October 19, 1998

The Town Council of the Town of Easton met today at 7:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order by the Town Clerk with the following members present: Mr. Ford, Mr. Mayer, Mrs. Clem and Mr. Heinmuller. Also attending the meeting were Mayor C. Eugene Butler, the Town Engineer Mr. Grunden, Chief George Harvey, Assistant Town Engineer Mr. Glass and Town Attorney Mr. Kehoe.

Since the President of the Council Mr. Willey was unable to be present at the start of the meeting, the Town Clerk asked the Town Council members to nominate one of the members to act as the President of the Council. Mr. Mayer nominated Mr. Heinmuller to serve as the Acting President of the Council, seconded by Mrs. Clem and carried.

Mr. Heinmuller assumed the President of the Council’s position.

Mr. Ford opened the meeting with prayer and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Upon motion by Mr. Ford, seconded by Mr. Mayer and carried, minutes of the October 5 meeting were approved as written.

The Acting President of the Council brought Resolution No. 5636, which would authorize the Town Clerk to abate and/or refund taxes totaling $20,360.70 to the floor. Resolution No. 5636 was moved for passage by Mr. Mayer and seconded by Mrs. Clem. Mr. Ford asked what causes these changes to be sent from the State. The Town Clerk discussed factors that can cause this. There being no further discussion, Resolution No. 5636 passed unanimously following a roll call vote of those members present.

The Acting President of the Council Mr. Heinmuller stated that he understood that the Chief has a presentation to make.

The Chief discussed various things that occur behind the scenes at the Police Department and people who received credit and people that have not been recognized. He invited Mr. Leroy Miller to come forward. The Chief read an award for Mr. Miller and discussed Mr. Miller’s activities to assist the Police Department. The Chief presented Mr. Miller with a civilian award from the Easton Police Department.

Acting President of the Council, Mr. Heinmuller brought the memo and the bid tabulation for the 1998 Heavy Duty Leaf collection Box to the floor. Mr. Glass discussed the memo and stated that the recommendation was for Mid Atlantic Waste Systems, which was not the low bid. Mr. Mayer questioned whether this was for better equipment. Mr. Glass stated that the equipment could be received ahead of time for the season.

Upon motion by Mr. Mayer, seconded by Mrs. Clem and carried, the acceptance of the bid was approved.

Mr. George Beer of Gilman Development Company was present to address the Council. Mr. Beer stated that he had been present two weeks ago to discuss their proposed 99-unit apartment complex. Mr. Beer discussed the need for a local support letter and a local contribution in order to secure funding from the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development. He stated that he is trying for a letter, which would allow the project to move forward. Mr. Beer stated that the Town had sent a letter and he believes there are some parts which may be a problem. He stated that his attorney Mr. Wilson had prepared a draft letter and passed that letter to the Council. He discussed the changes they proposed. He discussed the needs and the time constraints. He asked for Council support for the letter.

Mr. Mayer stated that on paragraph four, he was uncomfortable with certain items in that paragraph. Mr. Beer stated that he thinks it is identical to the previous letter and he thought that was what the Utilities Commission would allow.

The Town Attorney stated that the Council has seen Mayor Butler’s letter and Mayor Butler has indicated that he thinks it is appropriate for owner-occupied homeowner units with no disrespect to Mr. Beer. He stated that if the Council decides otherwise, that would be fine. He stated that the Town’s contribution is required by the State and he believes it is important that the Town expresses clearly that the contribution proposed is a policy which the Utilities Commission makes available to all home builders or developers in the Town. The Town Attorney stated that the Town has many other irons in the fire with DHCD. He discussed Easton’s contributions in the past as viewed by DHCD. The Town Attorney stated that this is 1) at the direction of the Town Council and 2) the way the Utilities program is described, he strongly advised his letter is more complete.

Mr. Beer stated that he is trying to simplify the original language. He discussed the importance of homeownership and their efforts in that regard. He discussed various meetings held.

Mrs. Clem stated that planning is essential and she felt there was not enough lead-time. She discussed the late receipt this afternoon and then a letter tonight with a request to take action. She questioned whether time was running out due to poor planning. She stated that she felt that Council could not give approval without even having the chance to read the letter. Mr. Beer discussed going to DHCD and stated that they would not accept the previous scenario again. She discussed attempts to generate more plans and his attempts to avoid this earlier. Mrs. Clem stated that she understands that Mr. Beer is in a difficult situation. Mr. Beer stated that he is only asking for a letter, which would allow him to come back later.

Mr. Heinmuller asked if there were any Council comments. Mr. Mayer stated that he appreciated the Town Attorney’s comments. Mr. Ford stated that he agrees with Mrs. Clem in that Mr. Beer’s request appears rushed, particularly tonight where growth will be the topic of a public hearing. He discussed elected officials having to make decisions based upon careful consideration. Mr. Beer discussed attempts to work this out. Mr. Ford questioned the Town Attorney, did he understand that this was the same as any other developer would be allowed. The Town Attorney stated that this was correct but he was not sure this would be acceptable to DHCD. He discussed this matter further. Mr. Beer stated he was willing to take that chance.

Mrs. Clem moved that the matter be tabled. She discussed the reasons that she did not feel the given scenario could be supported by the Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ford and carried.

The Acting President of the Council, Mr. Heinmuller, opened the Public Hearing at 7:28 P.M. to consider the application of Petrie, Dierman, and Kughn for the development of a shopping center on property owned by the Gannon Family L.P., located just east of US Route 50 and north of Chapel Road currently in agricultural use and presently zoned CL (Limited Commercial).

Mr. Heinmuller discussed the rules for the Public Hearing then asked the Town Attorney to discuss the matter before the Council.

The Town Attorney discussed the PUD process and the request. He discussed the Zoning Ordinance and criteria. He discussed the steps and referral, if it is approved, back to Planning and Zoning for final site planning and the incorporation of conditions set by the Council. He stated that this Public Hearing is step two of three. The Town Attorney discussed the necessary standards used by the Council. Mr. Heinmuller added that he had neglected two things. The first is that the Town Planner usually first gives an overview of the project and second, that the Council typically does not vote on the same night as the Public Hearing.

The Town Planner discussed the Planning Commission’s review. He read the letter into the record from the Planning Commission. He stated that it was forwarded three to zero with no recommendation. He discussed the concerns raised by the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Mr. Heinmuller invited the applicant to present their application.

David Thompson, Esquire and Steve Smithurst, Esquire, were present representing the applicant. Mr. Thompson stated that the applicant specializes in small town centers. He discussed their work in Salisbury. He discussed the 1976 Comprehensive Plan and stated that this area had been earmarked for annexation and subsequently annexed in 1986. He discussed the history of the property from the zoning aspect. He discussed the area of approximately 34 acres north of Chapel Road. Mr. Thompson stated that the idea was that this configuration would give the opportunity for planned development instead of separate parcels. He stated that he thinks that after the testimony, the Council will come to the conclusion that this is appropriate and the best site for this endeavor. Mr. Thompson discussed traffic issues and stated that he understands that the Town has a long term plan for managing the Route 50 traffic and that this project does not inhibit that plan. He discussed the presenters plan for tonight. Mr. Thompson stated that this plan does not threaten the downtown. In fact, he felt it compliments the downtown. Mr. Thompson discussed neighbor’s concerns and attempts to work these out. He passed out a summary of the documents that would be used in tonight’s public hearing.

Mr. Petrie, the developer, discussed the history of his company. He stated that they are known for quality and that they are not interested in fragmented designs. He discussed the unified coordinated design they propose. He discussed relationships and requests from retailers. He discussed the architectural rendering and the coordination.

Mr. Smithhurst asked Mr. Petrie if they would own and manage the property. Mr. Petrie stated that they would. He displayed a palette of construction materials for the Council. He stated that they are willing for the palettes to be prescribed if the Town desires. He discussed the term Power Center. He stated that this is not a classic strip center.

Mrs. Clem questioned where his primary residence was, whether it was in Queen Ann or if he has a house elsewhere. Mr. Petrie stated that it is in McLean, Virginia. Mrs. Clem discussed the Salisbury property. Mr. Ford questioned whether 120,000 square feet was about the size of Easton Wal-Mart and was answered that was correct.

Mr. Terry Richardson of Lane Engineering was present and discussed the site.

Mr. Thompson stated that they would leave the exhibits for the record.

Mr. Richardson discussed the site and the location as well as the vicinity. He discussed the zoning history. Mr. Thompson discussed marking the exhibits. Mr. Richardson continued discussing the zoning history.

Mr. Ford questioned where the language came from concerning the shopping center for this property. Mr. Richardson stated that it came from the Town and the Gannons. Mr. Ford stated that he was Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission at that time and he recalls that this re-zoning was done for two reasons. The first was Paper Run issues and Corbin objections. He stated that the reconfiguration shown resolved that issue. Secondly, it provided a deeper commercial development that would prevent a strip development. He stated that the land near the railroad right-of-way was not developable. Mr. Ford felt that saying that property was identified to be a shopping center at that time is misleading. Discussion followed on that point.

The Town Attorney discussed specific standards, which were needed for this Public Hearing. He stated that the issues are being wandered away from.

The Acting President of the Council Mr. Heinmuller agreed and stated that he does not think that this is relevant at this time unless the Council desires to hear. Mr. Thompson agreed and discussed this matter.

Mr. Richardson stated that the property is zoned CL today. He discussed the allowable uses. Mr. Richardson stated that without the PUD this property would be subdivided. He discussed that scenario. He stated that he understands that State Highway has not purchased access. He passed out photos from 4:00 P.M. today. He discussed other allowable uses as the property is now zoned. He discussed the Gannon family and the Petrie desires for development. He stated that the plan is well thought out. He discussed this and displayed details of the preliminary development plan. He stated that thirty percent of the property would be held for Open Space. He stated that they have worked hard to address concerns. He stated that the plan has evolved in response to these concerns. He discussed the concept under the alternate plan.

Mr. Thompson asked Mr. Richardson to discuss the square footage in other areas. Mr. Richardson stated that this is less than 8,000 square feet per acre. He stated that nationally, these run about 10,000 square feet per acre. Mr. Richardson discussed green space. He stated that they are present to ask for PUD approval and the reason for the PUD is the total concept involved. He read the ten standards from the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that Route 50 has capacity available. Mr. Richardson discussed the open space proposed of thirty percent. He stated that this meets the recommendations for the PUD. He claimed that this meets the requirements under the Comprehensive Plan and that the property is mapped for commercial development. He discussed water and sewer. Mr. Richardson stated there are no wetlands or woodlands involved and therefore no environmental impact. He stated that the plan meets the Town goals. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan identifies big box uses as desirable. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan requires Open Space. He discussed the proposed accesses which would be two under the PUD versus eight which he thought would be required under the strip alternative. He discussed Paper Run road being extended at the developer’s expense. He discussed the value of improvements, which the developer would cause to be made to Route 50 costing approximately one million dollars. He discussed the comparison to this project versus other properties on Route 50.

Mr. Ford read an excerpt from page 22 of the 1997 Comprehensive Plan which states that there is enough commercial at this time and that people do not want to see shopping centers. Mr. Richardson stated that they struggled with the contradiction in the Plan and discussed that further.

Mrs. Clem asked Mr. Petrie how his company manages shopping centers. Mr. Petrie stated that they provide their own security and pick up their own trash. This property is visited daily by a manager. He stated that they are not asking for any Town services except for police when requested.

Mrs. Clem questioned whether the landscaping, etc. would be maintained. Mr. Petrie stated that it would be. He stated that they are willing to enter into a maintenance agreement to ensure that it is maintained.

The Mayor questioned whether the long term forecast would include their ownership and questioned what the property would look like twenty-five to fifty years from now. Mr. Petrie stated that that was a difficult question. They intend to hold onto this property and maintain. He discussed his company’s decision to work closer to home.

The Town Planner stated that under the alternate, there would be a required Planning and Zoning review and there would be remote accesses required by State Highway Administration.

Mr. Heinmuller reminded everyone that this hearing is for this PUD request as opposed to what might happen.

Mr. Bill Stagg was the landscape architect for the project. He discussed the plan proposed and the concepts involved. He discussed responses to the Planning Commission and stated that he is trying to create a filtered view of the property. He believes that this is compliant with the new proposed standards. He discussed improvement at the Chapel Road corridor. He discussed irrigation, etc., of the site. He discussed the storm water management plan and pond. He discussed the Comprehensive Plan and stated that all these amenities would be installed at once.

The Town Attorney questioned Mr. Stagg whether he had a ground view plan. Mr. Stagg stated that a birds eye rendering is as close as he would have to that.

Mrs. Clem questioned when trucks would arrive to load and unload. Mr. Petrie suggested that the Town implement a quiet zone ordinance for all retail areas and then that could be enforced.

Mr. Wes Guckert, the traffic expert hired by the developer was questioned by Mr. Smithhurst. Discussion followed on the company and the qualifications of the Traffic Group. Mr. Smithhurst asked the determination of the impact of this project and the necessary improvements on Route 50. Mr. Guckert discussed meeting with State Highway and the Town of Easton. He discussed the improvements they proposed and stated that there is not an agreement of what the Town wants versus what the State Highway wants.

Mrs. Clem questioned if the State Highway Administration had representatives present. There were none. Mr. Guckert displayed an overhead of the improvements they proposed as well as the current concepts. He displayed an overhead of the earlier attempts to work out these matters with the State Highway and discussed this in detail. He discussed their willingness to adapt if they can get the State Highway Administration to approve. Mrs. Clem questioned whether this requires State Highway approval. Mr. Guckert stated that it does.

Mr. Petrie discussed the prior request by the Planning staff for additional work in this area.

Mr. Smithhurst asked that the State Highway letter, which they received on this date, be included in the record with the approved proposed layout. Mr. Smithhurst questioned if this precludes the Town desires or interferes at other intersections. Mr. Guckert stated that was correct. He discussed going from two lanes to three lanes on a portion of Route 50 and widening of a portion of Chapel Road. Mr. Smithhurst questioned whether this would allow traffic to flow in a safe manner. Mr. Guckert stated that it would. Discussion followed on the possibilities of what the State Highway Administration might allow.

Mr. Mayer stated that he noticed that all of the improvements are concentrated southbound and questioned why there was nothing northbound. Mr. Guckert stated that that is where the capacity constraints are. Mr. Mayer questioned the proposed improvements at Chapel Road. Mr. Guckert discussed the tie-in with Route 322 and Chapel Road. He discussed the widened turn lane from Route 50 westbound from Chapel Road.

Chief Harvey questioned what happens when the third lane goes down to two lanes in an already congested area. Mr. Guckert stated that the State Highway Administration plans to carry the third lane through Town on Route 50. The Chief discussed gridlocks beyond where three lanes merge to two lanes and problems which are already here. Mr. Guckert stated that the State Highway Administration plans to have the merge.

Mr. Mayer stated that this layout reminds him of Marley Station. He discussed the Chief’s concerns. Mr. Guckert discussed the State Highway Administration’s long term plans. He discussed time elements of reducing waits.

The Town Attorney questioned the calculations arrived and asked that these be addressed. Mr. Guckert discussed reports, which they had issued. The Town Attorney questioned whether Saturday generates the highest traffic counts. Mr. Guckert stated that was correct. The Town Attorney questioned the rough numbers generated. Mr. Guckert stated that on Saturday, the heaviest hours would be an additional 900 cars.

At 9:10 P.M., the President of the Council, Mr. Willey, arrived and joined the meeting from Mr. Heinmuller’s seat with Mr. Heinmuller continuing as the Acting President of the Council for the remainder of the meeting.

Mr. Heinmuller questioned whether he understood that this would be about 970 additional cars on top of the 4,200 which are already traveling. Mr. Guckert stated that there would be about 600 in addition to the 4000. The Town Attorney stated that of the 900 cars that leave the Center, 300 would be absorbed. He questioned where the other 600 would go. Mr. Guckert referred to exhibit seven and discussed that.

Mrs. Clem questioned whether delivery vehicles had also been factored in. Mr. Guckert stated that they had. He discussed when most deliveries occur. Discussion followed on the three southbound lanes and the State Highway Administration right-of-way. Discussion followed with the Town Attorney questioning the Chapel Road access widening and how that would occur. The Town Attorney questioned whether they had done an analysis of the levels of service on the west side of North Washington Street. Mr. Guckert stated that they had not. The Town Attorney discussed the width of the paved area on the west side of Route 50. Mr. Guckert discussed that. The Town Attorney discussed the east side of Chapel Road and questioned the width. Mr. Guckert stated that it was approximately 22 to 23 feet wide. The Town Attorney questioned whether that was enough for safe traffic. Mr. Guckert stated that that was not an issue from the capacity point. Mr. Richardson stated that capacity on the east side of Chapel Road will fit in the public right-of-way.

Mr. Heinmuller stated that the Council has heard two hours of testimony from the applicant. He stated that he has seen hands go up and when completed, comments will be taken. He hoped that the one more presenter he would allow would be brief.

Mr. Bob Greenlee of The Greenlee Group discussed his background and stated that he is not an advocate of the project. He submitted two studies for the record. He discussed the needs of residents and the Comprehensive Plan. He discussed survey responses he calculated to approximately two cars per minute increase under this proposal. He called attention of the Council to two things. The last page of the presentation which indicates there would be a generation of 85 million dollars per year of economic benefit. He stated that this could be as great as 210 million dollars that would trickle down. He discussed competition providing advantages and lower prices.

Mr. Heinmuller asked if there were any Council questions. He stated that he would like to get to the public input part of the Public Hearing. Mr. Heinmuller then stated that of the 430 jobs created with 9.5 million salaries, he questioned where the employees would come from in a county with only 3% unemployment.

Mr. Greenlee stated that employers face that whether they are retail or other targeted markets. He discussed the addition to the economy.

Mr. Heinmuller stated that that this public hearing is well into two hours and he would like to get onto the public comments.

The Town Attorney stated that the town staff should also be permitted to speak on this matter.

Mr. Farberman stated that he heard the project discussed as high class. He questioned whether the community needs this service. He stated that there are five major shopping centers now and three minor shopping centers. He stated that he had understood that there was a home improvement store, which would be the center and questioned how many more were needed. He stated that he understands this would provide five more restaurants and questioned the need when there were already thirty. He stated that there is no great need for something like this in the town.

An unidentified woman who lives on Chapel Road discussed trying to cross Route 50 on the weekend. She discussed problems between Black Dog Alley and Dutchman’s Lane and stated that this is not needed.

Mr. David Price, resident of Easton, owner of Price’s Car Wash stated that he was told in 1987 that there was not a need for another car wash. He built his car wash and there have been three built since and all are doing well. He stated that they do sixty cars per hour at his business. He thinks there is enough business for everyone.

Mr. Thompson (not the attorney for the applicant) discussed 30,000 people in Talbot. He stated that Anne Arundel has around 400,000. He discussed the food quality available and stated that he did not think he could save 15% if another food store opened. He stated that he hates the idea of another shopping center.

Ms. Amy Dorbin, 129 Chapel Road, stated that when she moved into the community it was residential. She thought that she would have a dead end road. She discussed traffic back ups increasing over the years and stated that crimes and accidents have not been addressed in the vicinity.

Mr. Harold Draper, Chapel Road and Black Dog Alley read a statement discussing traffic problems in his letter to the editor. He discussed similarities to Rockville and Potomac with growth and problems. He discussed retiring to the Eastern Shore and stated that if he had been aware of the proposal, he would have never bought his house. He stated that a realtor had given him feedback on the slow sale of his old house due to proximity to the growth areas. He discussed problems and the decrease of quality of life. He discussed needs to widen the roads.

Mr. David Ohlma stated that he is new to Easton and he has watched other areas get closed in by shopping centers which is good for ten to fifteen years then the centers close and leave nothing but vacant store fronts and liquor stores. He stated that he is a pessimist on this kind of development and stated that the town needs to make sure this does not happen.

Mr. Al Goetze, Talbot County River Protection Society, read a statement questioning the no environmental impact claims. He discussed the watershed and the lack of data of what is eventually flowing into the water. He questioned whether the Town Council has a plan to resolve the problem and stated that he believes something should be done. He stated that any approval should be contingent upon water quality issues and pollutant load calculations.

Mr. Len Rickenburgh, Ingleton Circle, referred to the electric rate hike article in the paper and stated that this was due to additional capacity added. He questioned how much power is needed for a shopping center and whether this would impact the residents. He questioned the flow of oil and antifreeze into the tributaries.

The Town Engineer discussed peak demand for this shopping center and stated that they planned for these when things materialize. He stated that PJM pool criteria has been abided by and they expect no substantive impact.

Mr. Tim Dills, 9780 Leeds Landing, asked for a re-display of one of the articles used in the presentation. He discussed the size of one of the buildings at 49,800 square feet being the size of all of the retail space in Talbottown. He stated that the shopping center is huge and monstrous and out of scale with what is in Easton. He read the scale of the other buildings. Mr. Dills stated that the vacancy rate of 5:00 P.M. today was 14.6% at Easton Plaza. He discussed Rafters leaving. He stated that Talbottown has a 9.8% vacancy rate for the upper portion, 22.8% including all the lower level areas. He stated that Easton Plaza has 17.2% vacancy rate today. He discussed traffic concerns and stated that big box is known in the industry as category killers. He discussed the meaning of that phrase. Mr. Dills stated that in Easton, 22% of the land is zoned commercial. He stated that 18% of Glen Burnie is zoned commercial. He discussed the Glen Burnie model of what is undesirable. Mr. Dills stated that a town cannot have a successful re-development in the downtown and main street if this type of development occurs. He stated that this is the same type of material Wal-Mart is constructed of. He stated that it does not compliment downtown and questioned how the company would manage a center of that size without a full-time manager.

Mr. Tom Hughes of the Talbot County River Protection Society discussed nutrient loading and the decrease in farmland over the past thirty years, which has not corresponded since nutrient loads have gone up. He stated that up to 25% of the nitrogen in the bay is from car exhaust. He discussed water and sewer having incremental increases in sewage loads.

Mr. Dave Bishop of the Hobby Horse, stated that the Town Center is not against development. He discussed difficulty in finding people to work and finding customers from other areas, which has been required for most business to survive.

Mr. Larry Davis stated that his company manages and leases for Easton Marketplace and was pleased to report 100% occupancy. He questioned Mr. Petrie if he was talking to Lowe’s about relocating to the Easton Commons property.

Mr. Mayer asked for clarification on Lowe’s building ownership status.

Mr. David Ewing stated that he owns property on Chapel Road. He discussed the State Highway advising that there were no funds for this county for the next eight years and questioned how this would be built. He stated that he did not want Chapel Road changed. He stated that he had five hundred names on a petition and that the Council should serve the people who live here first. Mr. Ewing stated that if eleven aces are in open spaces, then approximately twenty-three acres would be impervious surface. He discussed water flow as runoff. He discussed problems with the tree buffers. He discussed trash blowing from housing developments. He discussed the proposed traffic and fire access problems. He stated that he would want hard numbers on traffic before this was approved. He discussed outside developers and problems which that entails. He stated that he has already heard that there is another shopping center proposed. He stated that he did not think this should be done if it adversely impacts the county.

Mr. Mark A. Bower, old Country Club Road was present representing the Talbot County Historic Trust and discussed checks and balances which he did not see here but stated that he did see problems with the market study. He referred to his letter, which had been sent recommending an independent market analysis. He requested that an independent market analysis be conducted.

Ms. Peggy Pickall, Chapel Road, stated that she is present as a private citizen and is also on the Planning Commission. She discussed CL, which allows limited uses versus PUD requested here and allows high uses. She discussed problems with traffic, etc. She discussed what the CL would allow and read the list of permitted uses and stated that other items would not be permitted unless a Special Exception review occurred. She discussed the health of residential neighborhoods. She urged that the Council deeply consider the Planning and Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Pickall stated that there is no conflict and that the Comprehensive Plan clearly says no more shopping centers.

Mr. Lee Denny, 111 Londonderry stated that everyone is protecting their turf. He discussed watershed issues. He discussed free enterprise and the success and failure dependent on the job done. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Ordinance sets where the developer would be and the expenses incurred. He stated that he did not think that this was concise in the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that he has concern that the Council does not set a precedent that they are not going to do what the Comprehensive Plan calls for.

Mr. Tim Kearns, President of Historic Easton, stated that Easton advertises itself as Historic Easton and taps the quality of life issues. He stated that the Historic Easton Board has voted unanimously to oppose this project and other projects like this one. He asked the Council to see beyond the shopping center trend and look toward more sensible development. He discussed Freeport, Maine as an example.

The Acting President of the Council Mr. Heinmuller stated that one thing the Council normally does is give an allowance for the owner to address the Council on their thoughts.

Mr. Greg Gannon introduced his family members and stated that they have a real interest in seeing the site developed the right way. Mr. Gannon stated that he believes the 1992 Plan indicates that the idea is right to be done as one site. He discussed the alternative, which could occur and stated that it would occur since he did not see it staying as an agriculture use much longer. He stated that this plan assures that the Town will not have a strip development.

Mr. Gannon stated that in a staff report in February, Mr. Hamilton stated that this has long been envisioned as a shopping center site. He discussed Mr. Dills’ proposal in the nearby area a few years ago for a similar project. Mr. Gannon stated that the traffic will be here even if this is not built and questioned what would occur if the resources were not available to upgrade when it is needed later. Mr. Gannon discussed good growth, which is well planned and stated that he believes it is better this way and reiterated that it would not be a farm field much longer.

The Town Engineer stated that he had worked with Mr. Richardson and Mr. Guckert on the traffic issue. He stated that they have been accommodating his wishes. He re-characterized the checks and balance with the State Highway Administration on this particular issue as a profound disagreement. He stated that the traffic issue needs to be resolved regardless of this project.

Mrs. Clem entered into the record a letter, which she received, from Mr. Rod Schwarm.

Mr. Elvin Johnson stated that he is here by choice. He bought his house in Chapel unaware of the possible shopping center. He stated that he does not go into town on weekends due to traffic congestion, which he defined as deplorable. He discussed reasons to moving to his home and problems now. He stated that this is not what he wants for his family.

Mr. Heinmuller stated that the Council will receive written comments for one week on this matter.

The Acting President of the Council, Mr. Heinmuller, closed the Public Hearing at 10:36 P.M. and declared a ten-minute recess.

Acting President of the Council, Mr. Heinmuller, called the meeting back to order at 10:45 P.M.

Acting President of the Council, Mr. Heinmuller, brought the request for approval of the applications for temporary food concessions during the 1998 Waterfowl Festival to the floor. Mr. Mayer stated that he had read these and they are very similar to what had occurred in the past and the Waterfowl Festival Commission had already reviewed these.

Mr. Mayer made a motion to approve the applications as submitted, seconded by Mrs. Clem and carried.

A letter was received from Ms. Marie U’Ren, Co-Chairman, A Dickens of a Christmas, requesting permission to hold the annual holiday parade for Dickens of a Christmas on Friday, December 4 at 6:30 P.M.

Mr. Heinmuller asked the Chief if he had made a decision. The Chief reported that he had been in contact with Ms. U’Ren and he foresaw no problem. Mr. Mayer stated that he would also want to be sure that the Chief had all the particulars, made a motion to approve the request, seconded by Mr. Ford, and carried.

Upon motion by Mr. Mayer, seconded by Mr. Ford and carried, invoices totaling $341,637.21 were approved for payment.

Mr. Jim Prettyman representing the Easton Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. was present and discussed the Employer’s Night on November 9. He discussed the First Annual Bull Roast on November 19.

The Mayor stated that he believed that there was a need for a growth workshop. He suggested the first week in November with the Planning Commission and the Town Council. The Town Planner stated that this workshop would be on growth and growth control.

The Mayor reported that on the North Easton Sports Complex he had contacted nearly all the residents. He stated that one wants a fence, that being the Hubbards. The rest of the residents he has spoken with want trees planted up to Mr. Brian Tarrs home. He asked the Council to approve the planting of the trees from the Hubbards property to the Tarr property excluding 129 Chapel Road which would be the pedestrian entrance.

Discussion followed on the tree aspect.

Mrs. Clem made a motion to plant trees. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ford and carried.

Mr. Mayer thanked the Mayor for being diligent on the matter.

The meeting for the growth control was set for Tuesday, December 1 at 6:00 P.M. The Town Attorney suggested having sandwiches for that meeting.

Chief Harvey reported that the Keystone Studebaker Club would be in Town on November 7. They requested traffic control. He stated that he could do this with Council approval.

Upon motion by Mr. Mayer, seconded by Mrs. Clem and carried, permission was granted.

The Chief discussed the Academy of the Arts requesting the waiver of the two-hour limit on November 20. Mrs. Clem added Christ Church since they have a large rummage sale going on, she requested special parking on Harrison Street. She discussed the lot at McCords being unavailable at that time. She also discussed the South Street parking extension of the time limit. She suggested the hours of 9:30 to 4:00. The Chief stated that the arrangements had been made and he asked that the placards be displayed so that his enforcement officers know which cars are involved.

Mr. Mayer made a motion to approve both requests, seconded by Mr. Ford and carried.

The Chief discussed a request which had been received from Mr. James R. Patrick from Post 70 which would include Post 77 and the VFW Post 5518 regarding a Veteran’s Day Ceremony in front of the Courthouse. They asked that a parking area be blocked for the band during the ceremony. He stated that they would be firing three volleys in salute of the veterans.

Upon motion by Mr. Mayer, seconded by Mrs. Clem and carried, permission was granted.

Mr. Heinmuller questioned which flags would be flying over other than the colorguard. The Chief stated that he did not know as of this point.

Mrs. Clem stated that she had spoken to the bicycle police and found that the improved lighting has helped in certain areas such as South Street. She questioned the Chief about building owners, unlocked buildings, and asked for statistics. She suggested that if the buildings are found opened three times, the Town should send a letter. The Chief stated that this is a good place to start. He discussed revamping the monthly report.

The Town Engineer discussed the Utilities Commission Joint Meeting with the Council scheduled for Tuesday, November 24 at 5:00 P.M.

The Town Engineer discussed the bond issue moving forward and the electric restructuring.

The Town Engineer stated that the Colonial streetlights are being erected. He stated that the new building inspector whom the Council authorized during budget is on board. He stated that a vehicle is needed. He discussed savings in the paving bid and asked the Council for authorization to proceed with the bid to provide a vehicle.

Mr. Mayer made a motion to authorize the bidding, seconded by Mr. Ford. Discussion followed on the type of vehicle required. The Town Engineer stated that they had not decided yet.

There being no further discussion, a motion to authorize the bid was passed.

The Town Engineer discussed the North Easton Park entrances and discussed needing direction for the 129 Chapel and the Rails-to-Trails access issue. He discussed options and divergence of the memories of the Council’s desire. He discussed the Comprehensive Plan at 129 Chapel and the immediate access using the existing railroad bed. Discussion followed over the need for a definite bike/walkway on one side of Chapel. Discussion followed at some length on this matter.

The Town Engineer stated that he hears the Council advising him to proceed with the rail entrance as well as to get pricing on 129 Chapel. The Town Engineer gave wishes for Mr. Willey and his son. He expressed condolences to Mr. Kehoe on the passing of Mr. Clark Ewing, the former Town Attorney who was Mr. Kehoe’s partner.

The Town Attorney discussed Mr. Ewing being the Town Attorney from 1955 to 1983. He asked the Council to consider a Proclamation. He passed out a plat for the rear of JC Penney and the easement, which is usually done at the Planning Commission meetings. If the Council desires, he will prepare an easement Resolution for the next meeting. He stated that the Planning Commission has already reviewed this matter.

A motion was made by Mr. Ford to abandon the easement as requested, seconded by Mr. Mayer and carried.

Mrs. Clem stated that she had received a copy of a letter from United Dominion Realty concerning The Greens. She asked the Town Clerk to write a letter questioning what United Dominion could offer to substantiate their claims of improving the Town.

Mr. Willey thanked everyone for their wishes. He discussed the situation with his son.

There being no further business, upon motion by Mr. Mayer, seconded by Mr. Ford and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 P.M.

____________________________________

Town Clerk