June 18, 2001

The Town Council of the Town of Easton met today at 7:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order by the President of the Council, Mr. Willey, with the following members present: Mr. Ford, Mr. Jensen, Mr. Reed, and Ms. Jackson-Amis. Also attending the meeting were Mayor C. Eugene Butler, Chief of Police George Harvey, Town Engineer Tim Glass, Town Attorney Christopher Kehoe, Assistant Town Engineer Joe Gruber, Town Planner Thomas Hamilton, Assistant Town Planner Lynn Thomas, Captain David Spencer, Captain Benjamin Blue, Captain Robert Hobbs, Lieutenant Wade Roche, and Administrative Support Supervisor Richard Warfield.

Mr. Ford opened the meeting with prayer. He led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mr. Ford made a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting held on June 4, 2001, seconded by Mr. Jensen, and carried unanimously.

Chief Harvey was present to introduce the new officers who will be working with the Easton Police Department. The new officers were as follows: Officer Robin Tarr, Patrol Division; Officer Jeanette Whaley, Patrol Division; Officer Jeffrey Smith, Patrol Division; Officer George Larrimore, Patrol Division; Officer Gordon Lee, Patrol Division; Recruit Benjamin Adams; Recruit Frank Kregan; Recruit Frank Cook; Ms. Jill Garvey, Management Assistant; Ms. Lindsay Chaphant, Police Communications Officer; Mr. Cordell Burris, Police Communications Officer; Ms. Lois Elder, Administrative Division of Records/ Personnel; and Ms. Dorothy Stitchberry, Meter Enforcement Officer.

Mr. Willey brought forth a memo from the Assistant Town Planner Mr. Thomas regarding a request for a Public Hearing for Community Legacy Program.

The President of the Council scheduled a public hearing for the Community Legacy Program on July 2, 2001 at 7:15 P.M.

He brought forth a memo from Mr. Thomas regarding Zoning Ordinance Amendments.

Mr. Thomas stated that the earliest the amendments could be finalized is July 16, 2001.

Mr. Willey scheduled a public hearing for the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance for July 16, 2001 at 7:15 P.M.

Mr. Ford asked when was the application for the Community Legacy Program due.

Mr. Thomas stated that the deadline was July 24, 2001.

Mr. Willey brought forth another memo from Mr. Thomas regarding a Marketing/Recruitment Study Grant.

Mr. Thomas stated that Cindy Stone from the Maryland Main Street Program as well as Mr. Less Hall, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Business & Economics for the state has arranged for $35, 000 to be set aside for each of Maryland’s Main Street communities to be used for a marketing and business recruitment program. He went on to say that the information had been provided to the council as of the meeting. The grant is an economic development community block grant, which is different from the other programs in which applications have been submitted before. However, it does require a public hearing.

Ms. Jackson-Amis asked if the provisions regarding the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance have been discussed with the Comprehensive Planning committee.

Mr. Thomas stated that the Planning Commission has discussed the provisions, but the group involved in revising the Comprehensive Plan has not seen the proposed changes. The town’s Planning Commission supports the proposed amendments with one amendment other than the ones proposed.

Ms. Jackson-Amis asked if the group revising the Comprehensive Plan were aware of the changes. Her concern was about the independent planning groups having input on what to do with the land uses, and whether or not they had any relations to the proposed amendments.

Mr. Thomas stated that they do because the Planning Commission is the group responsible for looking at the Comprehensive Plan. The visioning committee is used to help them obtain input from the community as a whole. He went on to say that the proposed amendments are relatively minor amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.

Ms. Jackson-Amis asked if the $35, 000 could be used for a main street planner if that was the decision made.

Mr. Thomas stated that his understanding of the grant was that it has to be used to hire someone to conduct a study as part of being a main street community.

Mr. Jensen asked what direction were things going in as far as the upcoming Community Legacy public hearings.

Mr. Thomas stated that there had been a discussion on programs to increase homeownership in the community legacy area, which would be part of the task to define exactly what the "community legacy area" is, renovating historic sites, strategic money for acquisition and/or demolition of properties that were a problem, recruitment of specific businesses in the area, and so on.

Mr. Willey scheduled a public hearing for the Marketing/Recruitment Study Grant for July 2, 2001 at 7:45 P.M.

At approximately 7:15 P.M., the President of the Council opened the Public Hearing to receive comments on the Annexation request for four parcels owned by the Town of Easton (1) on North side of Bay Street consisting of 1.4 acres; (2) adjacent to the power plant property of the Town of Easton consisting of 5.102 acres more or less (3) on the West side of Flood Avenue consisting of 8106 square feet of land; and (4) on the Northwest side of Matthewstown Road consisting of 1.238 acres of land more or less into the Town.

Town Planner Mr. Hamilton stated that areas described are actually areas owned by the Town of Easton. However, some of the parcels were omitted and never annexed into the town, but they are owned and utilized by the Town of Easton. The first area on the North side of Bay Street next to the cable head-end station and the pumping station. The second area is on the site of the plant where the Easton Utilities generation plant and facilities are off of Washington Street. The third area is a tiny lot off of Flood Avenue, which was purchased when the power substation was built allowing the lot to become available. The final area is the large tower on Matthewstown Road, the tank however, was never within town limits, but if it were annexed, then it would be in the town limits.

Mr. Willey opened the floor to the audience for comments.

There were none at this time.

Mr. Hamilton stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed the annexation in May and forwarded a recommendation to the council that the lands are annexed.

At 7:24 P.M., the President of the Council, Mr. Willey closed the Public Hearing.

The President of the Council brought forth a memo from Mayor Butler requesting approval of appointments to the Community Legacy Task Force. He went on to read the following names: Mr. John Ford, Mr. Don Bibb, Ms. Hillary Spence, Ms. Carolyn Jaffe, Ms. Carlene Phoenix, Ms. Joyce DeLaurentis, Ms. Joan Banks, Ms. Suzanne Hood, Ms. Moonyene Jackson, Rev. Richard Greene.

Mr. Reed made a motion to approve the appointees to the Community Legacy Task Force, seconded by Mr. Ford and carried unanimously.

Mr. Willey brought forth a letter from La Leche of the Mid-Shore requesting participation in the annual World Walk for Breastfeeding. The walk will take place on August 4, 2001.

Mr. Willey introduced Resolution No. 5729, "A RESOLUTION TO ANNEX FOUR PARCELS OF LAND TO THE TOWN OF EASTON LOCATED (1) ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BAY STREET CONSISTING OF 1.4 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS; (2) ADJACENT TO THE POWER PLANT PROPERTY OF THE TOWN OF EASTON CONSISTING OF 5.102 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS; (3) ON THE WEST SIDE OF FLOOD AVENUE CONSISTING OF 8106 SQUARE FEET OF LAND; AND (4) ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF MATTHEWSTOWN ROAD CONSISTING OF 1.238 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ANNEXATION." He also introduced Ordinance No. 422 "AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF EASTOM AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE TOWN OF EASTON TO APPLY AN ORIGINAL ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF I-1 (SELECT INDUSTRIAL) TO THREE PARCELS OF LAND ANNEXED TO THE TOWN OF EASTON LOCATED (1) ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BAY STREET CONSISTING OF 1.4 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS; (2) ADJACENT TO THE POWER PLANT PROPERTY OF THE TOWN OF EASTON CONSISTING OF 5.102 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS; (3) ON THE WEST SIDE OF FLOOD AVENUE CONSISTING OF 8106 SQUARE FEET OF LAND, MORE OR LESS AND TO APPLY A ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-10A (RESIDENTIAL) TO A PARCEL OF LAND ANNEXED TO THE TOWN OF EASTON LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF MATTHEWSTOWN ROAD CONSISTING OF 1.238 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS."

Mr. Jensen motioned for introduction of Resolution No. 5729 and Ordinance No. 422 into the record, seconded by Mr. Reed and carried unanimously.

Mr. Willey brought forward Resolution No. 5735, the budget for the twelve-month period from July 1, 2001.

Mr. Ford stated that the budget is still intently under review as the council is still trying to find ways to reduce the budget in terms of reducing a property tax increase.

Mr. Ford moved Resolution No. 5735 for passage, seconded by Mr. Reed.

Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that the council was able to amend the budget and made some decisive reductions. She asked if the council could amend the budget after it has been passed.

Mr. Kehoe stated that the council could amend the budget once it is passed, but the budget itself needs to be finalized by the beginning of the next fiscal year.

Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that the council must pass the budget, but also have the flexibility to make amendments following the passage.

Mr. Kehoe stated that a package has to be passed by the council and if changes have been agreed upon the council, they should be passed at the present time and a supplemental ordinance can be used to adjust the budget.

Mr. Jensen asked if the cutting was able to lower the tax rate, how would it affect the amendment process.

Mr. Kehoe stated that the amended ordinance would have to be passed at the first meeting in July so that the tax bills could be calculated. After July the budget cannot be increased, but could be reduced.

Mr. Jensen asked if there was a need for a public hearing.

Mr. Kehoe stated that the public hearing had already taken place, and there was no need for another.

Ms. Jackson-Amis asked if the council passed the budget as it was, how would the tax increase affect the budget later.

Mr. Kehoe stated that the next council meeting would be held on July 2, 2001, if an adjustment were made at that meeting, the tax bills may not include the adjusted amount and they may be late.

Mr. Jack Mason was present and stated that he was told that the budget would not be ready until June 21, 2001 and the cost would be .50 a page. Mr. Mason went on to say that he had a problem with the cost because it is public information. He also stated that he would like to know where the money proposed in the budget is going, because the budget itself does not show exactly what is done within the Town of Easton.

Mayor Butler stated that for anyone, who would like, there is a copy of the budget located at the front desk in the town office.

Ms. Kathleen Harvey, Easton, Maryland, spoke in support of the Police Department and read a letter regarding the salaries of Easton Police officers.

Mr. Jensen stated that a better job could be done at getting a more available copy of the budget so that everyone who would like to read it. He asked Mayor Butler if a copy could be sent to the Talbot County Free Library, although that idea has not been successful in the past.

Mayor Butler stated that it would be a waste of time due to the fact that someone would take the copy and no one else would be able to look at it there.

Chief Harvey stated that of the 12 annual reports that have been put in the library since the first two were submitted, none have been recovered.

Mrs. Jackson-Amis asked Mr. Mason if he came back to look at the budget on the day that he was told, that it would be available, June 21, 2001.

Mr. Mason stated that due to employment out of town, it would not be possible for him to come in and look at the budget.

Resolution No. 5735 as amended was approved unanimously following a roll call vote.

Mr. Willey brought forth Amended Ordinance No. 430 "AN AMENDED ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE FOR THE RAISING BY TAXATION THE AMOUNT NECESSARY TO PAY THE ORDINARY EXPENSES OF THE TOWN OF EASTON AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF INTERST ON THE VARIOUS BOND ISSUES AND THE REDUCTION OF CERTAIN BONDS AND NOTES FOR THE PERIOD OF TWELVE MONTHS AND SETTING THE INTEREST AND PENALTY FOR DELINQUENT BILLS, COMMENCING ON JULY 1, 2001 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2002."

Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that the council should note a letter received from Easton residents who have suggested that the taxes not be raised because the Town of Easton did not give reasons for the increase or give sufficient reasoning for that. She went on to say that the council takes note of comments that are received by telephone or written correspondence so that when decisions are made comments can be added.

Mr. Ford stated that he had received comments from various citizens that were a little put off by the Star Democrat headline, that the residents of the town in general are unfazed by the proposed tax increase, which is not true. He does not want anyone to think that the Town Council as a whole is taking the budget or the tax increase lightly, because it’s not.

Mr. Ford motioned for approval of Amended Ordinance No. 430, seconded by Mr. Jensen. Amended Ordinance No. 430 was approved following a 4-1 roll call vote with Ms. Jackson-Amis voting no.

Mr. Willey brought forth Resolution No. 5737 authorizing the Town Clerk to abate Corporate Personal Property Taxes of Historic Replications, Inc. since the corporation has been dissolved by the State of Maryland.

Mr. Reed motioned for approval of Resolution No. 5737, seconded by Ms. Jackson-Amis and carried unanimously following a roll call vote.

At approximately 7:45 P.M. the President of the Council reopened the public hearing on the request of Swann Haven Limited Partnership to annex certain lands as described in Resolution No. 5730.

Mr. Hamilton displayed and discussed the details of a map of the proposed area for annexation. He went on to say that there would be a detailed study of the proposed project on the site. He stated that there has never been any type of project reviewed on the property; a similar project has been shown.

Ms. Jackson-Amis asked if the project being presented had been reviewed.

Mr. Hamilton stated that the hearing was for annexation to bring land in the county into the jurisdiction of the town. The council would like to see exactly what the applicant wants to do and hear any ideas to help decide whether or not they want to annex the land or not.

Ms. Jackson-Amis asked why wasn’t the project included in the review.

Mr. Hamilton stated that complete subdivision or application review was not going to be discussed because the outcome may not be annexation. He went on to discuss the process of a project being reviewed.

Mr. Reed asked why was there a presentation of what was going to be put on the land.

Mr. Hamilton stated that in the past, the council had asked for a presentation to be done so that they could see a site plan.

Mr. Ford stated that conceptionally, the plan that the developers put forth be tied to the annexation to prevent bringing land into the town and then sell it to someone else.

Mr. Hamilton stated that the applicant could tie their land up through the annexation agreement and request that one type of project be built there. He discussed further details of the process.

Mr. Jensen asked why the process could be dangerous.

Mr. Hamilton stated that the process could be dangerous because the options on a piece of land that is annexed and only one specific type of project can be built there, the developer may say that the specific type of project is not feasible for that land. Therefore, the land cannot be developed until the council amends in a resolution, whatever the annexation conditions were. A concept plan would then be approved for something that the Planning Commission hasn’t recommended for approval.

Mr. Michael Pullen was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Pullen stated that the applicant was not asking the council to approve any particular development because it was premature for the council’s decision at that point, but they are asking that the council consider and decide favorably that the parcel is appropriate for annexation into the town of Easton. The specific project and all the information that has been developed in connection with the project is being submitted for application for information to show what the developer has in mind. He went on to say that all of the legal requirements for the annexation have been met. He discussed how the development at Matthewstown Run has created prosperity for young families in the community who live and work here.

Mr. Mike Wood, Director of Project Development for Passyn & Passyn stated all of the facts that he had presented to the council during the May 7, 2001 public hearing.

Mr. Jensen asked how would anyone get from the existing Matthewstown Run development to the proposed development.

Mr. Wood discussed the plan to include a smaller partially asphalted or boardwalk elevated eight or ten foot wide area that would allow for biking and walking.

Mr. Jensen asked what sections are above the 56 wooded acres in relation to the existing Matthewstown Run.

Mr. Wood discussed this.

Mr. Jensen asked if the proposed subdivision would be characterized as an extension of Matthewstown Run or a separate entity.

Mr. Wood stated that it would not be characterized as an extension of the existing development.

Ms. Jackson-Amis asked how many recreation areas in Phase 1 are there and who pays for the other phases.

Mr. Wood discussed this.

Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that she was concerned about the cost to the town for police services. She went on to ask what the town representatives would say about the project as it relates to what the new Comprehensive Plan is going to say or saying with respect to new housing and all of the issues that need to be addressed with the respect to smart growth.

Mr. Wood stated that as far as the accountability of town resources, it is always believed that the increased tax payments would come from the homes and cover the costs of the services. He went on to discuss possible ways that could cover the cost of police and fire services.

Ms. Jackson-Amis asked what the plan would be.

Reference was made to a sketch plan that was distributed.

The President of the Council opened the floor for public comments.

Mrs. Kathy Harvey stated that she was concerned about properties being annexed into the town as far as who would patrol the facilities and what will happen with the fire department. She also discussed salary issues within the police department.

Mr. Jack Mason, Easton, stated that his concern was with the schools. He also stated that building another development would not help Easton.

Mrs. Margaret Roe stated that the matter at hand was only the proposed annexation of the Swann property. She went on to say that she had several reservations regarding the proposed annexation, the most important being the existing available property. Mrs. Roe stated that she felt that there was sufficient property to build on for the next ten to fifteen years. In conclusion, she stated that she hoped the council will reject the Swann property annexation request at this time.

Mr. Mike Kirsch stated that he understood the need for affordable housing and he understood that some of the houses in Easton needed to be fixed up. He went on to say that the average person could not afford to fix up their home, so why couldn’t the town give them some kind of tax incentive so that they cold fix the houses.

Mr. Bob Sullivan stated that he serves on the board of the Soccer League of Talbot and they are faced with issues themselves because the league is countywide and there are about 1000 kids who play. He went on to say that the idea for having a park is fiscally conservative and he thought that it was a good idea to have it given because the league has to pay to use the field at the Talbot County Community Center.

Mr. Jim Scharsh stated that he would like for the council to take into consideration the employers, families, people, and welfare.

Ms. Libby Dawkins asked (to Mr. Scharsh) what kind of wages was he speaking of in relation to the police department.

Mr. Scharsh stated that he could not answer that question because he did not know what the police make.

Mr. Dorne Bowman stated that there are several different aspects within the development of the community, but it is polarized between those who stay here and those who want to leave. He went on to say that he thinks that the concept of the proposal is valid.

Mr. Stan Walker stated that he approves the proposal and he believes that it is a good idea.

Mr. Robert Bridge stated that is for the approval of the annexation.

Mr. Lenox Trams stated that he has also looked around Talbot County and cannot find a house that he can afford; therefore he has had to look in other counties just to find something that he can afford. He went on to say that he hoped that things get better.

Mr. Scharsh stated that as a resident of Easton for 59 years, he has seen the town grow from the fire department, the police department, the hospitals, etc., and everything is so much better. He went on to say that it could not be expected that people would not want to live here in Easton.

There being no further comments at 9:03 P.M., the President of the Council closed the Public Hearing. The President of the Council stated that public record would be open until 5:00 P.M. Friday, June 22, 2001 for any additional comments.

Mr. Willey brought forth a letter from Ms. Rhonda Higginbottom, Executive Director, The Child Loss Support Group, Inc. requesting waiver of variance application fees.

Mr. Ford motioned for the waiver of variance application fees for The Child Loss Support Group, Inc., seconded by Mr. Jensen and carried unanimously.

Mr. Kehoe stated that the request from the Talbot County Soil Conservation Agency is to examine the Mistletoe Hall Farm, which the town owns and has slated for industrial development at some point in the future. A conservation plan will be developed so that the stormwater runoff and erosion control measures employed on the farm are current.

Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that the council might need to wait until Mr. Kehoe as well as Town Clerk Mr. Karge answer the questions that seem to be most important at this point.

Mr. Willey brought forth Resolution No. 5730, "A RESOLUTION TO ANNEX TO THE TOWN OF EASTON APPROXIMATELY 1036.67 FEET OF MATTHEWSTOWN ROAD, MD RT. 328, AND CERTAIN LANDS LYING TO THE SOUTH OF SAID ROAD OWNED BY SWANN HAVEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, LYING EAST OF AND ADJOINING THE TOWN OF EASTON BOUNDARY SHOWN ON THE "SWANN FARM ANNEXATION PLAT" DATED OCTOBER, 2000, TAX MAP 26, BLOCK 20, PARCEL 45, LYING EAST OF THE SUBDIVISION KNOWN AS MATTHEWSTOWN RUN, PHASE 1V, CONSISTING OF SEVENTY-NINE AND 14/1000 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ANNEXATION." He also brought forth Ordinance No. 424, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF EASTON ASSIGNING THE MEDUIM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-10A) CLASSIFICATION TO CERTAIN PROPERTY OWNED BY SWANN HAVEN LTD. UPON THE ANNEXATION OF THE PROPERTY BY THE TOWN OF EASTON" into the record.

Mr. Willey brought forward Ordinance No. 431, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF EASTON APPROVING THE CABLE TV SERVICE RATE REVISIONS" to the floor.

Mr. Kehoe stated that he had submitted a resolution in substitution of the ordinance with the distinction being that the resolution becomes effective if enacted when the Mayor signs it; an ordinance, by the Town Charter, would be introduced for first reading and acted upon by the council at the first meeting in July becomes effective 20 days after the Mayor approves it.

Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that she had been involved in a discussion with management at Easton Utilities Commission in relation to the rate increase as to why wasn’t the increase made in April 2000 sufficient enough to handle the cable upgrade.

Mr. Bill Russell, Cable Department Director for Easton Utilities, discussed the rate revisions and why there would be an increase.

Mr. Ford stated that in the past, the only telephone calls he’s received regarding Easton’s cable were from residents from Pippin Farms when they were denied access to Easton cable because the owners decided that they wanted to take a less expensive route. However, he had recently received comments on Easton Cable, and some were specific to the rate increase this time. He went on to say that he does support the rate increase because he believe that rate increases are meant to keep Easton Utilities and the cable system running efficiently and properly.

Mr. Russell discussed the reasoning for choosing the programming available at the current time.

Ms. Patricia Hawkins asked how was it determined that the additional channels would be used when the upgrade took place.

Mr. Russell stated that a survey was sent in October 1999 asking for the customers’ input.

Ms. Hawkins stated that she did not receive a survey and she knew of others who had not received one either. She asked how was it determined in relation to who received surveys. She stated that she had personally contacted 25 others who had not received the survey.

Mr. Russell stated that the surveys were sent to subscribers and there was a 28% response rate behind them.

Ms. Hawkins stated that she felt that the rate increase is unnecessary.

Ms. Jackson-Amis asked if there was any particular reasoning why the ordinance was submitted as an ordinance versus a resolution.

Mr. Kehoe stated that usually when legislation is prepared for the town council, most have to do with financial matters when they are resolved in the form of an ordinance. He went on to say that the Town Charter provides that the rate increases will become effective for the cable television department upon approval by the Town Council. In this particular provision of the Charter, there is no specification of whether it has to be done by ordinance or resolution.

Mr. Ford moved Resolution No. 5738 for passage, seconded by Mr. Jensen and carried unanimously following a roll call vote.

Mr. Willey stated that there had been a public hearing on the Cooke’s Hope proposal for an allocation from the critical areas, which has to go before the County Council to approve the request. He went on to discuss the details of what needed to be done for the County Council.

Mr. Ford stated that he noticed that a representative for the applicant was present. He asked Mr. Bruce Armistead about the open space easement on Oxford Road and a discussion from the applicant’s point of view.

Mr. Armistead stated that when the applicant responded at the previous hearing the intent was to keep that space as open space. He went on to say that he believed that the applicant intended to place a conservation easement on that property at some point in the future. The tax incentives related to the grant of a conservation easement are simply greater at the end of the project and their preference would be to wait until the end of the project to do so. Mr. Armistead went on to discuss facts stated at the previous hearing.

Mr. Jensen asked if some of the discussions could be clarified in relation to the private road at Cooke’s Hope.

Mr. Armistead discussed this.

Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that if the covenants could run with the land, that would answer the questions that had been raised. She went on to say that her concern was that the development is held in trust on behalf of the public and would be granted to a private developer to use only for a private community without public access. The Homeowners Association needs to agree in written format so that there would be some covenant to run with the land, which would preserve the farmland aspect and keep the public accessibility.

Mr. Armistead stated that there were some comments made at the meeting that he did not agree with. He went on to say that he hoped that the council recognized the control that they have over any future developments in that area. The developer is not in the position to make a legal commitment that binds others that are not in his control. However it has been discussed with the Town Attorney and is believed that it would be appropriate if the council considers conditioning approval upon this and a requirement that any consideration that might ever lead to the closing of the road, be the subject of a public hearing.

Mr. Jensen asked why would an agreement like such be considered as binding.

Mr. Armistead discussed this.

Mr. Ford stated if any development in the current open space along Oxford Road was a part of the PUD in that area, it could not take place without the approval of the town council.

Mr. Jensen asked if the private access of the road could be a part of any agreement.

Mr. Armistead stated that he did not think it could be accomplished in the way it had been suggested simply because there are a number of homeowners with property rights that cannot be legally bound to such a covenant.

Ms. Jackson-Amis asked if the Homeowner Association had been made aware of the concerns of the council.

Mr. Armistead stated that the Association is well aware of the council’s concerns. He went on to discuss other details of the proposal.

Mr. Jensen stated that the County Council has been asked for a growth allocation, and now the Town Council is being asked to look at a PUD. He went on to say that the proposal may be a part of a master plan, but there is one unclear area. Mr. Jensen asked the Town Attorney what his view was on the proposal.

Mr. Kehoe stated that the issue of the possibility of a gated community at Cooke’s Hope or any other PUD is really a non-issue. The Planned Unit Development plans that exist have never included anything such as a gated community. If someone wanted to make Cooke’s Hope Road a gated community, that would require an amendment to the PUD, which was previously approved; under the Zoning Ordinance, an application that would require public review at the Planning Commission level and eventually a public hearing before the Town Council. If the council thought proactively that it would be a good idea to pass an amendment to the zoning regulations or to another part of the Town Code saying that gated residential communities will not be allowed for a variety of reasons, public access, police and fire protection access, the council could certainly do so. He also went on to say that a public hearing would take place if the homeowners wanted to construct a gate at the entrance to Cooke’s Hope Road.

Mr. Jensen asked what the future status of the road was going to be; would the Homeowners Association be willing to give that assurance.

Mr. Kehoe suggested that Mr. Armistead’s clients could be asked to approach the Homeowners Association with that question and get an answer.

Mr. Jensen asked for Mr. Armistead’s approval.

Mr. Armistead stated that there is no intent on the part of the owner or developer to restrict access. However, he is a little concerned about others that are not controlled.

Mr. Jensen asked Mr. Armistead to clarify with his clients if they had intended to make those roads private in the sense that one could be restricted from traveling on them.

Mr. Armistead stated that his clients do not intend to make the roads private. The only concern he has is that they do not bind all successors.

Mr. Jensen asked if the Homeowners Association could be asked their opinion on putting a covenant into their own body that would clarify that issue.

Mr. Armistead stated that the information could be sought if that is the request. He asked what would the results be depending on the answer received. Mr. Armistead’s concern was that the Homeowners’ Association was a fluid body and people buy and sell new properties and new properties are being built.

Mr. Jensen stated that because the Homeowners’ Association has covenants and bylaws that would determine the rules by which the Homeowners’ Association operates, through time, would the association put into the covenant, a stipulation that clarifies the use of that road.

Mr. Armistead stated that his key point was that he was concerned about the ability to do that if there was one hold out because it cannot be controlled.

Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that a good suggestion made was that legislation could be developed which would apply across the board to these properties and there would be no gated community was a good idea.

Mr. Willey stated that an agreement could be written that the roads must remain open to the public.

Mr. Kehoe stated that an ordinance could be passed prohibiting a gate for physical impediment on a road whether it is public or private.

Ms. Jackson-Amis asked why is the annexation needed.

Mr. Kehoe stated that it is already in the town. The proposal is a request for growth allocation and a PUD.

Mr. Armistead stated that the request was not for annexation, if the concern is about numbers of units, the Cooke’s Hope project has always been a project of approximately 300 units. There have been previously approved sections of the community that include units that cannot be built today because of some of the regulatory issues and restrictions that have been placed on the property by federal agencies. Ms. Jackson stated that Mr. Armistead’s answer satisfied her question.

Mr. Ford stated that some of the correspondence that the council has received, growth allocation has been referred to as a public trust. He understood that the courts have ruled whether or not growth allocation is a public trust or the right of an applicant.

Mr. Armistead stated that certain cases have gone through the courts, but it is somewhat a discretionary approval provided that it is appropriate.

Mr. Willey asked what the council’s opinion was assuming the that the issue of the private road could be settled between Mr. Kehoe and Mr. Armistead in a satisfactory manner to the consensus of the council.

Mr. Ford stated that he thought that the issue is that if the site design appears to be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and is compatible to the surrounding uses. He went on to say that if the proposal was designed conscientiously to the regard of the environment, then he would support it. He suggested that the Cooke’s Hope application is by far the most environmentally conscientious site plan seen in the critical areas.

Mr. Jensen and Mr. Reed were also in support of the project. Ms. Jackson-Amis did not agree due to easement issues.

Mr. Willey stated that he would support it assuming that the issues with the private road are settled.

Mr. Willey brought forth a memo from the Town Attorney regarding draft Human Relations Commissions’ ordinance.

Ms. Patricia Hawkins stated that at the last meeting, she understood that the opinion of an outside attorney would be sought. She asked what the position on that matter was.

Mr. Kehoe stated that he was not aware that the opinion of an outside attorney would be sought. He went on to say that he had spoken with Mayor Butler and had been told to go on. Therefore, he had spoken with Mr. Kurt Fisher of Piper & Mulberry in Baltimore, Maryland. Mr. Fisher stated that he would respond with a written analysis as well as his recommendations and conclusions within one to two weeks.

Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that she was not aware that Mayor Butler was going to tell the Town Attorney to go ahead with his suggestion. She went on to say that for the record, she did submit the name of Albright & Albright who are attorneys in both Washington, D.C. and Maryland. Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that she was under the impression that an outside opinion would be sought. She went on to say that she understood that the Attorney General would be contacted also. If an outside opinion was going to be sought, her opinion should have been looked into equally.

Ms. Hawkins stated that she felt like Mr. Kehoe does not want the subpoena powers to exist, that is why nothing has been done. She does think that someone who is not affiliated with the town should be involved so that the person would not be biased in making the decision.

Mr. Kehoe stated that he did not think that it was wise for the town to have a Human Relations Commission with subpoena powers because it is not a valid exercise of municipal powers. He went on to say that he did not think that it was fair to Mr. Fisher or himself to suggest that he has poisoned the well by speaking to Mr. Fisher. Mr. Fisher has provided legal services for the town of Easton as well as numerous other local governments throughout the State of Maryland in the past, and the suggestion that somehow he is incapable or biased in terms of his ability to provide the kind of analysis for this case is unfair.

Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that she would like to know why her suggestion of Albright & Albright was not used.

Discussion was held on who had subpoena powers and how they could be obtained.

Mr. Jensen asked if progress could be made in relation to the Human Relations Commission, and hold a workshop so when the issue regarding subpoena powers is constituted and the Commission has set the rules that they would like to operate by and explain their rationale for subpoena powers. A decision could be made after people have been contacted who have actually operated Human Relations Commissions subpoena powers in Maryland and what their experiences are. This procedure could be done and the issue could be resolved by the end of the summer.

Mr. Willey stated that Mr. Jensen’s idea was great. He went on to say that if the Human Relations Commission does get off of the ground, and there is as much tension and confrontation over the Commission as there is over subpoena powers, it will never work. The draft needs to be accepted, a line-up for the Commission needs to be formed, and rules need to be established.

Mr. Jensen stated that he did not want to accept the draft, but he did want to get the Commission going, the ground rules that they would like to operate by, and then have a workshop so that the subpoena power issue can be resolved.

Mr. Jensen motioned to set up the Commission and get things started, seconded by Mr. Willey and carried with Ms. Jackson-Amis opposing.

Mr. Willey stated that a date for the workshop needs to be set.

Mr. Ford asked as a preface to the workshop, could the council make the draft prepared available to whoever may be interested.

Mr. Willey stated yes.

Ms. Jackson-Amis asked why would the draft be available and what the point would be if the person conducting the workshop was someone who is involved in the Human Relations Commission at the state level.

Mr. Ford stated that he was only making a guesture that it might advance the discussions past a certain stage.

Mr. Willey stated that the draft is not private information.

Mr. Jensen asked if the concern was that one might get more credence.

Ms. Jackson-Amis stated no. She went on to say that she did not want to suggest that the idea was fundamentally wrong, if the draft or Commission were going to be fashioned, then things should go step-by-step.

Mr. Kehoe stated that he disagreed with one statement made by Ms. Jackson-Amis when she said that presentations are made to him. The council members are the ones who have to reach a consensus, agree, or disagree on an issue on how the issue should be solved.

Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that she meant that the presentation would be made to Mr. Kehoe, who would then organize it to say what can be done and what cannot be done according to the powers that the Commission would have.

Mr. Willey scheduled the Mainstreet workshop for July 10, 2001 at 6:00 P.M.; the Human Relations workshop for July 17, 2001at 6:00 P.M.; and the Wastewater Tour for July 19, 2001 at 5:00 P.M.

The President of the Council brought invoices to the floor in the amount of $486,594.58 for approval for payment.

Mr. Ford motioned approval of invoices seconded by Mr. Jensen and carried unanimously.

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

Mayor Butler brought forth a letter for the MML stating that they would like to know if there were any statewide ordinances or proposals for the state legislation. Any proposals or ordinances must be turned into the Town Office no later than Friday, June 29, 2001.

Mr. Ford asked if a copy of the letter, which was included in the council packets regarding a skateboard park could be given to the Park Board.

Mayor Butler stated that for the people who would like to serve on the Human Relations Commission, applications would be available at the information desk in the Town Office.

There was no report available from the Easton Police Department at this time.

Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that for those who had been in contact with her, she had spoken with Chief Harvey about Mr. Mason’s concern as well as residents on Aurora and Hanson Streets. She would like to for citizens in the community to meet and discuss the issues that have been presented to the council’s attention.

Mr. Ford stated that he had also spoken with Chief Harvey about vehicles parking in front of At Home Chef on the corner of Aurora and Magnolia Drive.

Mr. Glass gave a brief run down of the holiday trash schedule. There will be no trash pick-up on July 4, 2001; regular and bulk trash pick-up for that day will be picked up on Thursday. He went on to say for those who were interested in the Stormwater Management Ordinance; it will take effect on Wednesday, June 20, 2001. The ordinance instills another set of requirements for stormwater quality and quantity control. He went on to discuss the pipes being installed at the pumping station, and future plans.

Mr. Jensen asked how residential growth has affected the town’s infrastructure costs.

Mr. Glass stated that he was not aware at the current time; however, he could go back and pull capital budgets to show how the town has invested money back into the community through various projects.

Mr. Kehoe stated that when the "Big Box" Moratorium took place, numbers were developed looking at the cost of residential police protection versus commercial development.

Mr. Ford asked for an update from the Maryland Department of Environments Public Hearing on the Easton Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Mr. Glass briefed the council on the public hearing.

Mr. Ford asked how does the number of lots that can be built on effect the planning.

Mr. Glass stated that a plat is created and then recorded, once that is done, the lots become lots of record, and the allocation of the remaining capacity of the wastewater treatment facility is reserved for a number of lots at the time that the charges are paid.

Ms. Roe asked what kind of timetable does the town have to insert a painted crosswalk at the George P. Murphy Pool location on Port Street.

Mr. Glass stated that the PUD development agreement for Parkway East was to put a crosswalk in; however, it is not included in the budget as it stands. It was decided that if a crosswalk was installed, it would be in conjunction with the development of the Parkway East project so that the residents that moved there in the next several years would have a way to cross the street safely.

Ms. Roe asked about the children who live at the development adjacent to the pool.

Mr. Glass stated that the section of the road is a state highway, and he does not have jurisdiction to have a crosswalk installed.

Ms. Roe asked if there are any intentions to extend the sidewalks and add more streetlights further down near the pool.

Mr. Glass stated that he would contact someone at the State Highway Administration.

Ms. Roe asked what the status was on the Dutchman's Lane project.

Mr. Glass stated that the first section of Easton Club East is underway; the plat has been recorded and the contribution towards traffic improvements for that first section of allocated lots has been made. The project is on hold for major improvements right now.

There being no further business, Ms. Jackson-Amis made a motion to adjourn the regularly scheduled meeting, seconded by Mr. Jensen and carried unanimously.

At approximately 10:30 P.M., the President of the Council adjourned the regularly scheduled meeting.

___________________________________