Harford News

City of Aberdeen Panning Commission met Oct. 10.

Here is the minutes provided by the commission:

A meeting of the Aberdeen Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m.,

October 10, 2018, in the Council Chambers by Chairman Schlottman.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Mark Schlottman, Commissioners Jim Baxendell, Dominique Edwards, Michael Hiob, Jason Kolligs, Terri Preston, and Amy Snyder

OTHERS PRESENT: Phyllis Grover, Director of Planning &

Community Development

Taylor Whichard, City Engineer

Stefani Spector, Recording Secretary

The minutes of the September 13, 2018, meeting were approved with a change presented by Commissioner Hiob to insert the word “property” before “taxes” under his comments in paragraph three under the “Discussion of amendments to Chapter 235-Development Code.”

AGENDA ITEMS:

1. Review Final Subdivision Plats 1-5 for Eagles Rest, Phase Two

Representative: Dan Spiker, Morris & Ritchie Associates Inc.

Mr. Spiker indicated Eagles Rest Phase Two is an addition to the existing 132 single-family homes located on 59 acres off of Aldino-Stepney Road. Phase Two is 58 single-family dwellings on 30 acres with a density of 1.93 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Spiker indicated Eagles Rest Phase Two is zoned IBD and the use for the property is R-3. The typical lot size is 125 feet by 60 feet with a front yard setback of 25 feet. The development is an extension of Falcon Lane from Eagles Rest Phase One. The development would tie into an existing water and sewer line that runs the length of the property and currently serves Eagles Rest. Stormwater management is provided along the downhill portion of the site as well as environmental site design facilities interspersed throughout. A large portion of the development would be put into a conservation easement due to environmental factors that are located there. Mr. Spiker presented the impact fees of Eagles Rest Phase Two.

Mrs. Grover read into the record the comments from the Aberdeen Department of Planning and Community Development that Final Plats 1-5 require the signature of Susan F. Shae, President of Presbyterian Homes of Maryland Inc.; Final Plat 2 needs an updated note for the 100-year floodplain shown based on FEMA Map dated April 19, 2016 instead of January 7, 2000; and the Forest Conservation Easement in the hash marked area needs to be denoted as non-tidal wetlands. Final Plat 4 also needs the Forest Conservation to be denoted as non-tidal wetlands, as well as Final Plat 5.

Mrs. Grover read into the record the comments of the State Highway Administration (SHA) that they have no objection to Final Plats 1-5, and it is not in any of their rights-of-way.

Mrs. Grover read into the record the notes of the Harford County Health Department that the project has met their conditions of approval.

Mr. Whichard read into the record the comments of the Aberdeen Department of Public Works that for Final Plat 2 between lots 28 and 29, the DPW is still evaluating the width of those easements for the sewer per code; the current depth requires the easement to be greater than 30 feet. A waiver request has been submitted to the City and is still under review. On Final Plat 3, between lots 24 and 25, there was the same issue, and a waiver request has been received by the City, and is still under review. In addition, on Final Plats 1 and 3 the rear of lots 6-14 are in a City easement that abuts to an access road for water and sewer. While there is not anything in the Code to prevent that, the City prefers that not happen. However, MRA has assured the City the lot lines will not encroach upon our water line.

Chairman Schlottman asked Mr. Whichard a question on Plat 2. The stormwater management easement states 10 feet but then it widens out to 30 feet, and wanted to confirm the 10-foot easement between lots 28 and 29 is correct. Mr. Whichard replied that the drainage utility easement that says 30 feet wide is the one in question, but 30 feet is the minimum and it may need to be greater than 30 feet depending on the waiver request. Chairman Schlottman asked Mr. Whichard how much greater; Mr. Whichard replied it could be up to 40 feet.

Mr. Hiob asked if there was a builder for the project at this time. Mr. Spiker replied the builder is Ryan Homes, which is the same builder as Eagles Rest Phase One.

Mr. Schlottman asked what the percentage of occupancy was of Eagles Rest Phase One. Mr. Spiker replied that 96 are currently built and occupied and the other 36 are under construction.

Motion by Mr. Hiob, seconded by Mrs. Snyder, to approve the Final Plats 1-5 for Eagles Rest Phase Two incorporating the comments made by the City staff. Motion passed unanimously.

2. Review of Preliminary Site Plan for the University of Maryland Upper Chesapeake Health to be located at Aberdeen Corporate Park

Representatives: Joseph Snee Jr., Snee, Lutche, Helmlinger & Spielberger; Paul Muddiman, Morris & Ritchie Associates; Ed Anderson, Erdman; and Phil Crocker, University of Maryland Upper Chesapeake.

Mr. Snee said he is representing the University of Maryland Upper Chesapeake (UMUC) Health System. Mr. Snee said this process is part two of UMUC’s due diligence as they look for alternative sites to the Bulle Rock North campus. One of the sites is the Merritt Property located on Maryland Route 22 (MD 22) also known as Aberdeen Corporate Park, which is zoned B-3. Mr. Snee stated a hospital is a principally permitted use in the B-3 District, as well as medical services. He added he was before the Planning Commission in July to ask the Planning Commission to consider two amendments to the Aberdeen Development Code, mainly allowing a helistop in the B-3 District and removing the height restriction for the hospital, and added the Planning Commission as well as the Mayor and Council reported favorably on this request.

Mr. Muddiman presented the site plan indicating the location of the proposed UMUC Medical Facility. Mr. Muddiman went through the previously approved site plan for the Merritt project, approved in 2011 to include three buildings, two of which were three-stories, and one of two- stories, for a total of 254,000 square feet of office space. There were also two additional pad sites suggested, totaling 16,100 square feet. The UMUC Preliminary Site Plan proposal includes a right in/right out off MD 22. The parking lot will be extended and rebuilt in the corner, and retain McHenry Road access. The free-standing medical facility (FMF) will be 125,000 square feet. The highest point of the FMF is 3-stories. The main entrance to the FMF would coincide with the right-in/right-out off of MD 22. To the rear of the FMF is a service area and an access for emergency vehicles. To the top of the emergency access is a helipad, and in the front is a proposed 16,000 square foot, two-story office building. At the service area will be a 12-foot wall along the edge to screen the mechanical area and the service area. As a place holder, the preliminary site plan includes a bed tower, but there are no details on the bed- tower, and Mr. Muddiman indicated they are not seeking approval for the bed tower today. Most of the infrastructure will remain. As a comparison between what was approved in 2011 and what is proposed today, the building area is slightly less than the Merritt property original site plan. The Merritt Plan approved 270,000 square feet total, while the UMUC site plan proposes 235,650 square feet. Parking in the Merritt proposal included 1,067; the UMUC plan includes 1,015. The impervious surface is slightly less, from 12.3 acres to 12.2.

Mr. Anderson said he also evaluated the programmatic spaces for the Bulle Rock Campus and has evaluated the site for the Aberdeen Corporate Park. He said a FMF includes an emergency department, an observation area for patients that need to be evaluated, imaging, lab and pharmacy that supports the emergency department, as well as administrative offices that support the facility. The rendering of the facility included a main entrance which is accessible and visible from the main street. On the second floor, there would be an inpatient behavioral health unit that will have a separate entrance. There is also a connector from the new free- standing medical facility to the existing office building, which would be for staff and patients going to the out-patient behavioral unit, as well as meals brought up from the dietary area on the lower level and brought into the space occupied on the third floor of the current office building. The new buildings will look like the current office building with the same building materials and density to keep it uniform throughout.

Mrs. Grover asked Mr. Muddiman to go into detail about the buffer yard between the properties that adjoin this parcel. Mr. Muddiman stated the depth is 100 feet, and when the Merritt Properties was originally proposed there was additional vegetation planted, and that would be maintained. Mrs. Grover asked if the original vegetation would stay; Mr. Muddiman replied it would, the tress around the perimeter and parking area will remain, and they will add supplemental landscaping along the building edges and in the green space, as well as a little landscaping along Maryland Route 22. They will be presenting a final landscape plan as well as a final signage plan. Mrs. Grover asked Mr. Muddiman if the stormwater management facility in the back is fenced in; Mr. Muddiman replied it is fenced and will remain as is. Mrs. Grover presented the comments from the Aberdeen Department of Planning and Community Development, to wit: break down the property information in note 3 that Lot 1 is 34.94 acres zoned B-3, Lot 2 that fronts West Bel Air Avenue is a little under 17,000 square feet and zoned R-2; on the State Department of Assessments and Taxation website it states the existing office building is 94,361 square feet, but everything refers to it as 95,000 square feet, so that needs to be clarified; the development code requires 10 percent of the parking areas be landscaped, so note 22 needs to be corrected to reflect that; signatures for Merritt and the contract purchaser are needed. The noise study was reviewed by the Department of Planning and Community Development and the Department of Public Works and is acceptable. The trip generation analysis was also acceptable as well and was sent to the Maryland Department of Transportation.

Mr. Whichard read into the record the comments from the Aberdeen Department of Public Works, to wit: they would like to see the possible future bed tower removed from the submitted plans since it is not part of this preliminary site plan; the water and sewer usage be revised to take out the phase two bed tower; DPW would like to see the State Highway access permit for the right in/right out for MD 22; and a water usage letter from the engineer is required.

Mrs. Edwards asked how the ambulance would approach the lot and how they would get into the emergency entrance. Mr. Muddiman replied the ambulance would go to Middelton Road down McHenry Road, and then the emergency access is straight down the back. Ms. Edwards asked if the patients would primarily come in from the MD 22 entrance and parking lot. Mr. Muddiman said they have that option as well as the McHenry Road access point and lot. Ms. Edwards said her concern is more for exiting the hospital, if they are unfamiliar they will leave going out of MD 22, and would make the right, but want to go back up to I-95. Is there consideration to put in a second turn lane? Mr.Muddiman said he can have the traffic engineers take a look, but as far as folks finding their way around the campus, there will be a lot of signage and way-finding to help navigate around the campus.

Ms. Preston said initially the helipad was going to be on top of the building not on the ground. Mr. Muddiman said maybe in some preliminary discussions it was a consideration, but the helipad is on the ground, and in the Bel Air campus, the helipad is on the ground level as well. Ms. Preston wanted to know what they are envisioning as the flow of number of people. Mr. Crocker responded to the questions stating the existing building will have a medical office building component, so as part of that you would think of that as a typical family practice, orthopedic practice as well as imaging component, and on the top would be an outpatient component. In the FMF, there would be the behavioral health component, with the third floor consisting of 42 beds that would be extended stay to consider that a hospital setting. The movement in and out of that area would be diminished and not a regular occurrence. The majority of those patients in that setting are brought in by ambulance, law enforcement, or family member, so it is not a typical walk-in situation. The FMF is a combination of the emergency department and the observation space.

Mr. Baxendell stated it looks like McHenry Road is going to be a way in/way out of the hospital; what are you going to do about traffic getting back onto Middelton Road. It is a nightmare with traffic during lunchtime, is there any consideration for that traffic flow? Mr. Muddiman said they do not plan on having any additional traffic improvements, as their traffic consultant said it does not warrant any additional traffic improvement. Mr. Baxendell said he had a question on the proposed bed tower, asking Mr. Muddiman if he would lose 100 parking spaces, where would those parking spaces come back; Mr. Muddiman replied they would either build a structure below the bed tower or separate parking structure in the parking lot.

Mrs. Snyder asked if someone came to the FMF and they needed to be transferred to inpatient care, how would they be moved by ambulance to Upper Chesapeake in Bel Air, or how would that happen. Mr. Crocker replied someone presents to the FMF and in 48 hours it is determined they need to be relocated to a different facility, depending on where the patient is moved determines the mode of transportation.

Mr. Hiob said looking at the traffic from the original proposal from Merritt Corporate Park to the one proposed today, the total traffic proposed is slightly less from daily trips than the one that was approved in 2011, and is a better proposal than the one previously in regards to traffic. In addition, he asked about the items identified as existing underground recharge pit to be relocated, the one next to 660, but it says number 2, and then you have proposed recharge underground pit number 2 labeled above 660, is that the relocation of it? Mr. Muddiman responded yes, they are both labeled number two and that is the relocation of it. Mr. Hiob commented that there is one labeled number 2 below. Mr. Muddiman said that is incorrect, it should be labeled number 1. Mr. Hiob commented on the City data located on the site plan on the right hand side, it is numbered one through fifteen, and continues to the left of that as number 17, and then skips numbers 20 and 21. Mr. Muddiman said that has been corrected.

Mr. Schlottman stated this portion of the meeting is opened to audience commentary, with each speaker given two minutes to comment.

Richard Bruno, 516 Beards Hill Road, asked if Bouzarth Lane will be opened up to the back part of the property? Mr. Schlottman replied he did not believe so, and Mr. Muddiman replied no it’s not, the only additional access we are providing is the right in/ right out of MD-22.

Vicki Lutz at 658 Brenda Lane asked if the psychiatric facility is for both adults and adolescents. Mr. Crocker replied the facility is adult only.

Arthur Koszoru, 424 Doris Circle, asked about the ambulance cost for transporting patients to the Aberdeen Corporate Park facility and then transferring patients to another facility. Mr. Crocker replied they are working on addressing that issue and working with Emergency Services in conjunction with Harford County, but UMUC would typically absorb that cost.

Deborah Leadore, 2418 Old Robin Hood Road, asked if this medical facility is going to replace Harford Memorial’s full-service hospital? Mr. Crocker replied yes, the inpatient beds that exist at Harford Memorial will be moved to Bel Air, and Bel Air will be expanded. The additional services such as imaging, pharmacy, and lab would be at this facility in Aberdeen. Ms. Leadore asked what would happen to the juveniles that are there currently at Harford Memorial? Mr. Crocker replied that the juvenile would be looked at in the Emergency Department (ED) at a special area and then placed in an appropriate adolescent facility elsewhere. Ms. Leadore asked about traffic coming in to Target on Middelton Road during peak hours in the morning and night, stating there is a lot of traffic, and going behind the Target, Ms. Leadore asked if that is where their tractor trailers go for deliveries. Mr. Crocker replied yes, that road right now is used for their unloading. Ms. Leadore asked if there will be improvements to that road to accommodate ambulatory transportation as well as tractor trailers. Mr. Muddiman replied the road is 36 feet and adequate for the traffic coming in and out of the facility. Ms. Leadore said as a vehicle driving back there with tractor trailers it is scary. Mr. Muddiman said they would look into that.

Chris Gabaree, 210 Baltimore Street, said he was concerned about the traffic flow, and wanted to know if the in/out could be moved to the corner where there is an existing intersection with a light. Mr. Muddiman said SHA wants to restrict it to right in/out only, they do not want to encourage any left turn movement. He added that SHA is particular about this location, and wants the right in/out to be where it is proposed currently.

Jamee Lucas, 342 Graceford Drive, commented on the behavioral health unit and the safety of the children. She also stated there are not a lot of trees on the premises, and asked what would happen if someone got out of the hospital. Mr. Crocker replied to the current protocols that have been set up to handle that kind of situation. He indicated the hospital’s security force has radios that connect to State-wide radio systems. There have been few cases of elopement, and Mr. Crocker read into the record the statistics of elopement. Ms. Lucas also questioned what the resale value of the homes immediately surrounding the hospital would be.

Guy Dennison, 651 Brenda Lane, asked if the hospital was full service; Mr. Crocker replied it was not.

Linda Baine at 340 Mount Royal Avenue, asked if patients staying the 48 hours would be classified as observation or in-patient as it relates to insurance purposes. Mr. Crocker replied it would be coded as in-patient.

Bob Hartman, 226 Paradise Road, asked about the resale value, wanted to know if there was going to be a fence around the perimeter of the hospital, what strain the hospital would put on the Aberdeen Police Department, and asked about the noise of the ambulance approaching the residential communities. Mr. Crocker responded the ambulance will turn the siren off coming into the entrances, and as part of a noise study conducted on the helicopter noise, it was determined there was an average of one helicopter flight per day.

Nancy Merritt, 125 Mount Royal Avenue, pointed out there are middle schools behind the property, and if it is late at night the helicopters could be loud. She stated she does not feel it is a worthwhile endeavor at this point.

Steven Lucas, 342 Graceford Drive, stated his property backs up to the hospital and he has young children, being concerned with the noise level of the helicopter. Mr. Crocker stated there is a noise study under Federal Aviation Administration standards, and would like to direct noise questions to that study.

Kimberly Marchman, 431 Woodcrest Drive, wanted to know if the hospital would have pediatrics at this location; Mr. Crocker replied yes. Ms. Marchman asked if there would be specialty equipment at the facility; Mr. Crocker replied he was not sure the exact modality. Ms. Marchman asked how this facility would be different from “doc in the box” places; Mr. Crocker replied the large ED component is much larger and sophisticated than “doc in the box,” and would have a large lab and observation component. She also asked if the doctors would be University of Maryland doctors or doctors from all over, to which Mr. Crocker replied they would be doctors from all over. In addition, she asked if there would be more specialists; Mr. Crocker replied they are looking into more specialists in the area, but at this point he did not know what specialist would be coming into this location. She also asked what the expected completion date would be; Mr. Crocker replied mid-2021. Ms. Marchman was concerned about traffic and asked who would be responsible for choosing the contractor that works on the roads; Mr. Crocker said the right in/right out would be our responsibility and said we would not be interfering with Paradise Road.

Andrew Schwinn, no address, commented on the right in/right out, and the fact people may make illegal U-turns.

Anne Dulik, 610 West Bel Air Avenue, commented on the traffic on Middelton Road. Ms. Dulik asked about how many patients do you anticipate on a daily basis; Mr. Crocker replied they are still evaluating the demographic, however with the 40 units in the behavioral health that mode of transportation is typically by ambulance or family member bringing the individual to the site and leaving.

Scott Paul from Harco Credit Union, 1028 Middelton Road, wanted to know if there was much disruption for local businesses on MD-22. Mr. Crocker said he did not think so, the construction of the building will take place over a year and a half and is intermittent.

Lauren Smith, 600 Locksley Manor Drive, wanted to know if alcohol and drug abuse falls into the behavioral health unit. Mr. Crocker said that is a component of the behavioral health unit but did not have specific patient breakdowns, but yes you would see all three in the behavioral heath unit.

Patrick McGrady, 46 Paradise Road, Mayor of Aberdeen, stated Middelton Road is intended to be built out to Beards Hill Road with a traffic circle, and in the event this hospital is approved, the people who make a right out of the facility would proceed towards Paradise Road where signage would be good, and would be able to proceed to Beards Hill Road to go back toward I- 95. In addition, he commented that he is not speaking for or against the plan, but that he speculates UMUC does not want traffic as the people of Aberdeen do not want traffic and will take steps to resolve it.

Sheryl Schwinn, no address, talked about the comments of Mr. McGrady and bringing traffic to Beards Hill Road, and that there is speeding. Mr. Schlottman said we are not speaking about the proposed traffic circle or speeding, as it is a law enforcement issue.

Randy Robertson, 555 Beards Hill Road, Aberdeen City Manager, asked if there was any indication of how many jobs this would bring to Aberdeen. Mr. Crocker responded that he would be bringing staff from Havre de Grace to Aberdeen and would be over 100, but that is a guess at this time. This number would mature over time, but there is an economic impact study in the process to quantify the amount of extra money spent in Aberdeen.

Debby Pollard, 330 Graceford Drive, asked how long the mental health stays would be, Mr. Crocker responded it would be three to five days to stabilize them. She also asked about outpatient drug addiction treatment, and Mr. Crocker said yes there would be this as well. She also said she would like to see something more than vegetation, and Mr. Crocker said they would consider a fence.

Ms. Preston commented that there were no other considerations for the right in/right out; Mr. Muddiman responded there would not be much of a difference shifting it to either side, and in 2011 with the original plan MD-22 had two lanes, now there are three lanes. They would add a deceleration and acceleration lane at the right in/right out, and the traffic engineer says McHenry Road and MD-22 function at adequate levels. Ms. Preston said she was mostly concerned with the ambulances and not only the increase of congestion but increase of accidents. Mr. Muddiman said this is very similar to the Bel Air campus as they have two access points as well. He said what they could do is stripe McHenry Road because it is wide enough to get a left and right out, to give two outbound lanes and would help with the traffic there.

Motion by Mr. Kolligs, seconded by Mrs. Snyder, to approve the Preliminary Site Plan for University of Maryland Upper Chesapeake Health, incorporating comments from the board. Chairman Schlottman requested a roll call vote; all Planning Commission members voted in favor of the motion.

3. Review of Gilbert Road Annexation Petition

Representatives: Joseph Snee Jr., Snee, Lutche, Helmlinger & Spielberger; Amy Dipietro, Morris & Ritchie Associates (MRA); Gil Horowitz, Sage Custom Homes LLC; Peter Bosworth, Bosworth Properties Inc.

Mr. Snee stated Ms. Dipietro would present the details of the annexation request and the concept plan. Mr. Snee pointed out the Community Informational Meeting (CIM) was held on September 20, 2018, which is the starting point for the annexation process. In accordance with the City’s annexation ordinance, a concept plan must be included in the annexation petition. Mr. Snee advised that Ms. Dipietro and MRA are working on a plan B concept plan for the annexation. In addition, Mr. Snee stated they are open to restrictions or covenants being placed for use on the Adams Property, which would limit density. Mr. Snee stated they would like to concentrate on the annexation itself, that the annexation process is long and is expected to be complete by April. After that process, the developers would then be eligible to submit a development plan for the land and will be in front of the Planning Commission and Mayor and City Council for approvals.

Ms. Dipietro presented the proposed developer for the Adams and Siebert properties, Sage Custom Homes. Ms. Dipietro stated again that the CIM was held on September 20, 2018 where the concept plan for the proposed 75.2-acre annexation was presented. The proposed annexation is a half a mile from Ripken Stadium, half a mile from the HEAT Center, and half a mile from the I-95 interchange. The annexation is two parcels, 830 Gilbert Road, also known as the Adams Property, and 858 Gilbert Road, also known as the Siebert Farm. MRA performed a boundary survey in August of 2018, as well as a preliminary look at wetlands, and identified environmentally sensitive areas on site. The 100-year flood plain of Carsins Run runs through the southern portion of the Siebert Property. Currently the properties are located in Harford County and zoned Agriculture. Ms. Dipietro reiterated what Mr. Snee stated in that this is a potential plan for the annexed land and is not a final plan. The proposed plan shows 49 single- family units, 56 villa units that are first floor master bedroom concepts, 322 luxury class A apartment units in separate buildings, and 28 rental townhomes, bringing a total of 455 units. There is also a proposal for a 6,700 square foot club house with a pool, extensive trail system, pocket parks, a dog park, and play areas. On Gilbert Road, the plan proposes two entrances, one on the south that would go up to the community with a connection to Eagles Rest, and then continued to a less dense use of the villas and single-family homes. There would be a second entrance along Gilbert Road. MRA has been in contact with the City and the City Engineer and have determined there is adequate capacity for water and sewer based off this plan. There is an existing water and sewer main located in the easement and there will be water and sewer available in the road connection once it is complete. Part of the package submitted with the annexation included a potential revenue stream from this project, and is summarized as far as water fees, sewer fees, and annual taxes. The CIM brought a lot of valid concerns regarding traffic, flooding, environmental impacts, existing road conditions, speed of traffic, which will be take into account during final engineering, but Ms. Dipietro wanted to reiterate they were before the Planning Commission to discuss the annexation, not the concept plan.

Mrs. Grover read comments from the Aberdeen Department of Planning and Community Development into the record, to wit: Annexations are governed by the Maryland Annotated Code under the Local Government Article, Section 4-401 and covers all requirements a municipality would have to go through once a petition is submitted by a contract purchaser. There is also a provision in that Local Article about a waiver from the requirements based on the annexation for the density or current land use. Mrs. Grover stated in this case the property is zoned AG and they are proposed to annex the land as IBD, Integrated Business District, which is substantially different. The County’s land use for that area is also AG, so both the zoning and use are AG. The petitioner would have to go to the Harford County Council, and the annexation would also be reviewed by the County staff. Mrs. Grover stated on the supporting documentation provided to the Aberdeen Planning Department for review that there was a marketing study prepared that speaks to the multi-family submarket, and some information has been left out such as recent new home and apartment development in the City, as well reference to the single-family market in Harford County. In addition, there is a discrepancy in the acreage described for the annexation that needs to be clarified. Ms. Dipietro replied that SDAT listed the acreage at approximately 80 acres, however there was a boundary survey performed, and that indicated it was 75.12 acres. Mrs. Grover relayed the comments from Harford County Health Department, stating it was premature for them to comment, but will provide comments if there is a point where a preliminary subdivision plan is being submitted. Harford County Department of Planning and Zoning, Department of Public Works, and Economic Development Department reviewed the annexation. They said the City would have to request the County amend its Master Water and Sewer Plans for this area, which is a standard procedure, as well as the developer would have to apply for a waiver for the land use and density requirements because it is a change of use for the land.

Mr. Whichard stated for the record the comments from the Aberdeen Department of Public Works, citing the City may have the capacity, but there may be an issue with fire flow, and that would be something to work out with the engineers. In addition, the pump station that is currently there would be heavily taxed, and that would be something to figure out with the engineers. Mr. Schlottman asked what the answer would be for the water flow; Mr. Whichard said a water tower. Mr. Schlottman asked who would be responsible for that, to which Mr. Whichard replied that would be something to work out in the agreement, as well as the pumping station.

Mr. Kolligs asked what the timeline would be in regards to the concept plan; Ms. Dipietro stated typically the entitlements process can take, after the annexation, anywhere from one year to 18 months depending on whether SHA is involved, so you are looking at approximately two years before a shovel would be put in the ground. Mr. Kolligs also echoed Mrs. Grover, in that the numbers do not reflect the potential impact of the Residences at Summerlin, or reflecting Eagles Rest Phase II, and based on the financial data in the report, the average price of a single-family home being predicted seems high for what the average home price is in Harford County. In addition, Mr. Kolligs stated that since the annual tax revenue is based off those numbers, he wants to understand how they were arrived at. Ms. Dipietro said she could not speak to the financial portion, but Mr. Horowitz could speak to those numbers. Mr. Horowitz stated one of the components to the concept plan would be the single-family homes and villas would have access to the amenities in the apartment community such as the club house, fitness center, and pool, and he feels that those amenities would make these houses very attractive and would achieve a premium higher than those homes sold in Eagles Rest. Mr. Horowitz stated the average sales price in Eagles Rest is not much less than the $475,000 that are projected for these single- family homes.

Mr. Hiob stated what he is looking at is the two access points onto Gilbert Road which comes down to Long Drive and makes its way to MD-22 at a controlled intersection. An auxiliary would be through Aldino-Stepney Road to Eagles Rest, and that could not take place until the second phase of Eagles Rest, is that correct? Ms. Dipietro said that is correct.

Mrs. Snyder commented that Mrs. Grover said they would have to get a waiver due to the land use differential and asked what would happen if Harford County said no to the waiver; Mrs. Grover said Mr. Snee should speak to that. Mr. Snee stated there is a five-year rule, and under the Annexation Statute, it says that annexed property cannot avail itself of the new zoning, in this case in the City of Aberdeen being whatever that may turn out to be, for five years, unless the Harford County Council waives that five-year rule. If that happens at an appropriate time, that would be subject to another public hearing.

Mr. Schlottman asked Ms. Dipietro about the Plan B, and what that concept plan would entail. Ms. Dipietro said the Plan B would mostly include villas and single-family homes. From the CIM, there was a lot of concern with the multi-family use being part of the plan. Unfortunately,

with the potential elimination of the apartments, the clubhouse and pool become not as financially feasible.

Rosemary Queen, 614 Locksley Manor Drive, said she is opposed to this annexation because she believes it is inconsistent with the 2016 Harford County Master Plan, is concerned with the density, and IBD gives too much flexibility for high density housing. She is also concerned with the costs incurred by the citizens and residents of the City of Aberdeen.

Eric Reith, 626 Locksley Manor Drive, stated he is concerned with the IBD zoning in regards to the uses associated with that zoning. He asked if Mrs. Grover could go over what the City’s plans are for Planning Area 10. In addition, he asked Mr. Horowitz what the sales time frame was for Eagles Rest. Mr. Horowitz replied from the first phase of Eagles Rest the average sales time was approximately 1.5 to 2 units per month. For 96 units, it took approximately four years. Mrs. Grover also stated the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Map are two different things, so the Comprehensive Plan does not attach a zoning designation. Planning Area 10 is a priority area recommended for future growth for the City. This is planned for low and medium density residential and neighborhood commercial uses. In addition, Mr. Reith asked what kind of improvements would be made to Gilbert Road to handle traffic, and for Eagles Rest residents, with traffic cutting through Eagles Rest. Ms. Dipietro said the traffic study would be part of the entitlements process. In addition, a CIM was held with the HOA of Eagles Rest and they are excited to have another means of egress on the property.

Wendy Jones, 860 Gilbert Road, said their property is the one in the front end of the proposed plans. There is a curb at the lower point of the Siebert Farm and is a safety concern for her. There needs to be planning on traffic concerns on Gilbert Road and where Gilbert Road and Long Drive intersect. Another issue is on the backend of this development, as the entrance is very narrow. Her property is zoned AG, and they have plants, crops, and animals, and may want to expand with more animals. Going into the flooding, the bottom part of her property and Siebert property is wetlands, the creek overflows, and cars were being pushed into the guardrail, and with this development you are taking away the natural vegetation.

Doren Graziosi, 801B Maxa Road, asked Mr. Horowitz how interested his group would be in building out at an R-1 zoning; Mr. Horowitz said they will examine other plan options.

Debra Ehlers, 616 Locksley Manor Drive, said there is concern with IBD zoning, does not recommend going through with the annexation, and wants R-1 zoning for the area.

Robert Price, 615 Gilbert Road, said he wanted to echo what Debbie said in that the annexation without a zoning on it is not a good road. Mr. Schlottman corrected Mr. Price, stating the annexation cannot happen without a zoning. Mr. Price said he would be okay with an R-1 zoning. He also said with the current market and interest rates, the $475,000 price of a house would be hard to sell.

Ruth Ann Young, 445 Doris Circle, opined the Planning Commission should consider all of the problems such as traffic and flooding.

Teanna Ringgold, 841 Gilbert Road, said there are a lot of issues such as traffic flow on Gilbert Road impacted by Ripken Stadium and the Wetlands Golf Course. She is concerned with property values decreasing and taxes increasing. She wanted to know if they would take from their properties to widen Gilbert Road and asked how the Aberdeen Police Department would handle the increase in density of that area. In addition, Ms. Ringgold said there are eagles in that area and wanted to know who would protect the eagles.

Nancy Den in Adams Heights said she does not understand why Aberdeen wants to annex additional property when there are issues with properties already existing in Aberdeen.

Kimberly Stewart, 832 Gilbert Road, said she does not want the second access point, there are no safety procedures and does not want the traffic associated. In addition, she said she wants the greenery to stay intact.

Shelly Goedeke, 3517 Farm Road, said one aspect that has been talked about is the economy. The Federal Government is planning an interest rate hike, and is predicting another recession within the next three to five years.

Robert Keen, 837 Gilbert Road, stated Aberdeen did a good job with the new roads on MD-22, but outside of the area going toward Bel Air, the traffic is terrible. During Ripken Stadium games the traffic really builds up and adding homes would not help with the traffic.

Helen Farmer, 811 Gilbert Road, wanted to know if the Planning Commission was going to vote tonight, or just reviewing. Mr. Schlottman said if there is a motion on the floor we have to act on that, but if there is no motion or no second, or does not pass with the majority than it dies tonight. Mrs. Farmer asked if you vote on it, when would all these concerns be raised; Mr. Schlottman said if it does not pass tonight it would be in the future.

Ms. Dipietro commented that they need an opportunity to do the right thing, to get the traffic studies and the wetland studies, to see what is necessary to fix the flooding and traffic issues. In order for the developer to invest a lot of money in consultant fees, he needs to know if the property can be annexed or not.

Mr. Hiob said there were a lot of concerns, but one that was not addressed by the presenter is the flooding issue. Based on the concept there are 17 or so stormwater management facilities on it, and in his opinion, sometimes development reduces flooding in areas where it used to flood because it collects the water and redirects it to other areas. Mr. Hiob mentioned his own house on Graceford Drive, noting a creek that would flood terribly. When Merritt Corporate Park went in, the flooding was reduced because the drainage was cut off and redirected to a stormwater facility that was constructed at a higher standard than what is required. In addition, Mr. Hiob commented that he thinks the biggest issue to be decided tonight is the zoning, noting it has to be profitable for any developer, and hopefully something can be worked out that is mutually beneficial.

Ms. Edwards said she is struggling with where to focus our density of population for the City and what is available to put it in. We have our footprint that we are still trying to work within and we are trying to take another piece in. She said she wanted to understand how we are doing within the City, and we continue to develop the sprawl concept. How are we going to shape the future to make walkable communities? She stated IBD wanted to have integrated and mixed use, and she thought initially the apartments were an issue, but there is a need for apartments, and affordable housing.

Mrs. Snyder commented that the Commission has already had this conversation because they just changed the IBD zoning to allow up to R-3, so we have already had this conversation about what zoning we want in the IBD. Ms. Preston said she likes the IBD concept, but the concept of not just having houses on land, but having condensed use so that you can walk, but there needs to be conveniences, so everyone is not driving up to MD-22.

Mr. Schlottman stated housing is market driven. Fifty years ago, everyone wanted a single- family home, and it has changed into apartments and townhomes. He stated not everybody, but the trend is for the millennials to live in an apartment. In another 50 years people may go back to a single-family house, or something else, but the annexation is a ground-roots process. The developer is going to put a product there that the developer can sell or rent, so people are not putting up homes, they are doing market research.

Mr. Schlottman suggested to the Board to hold this in abeyance and see what the developer comes back with, with their plan B, and take it from there.

Ms. Preston said she thought we were not seeing what the developer concept was, she thought this was strictly an annexation. Mr. Schlottman said it is, but they usually come in with some sort of concept. Mrs. Edwards asked if it is dependent on the concept; Mr. Schlottman said that is up to the board.

Mr. Hiob said he thought the issue is more on zoning, and the annexation is within our Planning Area 10, but is not IBD zoning and has no Aberdeen zoning because it is not in Aberdeen, but it is not considered sprawl. He stated by definition this is the exact opposite of sprawl, as it is a development that is compact with water and sewer. Sprawl is with large lots with houses on 2,5,10 acres each taking up a lot of land that used to be possibly farm land. Mr. Hiob also said MD-22 was credited to State Highway Administration.

Motion by Mr. Hiob, seconded by Mrs. Snyder, to hold this petition for annexation in abeyance until the next Planning Commission meeting in November of 2018. Chairman Schlottman requested a roll call vote; all Planning Commission members voted yes to the motion.

There being no further business or public comment, the meeting was adjourned at 9:42 p.m.

http://aberdeenmd.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=aberdeenmd_1f2864dca37271cd40da31c6d9ae3d3d.pdf&view=1