September 7, 1999

The Town Council of the Town of Easton met today at 7:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order by the President Mr. Willey, with the following members present: Mr. Ford, Mr. Mayer, Mr. Reed and Mr. Heinmuller. Also attending the meeting were Mayor C. Eugene Butler, the Town Engineer Hugh E. Grunden, the Assistant Town Engineer Timothy B. Glass, Town Attorney Christopher B. Kehoe, the Assistant Town Attorney Stephen B. Kehoe, the Town Planner Mr. Hamilton and the Assistant Town Planner. Also present was Mr. Christopher Drummond, Esq. who has been retained to act on the Town’s behalf in the PUD request from Argonaut Land Company, LLC.

The meeting was opened with prayer led by Mr. Reed. Mr. Reed led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mr. Mayer made a motion to approve the August 16, 1999 minutes as written seconded by Mr. Ford and carried unanimously.

Ms. Ellen General was present and announced that Easton Town Council meetings will be carried live from now on. Ms. General stated that there is also a monitor in the lobby in case there was an overflow.

The President of the Council stated that a resignation letter had been received from Mr. Hugh E. Grunden, the Town Engineer. Mr. Mayer stated that it is with regret but with great understanding.

Mayor Butler stated that it has been a pleasure to work with Mr. Hugh Grunden. He stated that Mr. Grunden has been very knowledgeable as well as dedicated. Mayor Butler stated that Hugh had played on a Little League team when he was young, had shown great dedication then, and had continued through to his adult years. He thanked Hugh for his service to the Town and wished him the best of luck with his endeavors with the Utilities Commission.

Mr. Mayer moved acceptance of Mr. Grunden’s resignation, with regret, seconded by Mr. Heinmuller and carried.

Mr. Grunden asked for the opportunity to offer his heartfelt thanks to the Mayor, this Council and the people of this community for what has been a tremendous opportunity. Mr. Grunden stated that the opportunity had been challenging at times but always rewarding. He stated that as he looked back over 17 years, he acknowledges the privilege of having worked with some insightful, dedicated and hardworking folks. Mr. Grunden stated that as he is able to focus his attention on opportunities that are before Easton Utilities, he looks forward to continuing that relationship in order to retain Easton’s stature as one of the best small communities if not the best in the United States. Mr. Grunden thanked everyone.

The President of the Council brought a memo from the Mayor to the floor appointing Mr. Timothy W. Glass as Town Engineer, effective September 7, 1999.

Mr. Mayer made a motion to accept the appointment, seconded by Mr. Reed and carried.

Mayor Butler swore in Mr. Glass as Town Engineer for the Town of Easton and congratulated him.

A memo was received from the Mayor asking consideration to appoint Mr. John Ford as liaison to the EBMA Board of Directors. Mr. Heinmuller made a motion for the appointment, seconded by Mr. Reed and carried unanimously.

A letter from the EBMA Retail Committee requesting permission for the annual Autumnfest on Saturday, October 2, 1999 from 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. was brought to the floor by the President of the Council.

Chief Harvey stated that there are some issues to be discussed but the department would like to recommend approval.

Mr. Mayer made a motion to approve EBMA’s Autumnfest, seconded by Mr. Ford and carried.

A letter was received from EBMA’s Retail Committee Chairman requesting permission to decorate lampposts and use plastic triangle pennant ropes to highlight designated areas during the scheduled Autumnfest. Mr. Mayer moved for approval, seconded by Mr. Mayer and carried unanimously.

The President of the Council brought Resolution No. 5675 authorizing the Town Clerk to abate and/or refund taxes due totaling $4,540.40 to the floor for approval. Mr. Heinmuller moved approval, seconded by Mr. Reed and carried unanimously following a roll call vote.

A request was received from the Town Planner to set the public hearing for public comments on the Foster Annexation Petition. The public hearing was scheduled for November 1 at 7:15 P.M.

There was no report from the Easton Volunteer Fire Department at this time.

Mayor Butler notified the Council that he had received word this afternoon that Governor Glendening had rearranged his calendar to enable him to attend Thursday evening’s festivities during the Maryland Municipal League Fall Legislative Conference scheduled in October.

At 7:15 P.M., the President of the Council opened the Public Hearing on the application of Argonaut Land Company, LLC for a 16 lot PUD residential subdivision.

The Town Attorney stated that before the formal hearing starts, he would like to introduce to the Council and members of the audience, Mr. Christopher Drummond. Mr. Kehoe stated that Mr. Drummond is a lawyer from Centreville who has been asked to give legal advice to the Council with regard to this matter. Mr. Kehoe stated that his office has provided legal services in the past to a neighboring landowner and he thought it would not be appropriate for his office to represent the Town in this matter.

The Town Planner, Mr. Hamilton stated that the Planning Commission had reviewed an application for a PUD subdivision for the Ratcliffe/Glenwood property for a 16 lot residential subdivision. Mr. Hamilton stated that the property is presently zoned A-1 and is proposed to go to the PUD classification. He stated that there are 15 residential lots and lot 16 is reserved for future residential development. Mr. Hamilton stated that the Planning Commission had forwarded a positive recommendation for the PUD application. Mr. Hamilton stated that he would like to have the applicants describe their project.

Joe Stevens, Esquire was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Stevens stated that this is the next step in the process after the recent annexation. Mr. Stevens stated that the Planning Commission had recently recommended approval of the PUD. Mr. Stevens asked Mr. Bill Stagg to outline the plan as proposed.

Mr. Bill Stagg stated that he is a landscape architect and land planner in practice in Easton. Mr. Stagg stated that this is a 16 lot subdivision proposal for PUD zoning. He stated that it is essentially 15 lots that will actually be developed. He outlined the vicinity on a map. He stated that the 15 lots are using all of the current critical area development rights on the property. He stated that it is clustered in the bottom in a rural hamlet subdivision. Mr. Stagg stated that they wanted to preserve the heritage and the integrity of the Ratcliffe Manor Farm, the open field look and the feel of the driveway. Mr. Stagg stated that because the lane is only an eleven foot wide asphalt road, they have developed a cross section which will now be like a boulevard with a second eleven foot road, east of the existing road which will be the outbound lane until you come out of the woods where it will be widened with the traditional 18 foot lane for a section with 12 foot roads that serve lots on the Dixon side. He stated that these roads will be private. Mr. Stagg explained that there will be over 80 acres of open space, fields, trees and whatever the homeowner’s association determines the land to be used for. Mr. Stagg pointed out where trees would be added to screen lots. He outlined precautions they are taking for environmental tests. Mr. Stagg stated that they intend to develop covenants and guidelines for these lots to make this a top-notch enclave. Mr. Stagg stated that there won’t be streetlights and there won’t be sidewalks on these roads. He stated that the development is going to be made to mimic a rural farm field. Mr. Stagg stated that there is a condition for lot 16 stating that nothing can happen on lot 16. Mr. Stagg said that they have completed a wetlands delineation determination.

Mr. Willey asked for questions.

Mr. Reed questioned Mr. Stagg on his contact with the police and fire departments. He wondered if the roads would be accessible by fire equipment. Mr. Stagg stated that he had no specific conversation with the fire or police department. He stated that he had meetings with Easton Utilities. Mr. Stagg stated that if the streets were designed to be two-way, there would be an issue but because they are one-way, there is adequate ingress and egress.

Mr. Reed questioned if property owners would be made aware of future development on lot 16. Mr. Stagg stated that they would. Mr. Stevens stated that the process would have to go before the Council to be addressed if future development was to occur.

Mr. Stagg stated that the streets would be maintained by the homeowners.

Mr. Stevens discussed condition of approval and recorded covenants.

The President of the Council opened the floor for public comments. Mr. Willey asked that comments be limited to approximately five minutes.

Mr. Lewis Wright stated that his major concern is the inbound and outbound lane access and how it may impact any future access.

Mr. Chris Drummond stated that really the reason he was asked to become involved in this matter on behalf of the Town was the direct result of questions raised by the legal representatives of the Wright family. Mr. Drummond stated that the road issue is a thorny one. He stated that the question is whether or not the uncertainty over the status of the private road are a matter that should concern the Town in its capacity as the zoning authority or whether it really is just a matter between the property owners to sort out their property rights. Mr. Drummond stated that it should be noted that a plat recorded some years ago involving the minor administrative subdivision was preceded by an agreement among all property owners then involved regarding the use of this roadway and that is when the roadway called Ratcliffe Manor Farm Lane was in the county. He stated that there is a plat of record that reflects the division of ownership of the road. Mr. Drummond stated that the annexation plat however does not reflect that division of ownership however, there is some consternation among representatives of the Town when it dawned on them there is a PUD proposal in the Town of Easton that has a predicate, a road, which only half is in the Town. Mr. Drummond stated that there is some debate or uncertainty as the respected rights to use it. He stated that one question that has arisen, for example is that in the event that the Lee Haven property is developed and remains in the county, whose subdivision regulations standards and engineering standards apply, county or town? Mr. Drummond stated that Mr. Cowee has been contacted as well as the County Engineer, the County Attorney and as Mr. Drummond sees it, the representatives that he has spoken to suggests that they would defer to the Town on the matter. Mr. Drummond stated that a debate is perceived from the property owners over the right to use the road. Mr. Drummond stated that what he thinks needs to happen is what Mr. Stevens suggested, is that the right to Lee Haven is contingent.

Ms. Joyce Delaurentis stated that she lives in downtown Easton and stated that her concern with this development presented as such could be a worse impact with lot 16 unknown, but her advocacy is for a system of bicycle trails and access to open space and natural resources for the citizens of Easton. Ms. Delaurentis stated that this development proposal does not show a connectivity as a linkage to open space that should become a part of bicycle trails and pedestrian access. Ms. Delaurentis questioned the benefit of this proposal to the citizens of Easton. She stated that this scenic vista will be altered forever. Ms. Delaurentis thanked the Council for their time.

Mr. Charles Mason stated that he lives in Easton. He stated that he understood that there are traffic experts present and he wanted them to comment on the traffic impact.

Mr. Stevens introduced Mr. Ken Smead of Traffic Concepts. Mr. Smead stated that the company had been asked to look at the subdivision of 15 lots and the impact on Ratcliffe Manor Lane. Mr. Smead stated that single family lots generate about ten vehicle trips per day. He stated that in terms of traffic volumes, this is a very low number. He stated that 500 to 700 trips per day, you are usually okay with a 18’ wide road. Beyond, that, Mr. Smead stated you begin to look at safety concerns. Mr. Smead stated that from a safety and capacity standpoint, the traffic volume is fine. He stated that it should be a very safe road. Mr. Smead stated that no detail studies have been done on lot 16 which he understands will have access to St. Michaels Road.

The President of the Council asked if there were additional comments. There were none.

The President of the Council closed the Public Hearing on the application of Argonaut Land Company, LLC at 7:49 P.M. The President of the Council stated that the public record would be left open for the week.

At 7:49 P.M., the President of the Council continued the Public Hearing on Amended Ordinance No. 390 which proposes a three-month moratorium upon the review and approval of applications for "big box" retail uses in the Town of Easton.

The President of the Council stated that the rules for public hearings would still be observed. He stated that public comments should be limited to five minutes or less.

Mr. Lynn Thomas, Assistant Town Planner distributed a memo and stated that he would like to refer to correspondence that was distributed before the hearing. Mr. Thomas stated that the memorandum he distributed is in response to a letter that appeared in the Star Democrat today which he stated contained factual inaccuracies. He stated that he does not plan to elaborate but would answer any questions. Mr. Thomas stated a second matter he would like to call to the Council’s attention is a letter from Mr. John Murray, hand-delivered to Mr. Thomas today on behalf of the Lowe’s Corporation.

Mr. Mac Brittingham, 733 Elwood Avenue, stated that he had been contacted by Ms. Sylvia Gannon to look at some things they were going to try to do to a piece of property. Mr. Brittingham stated that he believes in a lot of things that Ms. Gannon was talking about. Mr. Brittingham reviewed his correspondence related to the moratorium. Mr. Brittingham stated that a moratorium is not needed and never was. He asked that the Council go into Executive Session and exclude the Easton Commons project from any moratorium.

Mr. Phil Hoon stated that he is an attorney in Chestertown, Maryland, 104 S. Cross Street. He stated that he was representing the Talbot Preservation Alliance and would like to submit to the Mayor and Council a letter, from a legal perspective, why the moratorium is appropriate and should be enacted. Mr. Hoon briefed on his presentation. He stated that he has broken his presentation down to five topics that he addressed. Mr. Hoon stated that the five topics addressed are: the rule of law, preservation of property rights and financial hardship, the threat of litigation, impact fees and inevitability. Mr. Hoon stated that the reason the moratorium should be enacted is because of what the Planning Commission has said. Mr. Hoon stated that the Planning Commission has said there is an urgent need. He stated that his interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan was that the Town of Easton does not want uncontrolled development. Mr. Hoon stated that no one should be exempt from the moratorium. He stated that all this moratorium seeks to do is to enable the Town to address those development proposals fairly and equitably. Mr. Hoon stated that a three-month moratorium is probably too short but it can be addressed in a short period. Mr. Hoon suggested imposing impact fees as well as economic. environmental studies and traffic studies. Mr. Hoon stated that he felt that a responsible developer would come forward and present those things. He stated that he was not sure that the Town’s Zoning Ordinance has the teeth to require that these be addressed. Mr. Hoon presented a letter to the Council to read at their convenience.

Mr. Mark Bower, Old Country Club Road, Easton stated that he agrees with Mr. Petrie’s comments in today’s paper stating that Easton should hire someone with retail development expertise. Mr. Bower’s concern was with the statement from Home Depot’s Annual Report that approximately 25% of the stores are leased. Mr. Bower questioned what happens when Home Depot decides to relocate a store on leased property. Mr. Bower stated that he had concerns regarding Home Depot’s cannibalization strategy to increase consumer satisfaction.

Mr. Peter Pinkard, Talbot County, with an office in Easton stated that he feels compelled to speak tonight. Mr. Pinkard stated that he feels compassion for the elected officials. Mr. Pinkard stated that he clearly supports a 90-day moratorium. He stated that the community is becoming embroiled in a we versus them battle that no one wins. Mr. Pinkard stated that five big boxes have been added to the community in the last decade. Mr. Pinkard stated that there was no way the Council could objectively assess the proposals for big box development without additional research and analysis. Mr. Pinkard offered suggestions on what should be accomplished during the moratorium.

Mr. Greg Gannon, 28656 Goldsborough Neck Road, stated that he does not believe that a moratorium is needed at this time. Mr. Gannon stated that it would constitute an unnecessary and unfair delay to the developers and eventual customers. Mr. Gannon outlined his reasons for his opposition to the moratorium. Mr. Gannon stated that downtown and big box are entirely different market sectors. Mr. Gannon stated that the effect on quality of life by big boxes is minimal. Mr. Gannon reviewed the traffic options for Easton Commons. He suggested trusting the SHA working with private and Town of Easton engineers in the Town of Easton. Mr. Gannon stated that a moratorium that includes existing applications is unfair.

Mr. Mark Harrison, 7619 Easton Club Drive, stated that he is here tonight to state his support for the moratorium under consideration. Mr. Harrison stated that his decision to return to the Eastern Shore was influenced by his children, 5 and 3 years old. Mr. Harrison stated that he commutes to Washington on a daily basis. Mr. Harrison challenged the Council members on their position and asked if they represented their ward. Mr. Harrison asked if the Council members constituents had been polled. He asked the Council to pause and engage the entire community both young and old. Mr. Harrison suggested using the Avalon Theatre to hold community meetings. Mr. Harrison stated that the question before the Council tonight is more than environmental issues or zoning concerns. He stated it is about a lifestyle that was passed onto him by family and a lifestyle that he wants to pass onto his kids.

Mr. William Farberman, Waverly Road, stated that he is a retired, liberal democrat. He stated that all one has to do to see a need for a moratorium is go downtown and see the number of vacant spaces in retail stores. He stated that Easton does not need vacant spaces or duplicate services.

Ms. Peggy Roe, Corbin Parkway, stated that she has lived in Easton for 26 years and appreciates the feeling of living in the country while enjoying the amenities Easton offers. Ms. Roe stated that she still finds herself driving to Salisbury and Dover for her purchases while she would prefer to spend her dollars in her home county. Ms. Roe questioned the Town on their obligation to allow the commercial development to keep pace with residential growth. She stated that Easton would never offer everything to everyone. Ms. Roe stated that Easton has an obligation not to change the rules in the middle of the game. She stated that she does not want to see Easton become another Glen Burnie. Ms. Roe stated that as a taxpayer, she will not be happy to have any of her tax dollars spent in a lawsuit from the proposed moratorium.

Mr. Milton Irvin, 27390 Powatan Avenue, stated that he is speaking for himself and his wife. Mr. Irvin stated that he wanted to address Mr. Petrie’s article in the paper. Mr. Irvin stated that he felt Mr. Petrie has jumped through hoops of fire to do everything that the Planning Commission has asked of him. Mr. Irvin stated that he has come to believe over the years that in order to tell something about a developer is not to pay any attention to his public relation firm’s issuance’s but to look at his works. He believes Mr. Petrie’s are first class. Mr. Irvin stated that the Council’s obligation is to all the citizens, not to a first class developer. Mr. Irvin stated that he thought the developer was asking for fairness and asking to overlook the facts involved. Mr. Irvin reminded the Council that their obligation is to protect the citizens, using their position to try to lead Talbot County to be the leaders of the mid-shore in protecting their environment and what is really here.

Mr. David Mercier, 32 S. Washington Street, stated that he has been a resident of Talbot County for 16 years. Mr. Mercier stated that he is strongly in favor of approving the moratorium and of any policies that will allow for manageable and reasonable economic development in the long term. Mr. Mercier stated that his concern was that the influx of these large retail entities will degrade the quality of life in Easton and this county. He suggested looking at what this area will look like in 50 years from now and how decisions today will influence the lives of children and grandchildren. Mr. Mercier stated that the indefinable quality lies in the heart and soul of this area and is priceless and irreplaceable. He stated that all the great shopping options in the world are no substance for it. Mr. Mercier stated that we need a pace of development that is consistent with and preserves the small town character of Easton.

Ms. Diane Welte, Secretary/Treasury of Talbot County Preservation Alliance, stated that she lives in Ratcliffe Manor in Easton and is encouraging the Council to vote in favor of the moratorium. Ms. Weltz read the top ten myths of growth. Ms. Weltz asked that the Council not believe that all growth is good. Ms. Weltz advised the Council to ask the hard questions such as who will benefit from the next development scheme and who will pay, are there better options, how much growth can our roads, our land our air, community and school support, where should we stop? Ms. Weltz thanked the Council for the opportunity.

Mr. Tom Stolma, 9981 Wades Point Road, McDaniel, Maryland stated that he has lived in the county for 15 years. He stated that the moratorium impacts the entire county. Mr. Stolma stated that he chose to live here because it is a unique rural area. Mr. Stolma stated that he has experienced one surprise in this area and that is the shopping environment which he feels is quite good. Mr. Stolma questioned if Easton really wants to become the retail hub of the Eastern Shore. He stated that Easton has a healthy economy and low ermployment. He asked that the Council not be pressured by development interests to hurry up and start now. Mr. Stolma stated that the Council was wise to consider a moratorium and that he hopes it is adopted.

Mr. Charles Mason, Powatan Avenue, stated that he is here to support the moratorium. Mr. Powatan stated that he is a retired government employee. Mr. Powatan stated that he has seen this situation in at least three areas that he has lived in, middle Georgia, the Florida east coast, and Fairfax, Virginia. Mr. Powatan stated that he certainly does not want Easton to turn out like any of those three areas so he supports this moratorium.

Mr. Walt Petrie, the proposed developer of Easton Commons, stated that he has prepared a letter which he will leave for the record that discusses facts. He asked to clarify the letter that was written by the Planning Commission. He stated that one of the problems is that while the Planning Commission had hearings, they did not accept input from anyone. Mr. Petrie outlined his view for the need for retail development within the Town of Easton as submitted in 1998. Mr. Petrie stated that he had two accesses that will work from the State Highway Administration. He stated that there is not an available retail location in Town to accommodate the addition of his proposed tenant Home Depot. Mr. Petrie stated that they have submitted a plan for a restaurant on Route 50 he will continue to develop this location in a piecemeal fashion. Mr. Petrie stated that Staples which has was a candidate for his development is a category killer just like Home Depot, TJ Maxx, etc. Mr. Petrie stated that he is reminded of a statement of a recent panelist to be careful of what you ask for, you just might get it. Mr. Petrie stated that retailers are a resourceful group, so don’t be surprised if they find a location to serve the needs of the market without the Town’s approval. Mr. Petrie stated that he thinks that the moratorium is a good idea. He stated that he has been in front of this town for almost two years and submitted numerous pieces of information. He suggested hiring someone to get factual information. Mr. Petrie thanked the Council.

Mr. John Murray stated that he has spoken before but wants to make specific points about Lowe’s. Mr. Murray stated that he had received a letter from a representative from Lowe’s which states that Lowe’s has been a part of this community for some time. He started that Lowe’s has outgrown its original store and has also outgrown their current store. Mr. Murray stated that he believes that a moratorium is not required. He stated that if the Council does decide to adopt a moratorium, it is important to get input from all the stakeholders. Mr. Muray stated that Lowe’s is concerned for this community as a whole. He asked that the process be inclusive as possible to get perspectives of those that will be affected by the decisions.

At 9:03 P.M., the President of the Council closed the Public Hearing to be reopened at the next meeting. Mr. Willey stated that written comments will be accepted for public record.

At 9:04 P.M., the President of the Council opened the public hearing to consider the application of Relp Limited Partnership for an amendment to the Easton Club PUD to eliminate 17 single family lots and add The Masters Village Condominiums, a 176 unit project involving 22 multi-family buildings.

At 9:05 P.M., the President of the Council declared a ten-minute recess.

At 9:12 P.M., the President of the Council re-convened the Public Hearing on the Easton Club PUD.

The Town Planner stated that the Planning Commission has forwarded a recommendation during a previous meeting. Mr. Hamilton stated that the Planning Commission had previously turned down plans but that this final presentation, did not meet with opposition. Mr. Hamilton stated that all of the issues have been resolved to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission so they therefore forwarded a favorable recommendation to approve the PUD application.

Mr. Bruce Armistead was present on behalf of the developers of Easton Club. Mr. Armistead introduced Mr. Bob Rauch, Mr. Nick Rocks and the traffic consultant, Mr. Robert Morris.

Mr. Armistead thanked the Council. He stated that he would present the proposal as approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Armistead stated that this is a proposal to amend an existing approved PUD project known as Easton Club. Mr. Armistead stated that the proposal entails 34 single family lots and 176 multi-family condominium units. Mr. Armistead stated that contrary to rumor, the 176 multi-family condominium units are not apartments. Mr. Armistead stated that the applicant had appeared before the Planning Commission five times. He stated that previous plans that had been rejected have resulted in a better plan, which is being brought before the Council this evening. Mr. Armistead stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission had reviewed the plan and voted unanimously to approve the amendment, which is their role under the existing ordinance. Mr. Armistead reviewed the Council’s role to review the approved amendment for accuracy with the current regulations and ratify the Planning Commission’s decision.

Mr. Armistead stated that there has been some opposition and controversy to this project. He stated that they had worked diligently with residents of the surrounding areas, particularly residents of the Waverly and Woodland Farms community. Mr. Armistead stated that they had come to a resolution of the major issues. Mr. Armistead stated that access onto Waverly Road will be prohibited except for emergency vehicles. The second issue is that the site plan that is before the Council tonight is the site plan that is proposed for construction. Mr. Armistead stated that any amendments would require Council approval, Planning and Zoning Commission approval and the consent of those that have had input into this process. Mr. Armistead stated that the issue regarding the clearing of trees has been resolved. Mr. Armistead stated that the developer has agreed to install and maintain an eight-foot high screening hedge along a substantial portion of Waverly Road. He stated that the sequence of construction will not start at the point closest to Waverly Road but at one of the points on the eastern most multi-family units or the northern most. Mr. Armistead stated that these agreements have been drafted and are being circulated between the parties of interest. He stated that these documents will be recorded in the permanent land records of Talbot County.

Mr. Armistead stated that there are four issues he would like to address this evening. He stated that the first is the developer’s right to amend the PUD, the second is more detail on the access from Easton Club onto Waverly Road, number three is the impact of The Master’s Village on the surrounding communities and fourth is the issue of traffic impact.

Mr. Armistead elaborated on the four issues regarding the PUD amendment. Mr. Armistead referenced Talbot County’s Comprehensive Plan and the reference to the need to efficiently use the areas around the Town. He stated that the Easton Club covers approximately 283 acres resulting in an effective density of 1.77 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Armistead stated that this would result in the lowest density in a residential area in the Town of Easton. Mr. Armistead discussed features and architectural aspects of The Master’s Village.

Mr. Robert Morris, a traffic consultant stated that he prepared the traffic analysis distributed tonight. Mr. Morris stated that the four intersections that he studied in this analysis all came out to Level of Service A with full development as it is proposed. Mr. Morris explained the scale for the levels of service, which he stated, are A through F with A being excellent and F being a failure and heavy congestion. Mr. Morris summarized the peak hours for the intersections. He stated that his assumptions were based on the fact that the traffic would come out onto Clubhouse Road and Tour Drive. Mr. Morris stated that the project roads are well designed for safety. He stated that the roads are designed to be slow moving roadways. Mr. Morris stated that it gives the appearance of a rural road. Mr. Morris stated that his bottom line is that the intersections will operate at excellent level of services and from a traffic-engineering standpoint, it is a good design. Mr. Morris stated that he would be happy to answer questions.

Mr. Heinmuller questioned Mr. Morris on page five of his addendum where it states "approved plan with retirement rates." Mr. Morris stated that he used standard trip generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers for typical suburban developments. Mr. Morris stated that according to sales documents from Easton Club, there is a large portion of residents that move here that are retired. He stated that the retirement trip generation rate is substantially lower, about 20% of the normal generation rate.

Mr. Heinmuller questioned the use of golf carts on the roads. Mr. Rauch stated that a cart path would be incorporated into the recreational area as part of the site planning. Mr. Rauch stated that there are actually two short parallel sections that the cart path actually travels. Mr. Rauch stated that if there is a safety problem that that has not been foreseen, they do retain a 60’ right–of-way which would remedy the problem.

Mr. Mayer asked who owns the streets in the development. Mr. Rauch stated that they are currently owned by the developer but they will however be turned over to the community association at the appropriate time, when development activities are complete.

Mr. Reed stated that a letter had been written to Mr. Hamilton from the Easton Volunteer Fire Department regarding access to the development from Waverly Road. Mr. Armistead stated that it would be accessible and designed in accordance with the Fire Department’s input. Mr. Reed questioned the available access to the rear of the buildings. Mr. Rauch stated that access would be available through the golf course and unobstructed areas. Mr. Reed questioned the size of the elevators. Mr. Rauch stated that the final design would be according to code standards. Mr. Hamilton stated that if the PUD amendment is approved at this level, he will make sure the Fire Department’s concerns are addressed when the development is in the planning stages.

The President of the Council opened the Public Hearing for public comments.

Mr. William Farberman, Waverly Road, stated when Easton Club was first proposed, they spoke of 350 units. Mr. Farberman read an excerpt from an original proposal from The Star Democrat. He reviewed the phases of construction at Easton Club. Mr. Farberman stated that he viewed the proposed condominium units as eventual rental apartments. Mr. Farberman asked the Council to reject the plan to modify the PUD.

Mr. Dave Layton stated that he and his wife have been coming to Easton for approximately a quarter of a century. He stated that he moved in four months ago and is delighted with the community. Mr. Layton stated that he is most concerned with increased density over the numbers that appeared in his restrictive covenant when he purchased and invested his life savings here. Mr. Layton stated that he thought that careful consideration should be given to the density and the additional traffic. Mr. Layton expressed concern over when the traffic study had been conducted. He stated that he wants to see open green space. Mr. Layton stated that he understands that the asking price for each unit is $200,000. He stated that there are some unanswered questions.

Mr. Tom Kimmell stated that he represents 55 homeowners at the Easton Club. He stated that at this time, he would like to move into the record, the comments expressed on the developer’s proposed amendment. Mr. Kimmell stated that his clients names are listed and that he is proud to be representing them. Mr. Kimmell outlined his clients comments. Mr. Kimmell questioned the rationalization to amend the PUD, stated that the application does not support the applicant’s proposal, and asked the Council to reject it. He reviewed the Planning Commission and the Town Council’s positions as related to the approval of the PUD. He reviewed the Zoning Ordinance requirements and the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kimmell referred to the 30% common open space requirements outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Kimmell stated that what the developer is proposing, is completely inconsistent to what exists in Easton Club now and what exists in the surrounding neighborhoods, particularly in Woodland Farms. He stated that the developer is proposing to build the densest development near the non-tidal wetlands, which is inconsistent with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kimmell reviewed the subdivision regulations, which he states shall govern this development. Mr. Kimmell stated that the traffic analysis does not support this development. Mr. Kimmell stated that the proposed development would adversely affect the existing property values. Mr. Kimmell stated that given all the ways that this does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan, the way it creates traffic congestion, is not harmonious and the way it will adversely will affect traffic patterns, this application should be denied and he encouraged the Council to act accordingly.

Mr. Leonard Williams, Tred Avon Drive in Waverly stated that he would like to first say is that while he understands the neighborhood associations’ positions, stated that the residents had never been consulted or asked a single question. Mr. Williams stated that the developer is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan requirements. He stated that the density is not compatible with the neighboring communities. Mr. Williams stated that the density problem will increase the traffic problem. Mr. Williams stated that the developer has cut trees and cleared away almost all underbrush. Mr. Williams asked the Council to reject the developer’s proposal.

Mr. Armistead asked to make a couple comments for the record. Mr. Armistead stated that the standards in the Zoning Ordinance had been addressed at the Planning Commission level. Mr. Armistead stated that the entity that controls the golf course is one entity, Rocks Corporation. Mr. Armistead responded to Mr. Kimmell’s allegations and thanked the Council for their attention.

Mr. Ford applauded the attempts to reconcile differences with the neighborhoods and wondered to what extent the same methods had been attempted with Easton Club residents. Mr. Armistead stated that he had personally sent a letter to individuals to which he received no response. Mr. Armistead stated that the developer has offered to meet with the individuals and to his knowledge, have not been accepted.

Mr. Rauch explained his attempts to resolve the potential opposition.

Mr. Ford questioned to what percent is the existing community association made up of Easton Club residents. Mr. Rauch responded that the Board of Directors is made up of representatives of which he is on but he is also a resident of the Easton Club.

Mr. Mayer asked how many residents live in Easton Club. Mr. Rauch stated that there are 156 purchased single family homes, town homes with totaling 223 residents. Mr. Mayer asked for clarification for roads. Mr. Rauch stated that the reason the scale of the roads was consistent with the transition from the Town roads. Mr. Rauch stated that Clubhouse Drive, measured from flood line to flood line, is a 30’ road to accommodate additional traffic. He stated that the balance of the streets are 24’ streets with 60’ right-of-ways with the exception of one small circle which is a 50’ road. The balance are constructed as transitional private roads.

Ms. Judy Straub, Waverly, stated that she comes to ask as the others have that the proposed amendment be rejected and please keep Easton Club at the number of units originally requested, approved by the Council and sold to the community. Ms. Straub stated that an increase of 500 units of any kind will create a tremendous havoc on the traffic, on the way of life of Waverly Island, Easton Club and the residents of Easton. Ms. Straub stated that she is concerned with applications of developers in Easton and Talbot County. She asked that an example be set with Easton Club.

Mr. Mark Harrison, 7619 Easton Club Drive, stated that he wants to be positive. He stated that Bob Rauch has always been receptive of his concerns. Mr. Harrison stated that he is uncomfortable with the beating up of the developer tonight. Mr. Harrison stated that he feels that the Council is not a rubber stamp for the Planning and Zoning Commission and he didn’t see anyone at the polls from Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Harrison stated that he is on record opposing this proposal and is concerned about the density and the safety his children will be subjected to by the increase of traffic. Mr. Harrison stated that he is concerned about a policy being set by this Council by continuing to modify PUDs according to market conditions. He suggested setting the ground rules for developers so there is no misunderstanding.

At 10:51 P.M., the President of the Council closed the public hearing and stated that he would like to keep the record open for a week for those that did not have the opportunity to comment and would like to submit written comments. He thanked everyone for coming and stated that he appreciated everyone coming out to give the Council his or her opinion.

The President of the Council called for a five-minute recess.

At 10:58 P.M., the President of the Council re-convened the meeting.

The President of the Council brought Resolution No. 5674, "A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF EASTON APPROVING A CHANGE TO THE SITE PLAN FOR PROPERTY IN A PLANNED REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE AND OWNED BY THE TOWN CONSTITUTING THE GRAHAM’S ALLEY REVITALIZATION PROJECT" to the floor.

The Town Attorney stated that the resolution puts in written form a decision informally made by the Council in August with regard to the proposal by Easton Housing Authority to develop the remaining portion of Graham’s Park parcel.

Mr. Mayer made a motion to move Resolution No. 5674, seconded by Mr. Ford and carried unanimously following a roll call vote.

The President of the Council stated that Ordinance No. 397 will be resubmitted due to an error in the description of the property.

The President of the Council directed the Town Attorney to revise Ordinance No. 390 relating to the moratorium.

Mr. Tim Glass, Town Engineer, stated that he wanted to convey his thanks to the Mayor and the Council members for his appointment. Mr. Glass stated that he does look forward to continuing with the support on the Town Engineering matters as done in the past. Mr. Glass stated that he also looks forward to the continuation of the positive and productive work relationship that has been enjoyed as Assistant Town Engineer and through the Town Engineer’s office as well. Mr. Glass thanked Mr. Grunden and stated that it has been a pleasure working with Hugh and he appreciates the opportunity to uphold the high standards that have been set by Mr. Grunden. Mr. Glass stated that he is glad that the Town Engineer’s office will continue to have the shared relationship with Easton Utilities.

The Town Engineer reported that on the Town side, Moton Park construction continues with a projected completion date of September 13. Mr. Glass stated that activity should be starting there very vigorously there this week as the contractor had previous obligations.

The Town Engineer reported activity on Clay and Jowite Street with curb, gutter and sidewalk construction through the end of September with no major disruptions.

Mr. Glass reported that at he has a general update on Easton Utilities Consolidated Office Building construction. He stated that there is some steel going up and once that is completed, they will get the building closed in.

Mr. Glass stated that they are working with contractors to get North Street paved after some minor improvements.

Mr. Heinmuller stated that Mr. Grunden has some big shoes to fill and some high standards to keep. He stated that he is sure Mr. Glass is up for the job and will give him any support he can.

Mr. Heinmuller asked for clarification on the grade and surface of Moton Park’s track. Mr. Glass stated that it will be a stone dust material similar to Idlewild.

The Town Attorney stated that in the Council packet is a memo in regard to the Growth Allocation process. Mr. Kehoe asked that the Council advise him at the next Council meeting if the proposals as submitted in his letter are acceptable.

The Town Attorney stated that he is happy that Mr. Grunden is still at Easton Utilities. He stated that Hugh took over as Town Engineer under the most difficult of possible circumstances and really covered himself with laurels every step of the way. Mr. Kehoe stated he considered himself to be a close friend before he began that process and he is happy to think of himself as a closer friend of Hugh’s now. Mr. Kehoe stated that he looks forward to working with Mr. Tim Glass who he stated is ideally suited to step into Hugh’s accomplishments as Town Engineer. Mr. Kehoe congratulated Mr. Grunden on his success and Mr. Glass on his appointment.

The President of the Council reviewed the Council’s calendar.

The President of the Council asked for audience comments. There were none.

At 11:07 P.M., Mr. Ford made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Mayer and carried unanimously.

_________________________________________

Town Clerk