a: u shall be considered a single building, as defined.

B

In 158 or an area for use of outdoor uses, so what that means is going back to that.

B

One example: we had with the assisted living where they broke it down into five buildings.

B

This would even limit that by building to be three buildings depending on the acreage, it was.

B

68 or greater than 40, you could have up to three on that so zero to 20. You get one additional use.

B

um 20 to 40, you get two and then anything greater than 40, it's three, so you can find 100 acres.

B

You still would only get three additional bites at that apple for something unagriculturally related.

B

This is an addition to their original subdivision or whatever came out. Yes exactly. This is on the.

B

Remaining portion only yeah, so they've already had the residential rights right. The residential.

H

Rights are for this now you're, giving them up to four more users. Now they're, unlimited well.

H

Yeah we're giving them currently they're unlimited as the law stands now, if I had a remaining portion.

A

That was large enough. I could have a church, a daycare, a school. We have some of those yeah.

A

Yeah yeah, um I could create my own little city and if I had enough land and enough septic and.

A

Good stuff, like that what's being proposed, is that it would be limited based on lot size.

I

Windham bill and the preponderance two of what we have in the ag zone tends to be.

B

Under 60 acres, so it would be self-limiting anyway, but this would also limit the unintended.

B

Consequence for those larger properties to have three four, five: six, seven, eight different types of.

B

We haven't seen that yet, but it gets to what you were. Your concern was, commissioner wheat. It's only.

H

Outside the growth areas, it's all over growth or no growth. This is both of them. Yes, we're applying.

B

It evenly across you did see that there's not well. We have this map that shows what is in this world.

D

So it's limited um limited to the western part of the freedom area and a little bit outside.

B

Of tawny town who really cares about those two areas? Just kidding commission rancid's in here.

H

Actually, in the growth areas that probably should be increased outside of the growth area should.

H

Be decreased. Well, it's unlimited now just looking at this, the growth areas where we want the growth.

H

uh It's designed, so you should almost increase the densities there and knock it down or decrease it.

H

In the other areas does that make sense, but when you say density, this is just for non-residential.

D

Uses, I think what linda talked about last time is: if you wanted to increase the residential.

D

Densities in the growth area, for both of them, it goes the same way in it. You increase it on the.

H

Growth areas and you decrease it, some on the uh remain with these remainders in the outlying areas.

B

So we can't do anything about residential density with this right, because it's ag zoned land, the.

B

Only way, one in 20 right and they've used up their well or used up. They've used the rights up.

B

Already um so now complicating this whole factor, even if we were to rezone the properties that are.

B

In the growth area, let's say you want to give them additional residential density, a remaining portion.

B

Is very much defined as what it is. It's the remaining portion of the agricultural zoned land.

B

If you wanted to give them more residential density for simple terms of putting it, you.

B

Would have to re-zone that property it would be allowed in the growth area, but here's what I'm.

B

Saying? Yes? And no? Because we are constrained by maryland law with septic tier legislation,.

B

So this gets really complex. This is not an easy subject, so.

B

Anything that has been subdivided after 2012 can no longer if they've used their 7, whether it's.

B

R20 or ag if they've used 7 lots, they're done it doesn't matter. I could rezone that property to r40.

B

And they still couldn't get any residential density because of the septic tears law. It says.

B

Only seven rights so anything that took their residential subdivision density prior to that.

B

And now it's an ag remaining portion potentially could get seven more, but that would really be up.

B

To how the health department interprets it, and we have not really actually, I heard I.

K

Got a response back yesterday from the health department late afternoon, where they actually.

K

Deferred me to the maryland department of planning. Yes, so the department of planning them would make.

B

That, because this is this is the law, this is the law of the land and we don't have adopted tears in.

B

The county, so I would say that this is an issue for the next master plan. If the next board of.

B

County commissioners, as part of that master plan process, because that has to happen, you have to.

B

Have tiers adopted into your comprehensive plan once to look at tiers, which are tier one, is all.

B

Your water and sewer areas, tier two, is all your potential water and it's really sewer sewer areas.

B

Tier three are areas that have been designated for well and septic development.

B

That has additional scrutiny for major subdivision. So that means, if you want over seven when that.

B

Subdivision comes in much like we do now through our development review process, but instead of just.

B

Public comment: you would have to hold a public hearing and then those subdivisions would be.

B

Approved after that, and then tier four is your no water, no sewer, no beyond no major subdivision.

B

Area and the towns of all adopted in carroll, just fyi, but most of them are it's one or two.

B

Yeah doesn't tears, increase density or for the county for housing. um If you adopt three? Yes, it.

B

Could it could and what the state accepts yeah and because I see tiers other areas where they yeah.

C

So why don't we set the stage for the incoming board in preparation for the next master plan.

C

To do what we want and not just wait for the next board of commissioners or the next master plan.

C

You're right, it is a complex problem, but you know I don't believe in waiting.

C

To create a potential solution- and you know if you understand the intent of what I think.

C

We're getting to, and that is allowing growth appropriately in the designated growth areas.

C

Where these aggregators are and there's not that many.

C

And then look at the rest of the county where the ag remainders lie, um I mean and what is.

B

The suggestion to move forward in what way then, to set the table, I'm just trying to understand.

B

To create situations where the ag remainders can designate growth areas can grow or allow.

C

For more residential growth, but then it would not be a remaining portion.

B

Okay, so that's what I'm suggesting so what okay! So in order to develop anywhere in maryland, you.

B

Have to be the planning commission has to find development consistent with the master plan.

B

So, even if we re-zone- let's just say all of the properties and freedom that are remaining portions.

B

To our r40, they come in with an r40 subdivision plan. Tears are no tiers. The the plan says they're.

B

Agland then developing them at a residential density would not be consistent with the master.

B

Plan and if someone wanted to challenge that decision, they could definitely challenge that.

B

Development decision- and that would be the onus on the county too, it would go to court. I mean it.

B

Would go through the process so to avoid that what you would have to do is essentially open up either.

B

The freedom plan, if that's the intent and have that focus to amend that part of the freedom plan.

B

And then still get beyond the tears issue and adopt to the tears in order to have that happen.

B

So why not do that? That's my my point: is you know if we would be a vote by you all then.

C

If we see an opportunity that makes sense to grow further in the designated growth areas- and here.

C

Is an approach, then? Why not do that? We may not get to a final solution, but we may have enough.

C

Preparation for the next board of commissioners to then come up with a solution I mean I I I just.

C

Don't understand why wait you know and that's that's up to this body here so for you all staff.

B

Will do what we're guided to do? I'm just telling you the process, so, oh, no, I get that and you're.

C

Right, it is complex and there's a lot of different players that are engaged in this. You know.

C

To come up with a viable solution, it's a, but it's a separate process from this well could I.

C

Understand it yeah yeah, I don't know, I got it, but but this is the catalyst for us to get to starting.

C

To looking at this, you know it's not to be so reluctant to open something, but it's in it's in a.

C

You know again in preparation to go into the next step um along those lines.

H

Could you keep conditional uses in the growth area and restricted uses everywhere else.

D

Same zoning where's jim with the ag zoning yeah, they both have the same zoning. I'm not sure that's.

H

Kind of in, if I was our master plan, 14 master plan is what we intended. I I think as far as.

B

I I would want to speak, I'm thinking no well, and that goes back to the uh week of whenever we had.

C

To alaska, this was last week when we started talking about conditional use and we were.

C

Really saying conditional use is yes, and it just has to go through these these wickets. You know.

C

Conditional use in this case shouldn't just be yes, you know it should have really conditional like.

C

The answer may be: no, you know going through these process, but it's understood that it's it's yes and.

C

If we, so, I guess to commissioner weaver- I guess one thing now we're talking two different things.

B

Here we're talking the residential component, which I think, commissioner ross and you wanted to see.

B

These also go to residential and then there's the whole issue with the commercial component. So.

B

Let's keep the two separate because I think that's where the tears thing.

B

Comes into play is really with the residential component, except that I believe ag remainders.

C

Should be looked at differently from in designated growth areas, the top side doesn't equal. The areas.

C

I think 100 growth areas should be looked at with their intent. Well then, the I think the point then.

A

Is then open up the freedom plan and change the zoning on those remaining portions and adopt tears.

A

And then then folks can um have another bite at the apple of them. The other day.

C

Actually, they're the towns, it's their business, correct. Okay! Can we do that in what time frame.

B

At a minimum: yes because and so yeah right, no, but that's right, it would be the next board absolutely.

C

But if we set the stage in preparation to do that, I think that's a really.

C

Smart idea, I have to agree, it would be, it would be prepping to the next master plan as well. I mean.

B

So can I offer suggestion, can we meet about this topic at a separate agenda time to keep these two.

I

Items right because this is a totally separate thing um and I think it might be some different.

B

Considerations um and timing and other things that we're working on I just want to bring.

B

To your attention, the the timeline for future items coming up, so yes, I totally appreciate that.

B

And want to give it our full attention, but I don't want that to get mixed in with what.

B

We're currently trying to do right now with the ag and conservation with the ad in conservation. We.

H

I think what we're trying to do is if I got right limit the out the growth in the outlying.

H

Ag districts and increase it in the other areas. What do we have to open up the master.

H

Plan to do that also the freedom plan, just the freedom plan well at least, because because then.

H

We have to open up the 14 master plan, maybe because well we're doing them. We're redoing.

A

Starting to redo the math, which will include the freedom area, I mean there's a hope. I don't want.

B

To get ahead, but we we've got a lot of stuff already happening with the future master plan.

C

But I think it's okay get ahead, you know and yeah you're, not you're, not convoluting.

C

This you're, really not it really is you know, one action has impact on on another action.

C

They're, not you know in silos, and I appreciate that that that's what you're doing.

C

So we're looking at something and it's creating us to now look at the freedom plan and the master.

C

Plan in I'll say another way, but maybe in a more expanded way. So I I don't want to say: do this.

C

Finish this and then do that, because it all has to be done simultaneously.

A

So, as linda said, if she could come back with a whole, there's there's a whole, it's getting her.

A

Evil plan for the master plan, she's all ruled the world. It's a whole scheduled, you know laid out and.

A

Organized as to where um that's going and and it will include the freedom plan.

A

So you know in a sense right, if we could talk about that yeah, I think so because also and not to.

B

Make this issue even more complex chris is working on the water resources element.

B

Which would fold into tears? Because we got to know where we have.

B

Water to supply the tier 3 areas just to make sure why are we talking about tears yet.

H

It's not because, if you're going to impact development, more than seven lots.

A

On these remaining portions, they could do seven lots tomorrow. If you just change the the zoning.

A

But if you're going to be looking for a higher density than that, the board has to adopt tears. Ooh.

H

That's so there's a whole different exactly and it's a comprehensive plan. Maybe.

B

And it would be more than the freedom plan have to be the master plan, because we have to adopt.

B

Tears into the county-wide master plan and the freedom plan, and it's we would have to give very.

B

Thoughtful consideration to what, basically, what we're asking for is where's our sprawl.

B

Zone where's, our tier three where's, our major subdivision gonna happen outside of infrastructure.

B

That's really the the answer to the question and where are you going to put those- and it is a.

B

Very large undertaking and very time consuming so that if we certainly want to go down that road.

B

We are happy to do, however, we're guided, but that would be the first step to even make any.

B

Meaningful impact on the um remaining portion of remaining portions within the growth area unless.

B

By some miracle of miracles, we had so much infrastructure that we could supply water.

B

And sewer and then that's an automatic and and we don't so we are going to be relying on wall.

B

And septic development for these communities- I'm asking, I guess a stupid question here, but.

H

How does baltimore county divide their lower portion in the northern portion.

B

They have infrastructure 100 within the urban rural demarcation line. Everything outside is.

B

Subject to the same thing that you all have the tears and they've adopted tears, I'm pretty sure.

H

Yeah even limited development in the northern portion, I mean it's extremely one per 50, one.

H

Per 50, okay that and then they have some other little nuances in there. But generally speaking,.

H

It's one per 50: is there rc2 resource conservation too, which makes sense here in the outside outlying.

H

Areas and here again leave the higher density in the growth areas which they have done. But.

H

Again, but their growth areas have well and water and sewers, they have water and silver.

H

But here again that could be in the next freedom plan with water and sewer. If it comes no.

H

Well, yeah, I mean that's, I don't know I'm not even looking at that part, I'm just looking at. I do.

H

Like more than 50., that was a great idea. You know, because we are we're talking about one growth area.

C

In the county that we're focused on and setting the stage for that, one on how certain areas have.

C

Been defined, you know, should they be redefined if they are to be redefined, how can they be supported.

C

Or resourced absolutely so exactly or you know with warner, let's leave it at that and.

C

If it is in conjunction with the master plan, which it will be just by timing, you know but keep in.

H

Mind that's going to drive the budget in those out years too, if we put it in the master plan.

A

What trying to put water and sewer out there yeah we're never going to get there. We start.

H

Committing to it, we can be held accountable. You cannot afford to put water and sewer out.

A

To these remaining portions, where they exist now, there's no way you can go from where it exists. Now.

C

You're talking miles away, I know, but if you're a developer in those areas and all of a sudden.

H

We start in the master plan with it they can come back and hey you put it in the master plan. Here we.

C

No, I mean, unless we automatically said piney is now used as a reservoir and.

C

That's a whole different story and I'm not saying that please don't I don't want to.

C

It's on the same track is you know again because I appreciate it, but I'm definitely not saying.

C

Is uh I think I heard you say that we need to focus on the freedom and the master plan.

C

We need to initiate that now, while this board of fishers believes it is the right path to go.

C

To set the stage for you and guidelines for the next word, commissioner, to start making decisions.

C

Because, like you said it's going to take that much time, you're right, it's not.

C

For much of a further discussion this afternoon, but it's getting us to think about what also.

C

Needs to be put into the disney growth heritage did frederick county adopt tears? Yes, oh no. They.

H

Got such a mess I wouldn't want to touch it. Sorry, are you gonna do is ride through the county that.

H

Has created, frederick county has created such a mess in that county, and I was wondering why.

H

Tears are the reason, and I can't say why I don't know if they're growing, the densities.

B

That they're growing at are on water and sewer. Though I will tell you that, because even with.

B

Tears, you can't have two units in acres, so what they're developing is yeah they're infrastructure.

B

Within the confines of their infrastructure, so I don't want to comment on how they've done things.

B

But it's definitely infrastructure driven for them. Okay, so getting back to this yeah.

C

What needs to be decided on today so tabling the residential portion.

B

Do you want to put limits on how many uses can be developed on your remaining portions.

B

That's that's the question right. I we talked about that last time and I thought we said that we did.

E

Want to put limits on it, and I like the suggestion that that you have right here for number four.

E

Except for yeah, four, which one does so page, two number four at the top at the top yellow.

D

Highlighted, yellow, yellow highlighter and chris has also suggested that we tighten it up by saying.

D

That you can't further subdivide the remainder for these uses, because technically you probably could.

D

So we'll have to put that right here I mean we can tighten up the length right if you could subdivide.

E

It then you could get another three pieces. Oh yeah, exactly. However, I don't know that you'd want to.

F

Globally say you can't further subdivide that remaining portion, because if you have say you can.

F

Put two uses: you've got the acreage to put two uses. There may be a desire to put those on two.

F

Separate parcels, but we could say beyond what's permitted and the tables are wrong. It's just a.

D

Language thing, but I wanted to point out that if this goes to public hearing with this language,.

D

In it might look a little bit different after we were done, division there, what a church in a school.

C

um Is that one facility a parochial school within a church they look that different. It's a school.

J

Or a church now they can be combined yeah, but it's two years they are combined. You can't buy this for.

J

A church or one thing requirements for a school or different size. Well, what I'm saying is for between.

C

Zero and 20 acres- you can have one usage, so you're saying it can either be a church or a school.

C

But if it's a church, school combination which a lot of them are these days, you know well, I believe.

H

They are tax-exempt right, schools and churches. Oh so they have don't help our tax base, but they.

H

Increase our costs, um but this would preclude that that would preclude that unless, unless you had 40.

F

um 20 to 40 acres right, then you can have two uses correct or unless one is considered an accessory.

D

Use because the way this is written, it's just referring to the principle using if it's attached.

C

If the church is considered.

J

A school could be considered an accessory to the church, religious education and everything.

J

So it could like say it could be a combination, school church or it could be a school or church.

J

It just depends on what they're doing- and this says specifically one principal use, because it's.

D

Referring to 07 right right, so getting back to the original plan here, their focus is ag.

H

Remainders, which the principal used should be an agricultural entity which is stated here and we're.

H

Talking about other uses, I would like to limit that to one use, no matter what size it is out here.

H

Outside of the ag use, so it puts the primary focus on agriculture and anything else. They.

H

Would have whether it's one or 40 acres, they have one other principle for permitted use.

H

And that way it eliminates uh golf, a town being built out in a residential area.

A

You don't want wyndhamville there yeah! Well, what I don't know. What's that what we have outside of.

H

Westminster the issues, the music and all the others, and that was whether you keep taking.

H

An ag remainder breaking it down, breaking down, breaking it down all these other uses and and that.

H

Causes a lot of issues with the bza when they get all these things combined. I'd like to limit just.

H

To one use outside of that well, this is this right. Now it's unlimited uses this limit. Is it a great.

H

Deal, I think, let's limit it down to one outside. They still have an agricultural use which could be.

E

A brewery could be two or three things, but then you have one other right size of anchorage.

C

Regardless of the size, regardless of the size, because they already had their bite at the.

H

Five once now, they're getting the second or maybe third, if they get what agriculture used to get the.

H

Second, this would be the third use of it. How many properties are there out there right now that have.

B

Multiple uses within like a 40 acres- oh that's, really hard to determine because the.

B

Parent-Child relationship's hard to to know I mean there's, there's like 1100 remaining portions out.

E

How many of them are over 20 acres? We don't even have to know about the other relationships.

B

I mean there's a thousand seventeen remaining portions. um I mean right now again I'll go back to.

B

We're looking at potentially avoiding something, but we don't really have an issue now.

C

What I'm saying is, like commissioner, frazier shared, how many are either.

C

Larger than 20 or even larger than 40, and and are they being are there like three or three or more.

C

Uses uses on more than 40 acres. If there's not we're not talking about a a huge problem here,.

C

That there aren't very much they're only if you can scroll back over. It's.

B

What I was saying too and mary's going to go, get the numbers for you. um I apologize for.

B

Not bringing it but most most of what we have in remaining portions would be three or less anyway,.

B

Right, yeah they're only 16 in total right, yeah they're only 16.. Currently, I'm saying for the.

B

Future though, the majority of them would only be limited to three, regardless of this, or because.

B

We don't have, we don't have the acre look, there's just not a lot of acreage of whole properties, so.

C

It doesn't so you're going to get your what you're saying it: it's not it's! Self-Limiting anyway,.

H

Right yeah, it's probably not going to be hard, but just put it down, so it is one yeah and they.

H

Because they still have their, they took their original use. They have got that out of it. They.

H

Have agricultural use they can go back now they can go with one additional use. That's three at.

H

Least three different options they have to on this remaining portion. So if I could ask a question.

B

Because I I'm not quite well versed in this, and maybe commissioner you're the best to answer.

B

This I'm a farmer I'm going for a loan. My loan collateral is based on the value of my property.

B

My property values based on what's allowed there even beyond agriculture, would this diminish that.

B

Property value and make it harder for them to get the three hundred thousand dollar loan for a new.

B

Combine or other things that they would need whether they intend to develop it or not. It's.

B

About eight hundred thousand today, okay, well, then, that's even more money that they would need to.

B

Have collateral up against so with that with that would limiting these uses so much of what they can.

B

Do devalue their property so as to lending now be more challenging for them, because.

B

They don't have the value in their property that they would have put up against collateral.

H

They shouldn't be given a loan anyway, it's not going to work. I'm sorry and I don't.

F

Know, but going along with what you're saying, though, there's also the potentially unattended.

F

Consequence related to the ag preservation program so, like we've talked about, is that.

F

Where we've revised the program, we're accepting remaining portions for application right, the.

F

Value of that, easement that we would purchase is based on the value of the property and right now.

F

We're looking at you don't have any residential potential, but you'd have currently unlimited.

F

Commercial as allowed right, if we limit that down to one the value of that property comes down.

F

Even more and the amount of money that could be given to them for that preservation.

H

But our property values, especially agricultural property values, have about doubled in the last two.

H

Years from where they were, and presently around, 20 000 an acre they're getting up in that area.

H

It's just open agricultural ground and we're talking only remainders here so you're not talking.

H

That much money anyway, uh there's I mean if it's a 25-acre remainder you're, not going to be that and.

H

They're not going to buy an 800 000. I don't know that's why. So what I'm looking at is trying to.

H

Keep those conditional uh uses in the one area and just limit these out here to one.

H

And because they already have the other use and they could go into preservation, I think there's.

H

Jp's working on a program to allow that to happen, so that would be.

H

The residential difference here they get that money back so you're not really.

H

Taking anything away from them, they have other ways to recoup that, to balance out that.

H

Money, whether it's the residential value or the, as well as land value and even in ag press.

H

That lands worth just as much in preservation as it was without it.

H

And um well see that's the point, though, is that the preservation, the purpose of preservation, is.

F

To offset the development potential, if we eliminate the development potential.

B

The amount of money that we would pay to put into preservation is going to decrease, but the.

H

Idea here was that we did have remainders that they were to be the original preservation, they've.

H

Already taken their development off, the remainder was to be a natural present uh preservation.

H

Now we're giving that natural preservation- all these other uses, and we defeat our own purpose and.

J

Why there they already have those other uses, we're not taking them away from them. There's remaining.

J

Portions right now already have those extra uses on the property we're not giving them one or two.

J

They're there already it's just we're trying to limit the number on yeah and that's what we have.

H

To thank you because they still have a chance now to go back into the present preservation program.

H

So we're not limiting them 100 on this. Thanks for mentioning jp because he's being very much.

I

Challenged with the limited amount of acreage we have left and he has to be even more creative to.

I

Obtain that goal, 22 000 acres, looks like it's 23, 9 24 000 on here. Commissioner, thank you. Thank you.

A

So the vast majority are nine acres or less yep. You wouldn't even get one under our. You would get one.

B

Under our scenario, so that's you know what we've been talking about and then very few are between.

B

um 10 and 40. even and then equal for the 40 and above it puts it in perspective. So I guess my.

B

Question is: what problem are we trying to solve, with restricting restricting it so much more.

B

But it's self-limited, so I don't think there's much.

C

Commercial weaver, you you do you you're, trying to to limit it to one and like linda said, I guess.

C

The right way would be self-correcting. It self-limiting, it's already there, without even.

C

Putting the rule in place, because there's only so much property that is 40 and above.

H

So we have what a 200 properties over 40 acres.

B

Yeah something like that yeah, it looks like it. Okay, so that's 200 properties that would get three.

H

Just that would be enough to make significant impact in the ag press here so anyway,.

H

What I'd like to see is that he'll hold the point on that at this point, and you know you get you.

H

Already keep in mind you already sold your lots. You've made your money now. You've keep coming.

H

Back and long as we allow it, our zoning is going to continue to widow with this ground with other.

H

Things and we're limited: where do we want? What do we want the county to look like in 50 years.

E

This is limiting it, though this is limiting right now, it's unlimited. This will cut it down. It won't.

E

Cut it down to one, but this will cut it down, we'll cut it down to one and then go from there.

C

So so why not cut it down to one? If, if the intent of adding remainders is like you said,.

C

To have played an apple and that's it yeah, because if we still want to maintain our goal.

C

Of getting to a hundred thousand acres, you still got three bites here: we're not going to get there.

C

I mean we're just not I mean and yeah go ahead. Well I was just gonna say um I would submit, though.

F

Looking from a property owner perspective that their apple, that they're taking bites from was.

F

I can have my seven lot subdivision and then another parcel for a community amenity of some.

F

Sort like a church and so on, so that's kind of their total apple. So it's not like they. They took.

H

The bite and then they're done and then they can still go with the ag press with rust.

F

That's always an option. Yes yeah, so I mean here's one, two, three bites of the apple, which is that's.

H

Significant, I would think yeah anybody would like to have three chances before they're out.

H

But uh I would think that would be more than fair, I think, to most people property rights, everything.

H

Falls into there, because what you're also saying you know- and I I agree with you- is that.

C

We have a goal: a very significant goal of getting to 100 000 acres.

C

We're a little over three quarters away there in order for us to come close to achieving that goal.

C

We have to have as much opportunities possible while we're still giving.

C

Property owners, their rights, and this would do both of that if we give them.

C

More rights, by going even up to three, it's lessening the opportunities to preserve.

C

Agriculture, but we're not giving them more rights, you're, actually restricting the rights that they.

E

Have right now, yes, yeah! So let's restrict it to okay! I I just want to make that clear. Okay,.

C

We're not giving them more we're taking away, but you want to take it down to one and then I.

E

Okay, just yeah: okay, okay yeah, you, okay with that, not really! But if you guys wouldn't do that, I mean.

E

I I see your point completely, thank you and that's a big step so for you, I I like what's on here.

E

Because there aren't that many that you could give two or three too you just look at they're.

E

Just yeah yeah, that makes sense. I understand what you're saying it makes significant.

H

Difference throughout the county, when you start looking at 200 or whatever number of properties.

H

500, never how it comes out. That's a that's a lot when you spread that out. That starts making a big.

H

Difference, traffic, everything else, that's a good question, so would they become non-conforming so.

D

Here's a question: um if you do this in a remainder already has five uses on it.

D

Would those uses become non-conforming, that's correct, okay and chris. Does this have any impact.

B

On the community, solar, or would this still be no- that would have to be allowed on them.

J

So community solar, that would be the one use they would have, though yeah okay, it's community, solar.

H

It has to go into preservation and the rest of it, so that is their use, except for when they.

J

Remember that's a one use yeah after 20 years: okay, when they removed it yeah in 20 years in 20 years,.

J

Then that area that was solar that would have would, with one use one by this charge, 20 acres,.

G

No yeah I like that christmas will be here. um You know you could skip four years and come.

I

Back so they want you so limiting it to one use outside the bag regardless of size. Second,.

C

I mean we're not voting on anything but we're kind of giving guidelines to move ahead right.

C

So put it down here see what the public hearing has to say about it. That's a good.

I

Point: okay, nothing's etched in stone. Yet right we do need feedback from the public.

B

Okay, so we will do that. That was the last item. um I just went four minutes over my.

B

Time spread, oh, I know chrissy totally did this and I really owe you lunch all right. I got you.

B

All right, um so just a few next steps. Well, one thing I'd like to ask is: we would like to.

B

Request to go to public hearing and we'd like to request that for september 22nd, do we need a vote.

G

Don't need to say that, but you should have a vote to go to.

I

What motion to go to public hearing yeah? A second motion go to public hearing.

F

If I could just interject one thing, um all right are you setting injections? I'm sorry, I can wait.

F

When the public hearing can occur, is driven in part by the county attorney and their ability to.

F

Get ads in the paper and all of that, so I there may not be enough time for sure for that date.

F

So we're not we're not talking about the date. All we're doing is the questions going off of the date.

F

That's right no, but but, and- and I would like to request september 22nd- if we can, we, of course we.

B

Have plenty of time we've already okay. Thank you. I appreciate that, but we've already gotten the time.

B

And yeah: let's just go with go to public hearing and then you can work out the details and go from.

C

There right, okay, okay, so I have a motion. I got a second for this to go to public hearing period.

C

All in favor and then our game plan is to have two public hearings, one in person during your.

B

Regularly scheduled work um your business meetings and then a virtual evening meeting like we did.

B

Last time for the residential having a virtual public hearing that worked very well to do that.

B

And that would be covered too. Those that can't come during the day and those that.

B

Don't want to have to travel to westminster and we would have that start at 7 pm at night.

B

Then we've programmed in a follow-up from the public hearing and work session.

B

And then final legislation, so we've we've programmed in two additional work sessions.

B

For any loose ends and then adoption on um after that sounds great, I have a motion to.

C

Adjourn? Okay! Actually, I'm sorry! Oh second! That's the second time he's done this to us.

I

Sorry go ahead. um He wants to earn that lunch that linda's buying exactly.

F

Board has already approved, you know we're going through the chapter. 155 administrative changes.

F

You all have already approved us going to public hearing on that. The county attorney has not set.

F

That date yet um and they're working on that there's the potential that it could be the same.

F

Date as this would that be a positive thing or a negative thing to have both 155 and 158 public.

F

Hearing on the same date, well, you'll also have this 155., so you'll have two 155. you'll, probably.

F

Work together, do it all. I think, that's what I would expect rip the band-aid off.

C

Again, that's what I would expect and I think that would come through.

C

Staffing to determined that's the best avenue, but yeah there's no legal issues without it. We've had.

E

More than one public hearing on the same day, yeah, okay, are there more discussions, I'll shut.

I

Up now, are you sure yeah, I'm very positive? Yes, okay, are you done? Yes, because you work for chris.

C

He's a big dog, of course, I've heard I got a motion. I got a second any further discussion.

C

Scene hearing none all in favor, aye, okay, all right! Thank you.

B