COUNCIL AND PLANNING & ZONING WORKSHOP

July 15, 1999

The Town Council of the Town of Easton met today in a workshop meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Those council members attending were President of the Council Mr. Willey, Mr. Ford, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Heinmuller. Planning and Zoning Commission members present were Chairperson Ms. Pickall, Mr. Goebel, Mr. Braithwaite, Mr. Atwood and Mr. White. Also attending the meeting were the Mayor C. Eugene Butler, Town Planner Mr. Hamilton, Assistant Town Planner Mr. Thomas and Assistant Town Attorney Mr. Steve Kehoe.

The President of the Council opened the workshop meeting at 6:30 P.M.

The President of the Council briefed on the structure of the workshop.

The Assistant Town Planner briefed those present on the proposed changes in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Thomas distributed a summary of the changes as well as recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission recommending approval of the draft Zoning Ordinance. The Assistant Town Planner briefed on the Town Attorney’s outline for changes.

The Assistant Town Planner stated that these changes were all made in a version of the Ordinance and the version was forwarded to the Mayor and Council in a memo dated April 21, 1999. The Town Planner stated that in that memo he had also pointed out three additional changes that were not described in previous correspondence. The three subjects were brew pubs, towers in residential zones and single use PUD. Mr. Thomas stated that a new district had been created in which the only permitted uses would be Big Box and the two shopping centers (i.e., strip and campus style). Mr. Thomas stated that the review process for this new District, Planned Major Shopping (PMS) District, is identical to that for PUD’s and CM applications with the exception that this new district does not require mixed uses. Mr. Thomas explained that it is still possible to utilize the PUD option for Big Box or shopping centers, but they would have to be mixed with some other use. Mr. Thomas stated that the desire was to keep the review process, which is afforded by the PUD in place, but to keep PUDs as originally intended, for mix uses and create this new district for single uses. Mr. Thomas stated that the only difference is that if you are going to propose a project that only involves a single big box use or a shopping center, it has to proceed under a PMS district. If you are combining one of those uses with something else, it could go via PUD district.

Mr. Thomas stated that comments will be presented during the public hearing.

Mr. Thomas stated that two events had occurred which caused two final changes. One was the Bucktail v. Talbot County case and the second was the discussion concerning a possible moratorium on big box retail uses. Mr. Thomas stated that due to the Bucktail v. Talbot County case, the Town Attorney had made several changes to the effective date section of the ordinance, the standards of the various Floating Zones and the regular zoning map amendment process in order to address issues. One final change the Town Attorney made was the name of the Planned Major Shopping District to the Planned Major Retail District (PMR).

Mr. White stated that Bucktail has changed the legislative process.

Mr. Ford reiterated his understanding and stated that although you have met all the standards or presumed to have met all the standards, the application can still be denied. Mr. White stated that Talbot County has already made that change in their ordinance and can make that legislative discretion allowing the Council to deny the application when all the standards have been met.

The Assistant Town Attorney stated that the PUD process is legislative and not quasi judicial.

Mr. White stated that the exception is that once the applicant has met the burden on all the standards set forth for approval of the application, then there is in a special exception case, there is a presumption that the applicant is entitled to approval of the special exception unless there is substantial evidence that there is a negative impact above and beyond that which is met by the standards. Mr. White stated that without the new language, once the applicant has met the standards, the Council would be obliged to grant the application.

Mr. Reed questioned the public’s position. Mr. White stated that the public is absolutely in the picture and that is the reason for the public hearing. Mr. Kehoe stated that the public could test and cross-examine whatever evidence the applicant provides.

Mr. White stated another result of the Bucktail case is that the court is indicating in its opinion that the appropriate way during the judicated procedure or portion of the proceeding where the standards are either met or not met, the applicant, as well as anyone in opposition should have the right of cross examination, under oath. He stated that the process would be to give your name, under oath and have a transcript of the proceeding and an attorney that wishes to cross examine that person will have the opportunity to do so. Mr. Kehoe stated that the Council and administrative boards could limit cross-examination through the lawyers. Mr. Kehoe stated that people could sign in with their name and address and a roll could be called with time limitations for testimony.

Mr. Thomas stated that the Commission has received several mapping changes but they are only recommending that two changes be made.

Mr. Willey asked for questions on proposed changes.

Mr. Heinmuller questioned page 5-81, the PM Shopping District under G. Mr. Heinmuller also questioned flying flags and asked for clarification of 17A. Mr. Heinmuller asked for an additional proposed change relevant to governmental flags.

The President of the Council, Mr. Willey made mention of the article that was recently published in Newsweek regarding Sprawling.

The President of the Council stated that Mr. Ford has offered to be the Council’s candidate for the Chamber of Commerce symposium on July 29. Discussion was held regarding questions that the Chamber of Commerce would like to have submitted prior to the meeting.

The President of the Council reviewed the dates for the upcoming public hearings. The President of the Council limited testimony on the proposed moratorium ordinance to two hours. He suggested receiving comments in writing or carrying the meeting over to the first meeting in September.

Mr. Willey asked that comments regarding the Zoning Ordinance changes be forwarded prior to the Council before the Public Hearing.

Mr. Willey stated that he did not want to drag this out but he wanted specific ideas to be covered, specific answers that need to be covered. He suggested setting a strict timetable and keeping to it.

Mr. Willey thanked the Planning and Zoning Commission for coming out and sitting through the workshop with the Council.

Mr. Mike Keene asked for re-consideration on the two-hour testimony limit. He stated that this has to be one of the most important issues that has come to this town in a long time. He stated that the whole future of the town would be changed by this legislation. Mr. Willey stated that comments would not be "choked off" but continued to another meeting.

Mr. Dills questioned the time proposed for the moratorium. Mr. Willey stated that three months is the time he has heard but nothing has been decided definitely.

The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 P.M.

_______________________________________

Town Clerk