TOWN OF EASTON, MARYLAND

September 20, 2004

PRESENT AT CONVENING

Mayor Robert C. Willey Councilmember Scott R. Jensen

President John F. Ford Councilmember Leonard E. Wendowski, Sr.

Councilmember Maureen Scott-Taylor Councilmember Moonyene Jackson-Amis

IN ATTENDANCE

Also in attendance were the Town Attorney Mr. Kehoe, Chief Blue, Town Engineer Mr. Glass, Town Planner Mr. Hamilton, Economic Development Coordinator Mr. Bond and Mrs. Ruf for the Town Clerk.

CONVENING

At 7:00 p.m., the President of the Council called the meeting to order. Ms. Scott-Taylor opened the meeting with prayer and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 7 AND SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 MEETINGS

Mr. Jensen made a motion to approve the minutes seconded by Ms. Scott-Taylor and carried unanimously.

EASTON FIRE DEPARTMENT REPORT

Mr. Jamie McNeal, 2^nd Lieutenant, was present on behalf of the Fire Department. He presented the August report.

Mr. McNeal distributed a letter from the Easton Volunteer Fire Department’s Decoration Committee requesting permission to hang banners on the poles on Creamery Lane.

Mr. McNeal discussed the Easton Volunteer Fire Department’s Open House scheduled for October 17, 2004.

Mr. McNeal invited the Mayor, Council and Easton Police Department to a private showing of the movie Ladder 49 at the Easton Movies on October 7.

Upon motion by Mr. Jensen seconded by Ms. Scott-Taylor and carried unanimously, permission was granted to decorate the banners on Creamery Lane for Christmas.

ITEMS BY MAYOR WILLEY

Mayor Willey discussed the cupola that had been removed for repairs from 11 S. Harrison Street. He stated that it is almost finished and will be back up in the next few weeks.

Mayor Willey stated that Mr. Bond has been working on the Community Legacy Grants and presentation of the paperwork. He discussed the required process and asked for a workshop to get the program in place. The President of the Council set a workshop open to the Public for September 27 at 6:30 p.m. at the Town Hall.

Mayor Willey stated at the next meeting, there will be a recommendation to appoint the following candidates to the Economic Development Commission as advisors to Mr. Bond:

Mr. Fred Smith, the new Economic Director for Talbot County; Mr. Bruce Davis, an appraiser; and Ms. Maureen Scott-Taylor, with the Tidewater Inn.

Mayor Willey stated that he has received a letter of resignation from Mr. Michael Rouse from the Historic District Commission.

MEMO FROM MAYOR WILLEY REGARDING THE APPOINTMENT OF MR. DOMINIC CAPEALLA AND MR. JOHN SENER TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION

Upon motion by Mr. Wendowski seconded by Mr. Jensen and carried unanimously, Mayor Willey’s appointments to the Historic District Commission were approved.

ITEMS BY THE CHIEF OF POLICE

Chief Blue discussed Route 322 and a recent meeting with State Highway Administration in Chestertown.

Chief Blue discussed the need for a traffic study associated with the two elementary schools; Moton Elementary and Dobson.

Chief Blue discussed the synchronization of traffic lights on Route 322.

Chief Blue stated that he recently met with Mr. Glen Plutschak of Parole and Probation regarding a program called See Safe. Chief Blue stated that the Parole and Probation agency would take digital photographs of those individuals on parole and probation so the officers will be able to recognize individuals to give more insight that is in the area.

Chief Blue discussed a recent meeting with Dr. Salmons regarding school safety.

Chief Blue updated on the 800 megahertz radio system. He stated that it is almost ready to go into implementation.

Mr. Jensen asked about bollards on Hawkes Hill Road. He asked if Chief Blue had discussed this with SHA. Chief Blue stated that this was not discussed although they did discuss collisions at the entrance of Hardee’s and Dover Road.

ITEMS BY THE TOWN ENGINEER

The Town Engineer, Mr. Glass updated on capital improvement projects around Town. He asked the community to be aware and mindful of construction workers in the roadway.

Mr. Glass reminded the Council about SHA’s meeting Thursday night at 7:00 p.m. in Grasonville in which they will be presenting plans for the widening of Route 50 between Route 301 and Route 50 split at the Queenstown Outlets to Route 404.

The Town Engineer stated that a majority of the steel has been installed and welded into place on the million gallon water tank. He stated that they will fill the tank around December 1 and begin disinfectants.

The Town Engineer stated that they are steadily working on the Dover Street storm drain analysis. He intends to have some suggested tracks to take with some of the issues at the next Council meeting.

The Town Engineer discussed the wastewater treatment facility. He stated that Easton Utilities has been working on that project over the last couple of months and they will appear before the State Board of Public Works on October 6 requesting funding. Mr. Glass stated that they will begin the analysis portion of the project at that time. He stated that the construction portion of the project ranges from $24 million to $32 million.

Ms. Jackson-Amis asked if the storm drain analysis has anything to do with the Watkins’ property and that area.

Mr. Glass stated that it is the east Dover Street area.

Ms. Jackson-Amis asked Mr. Glass if he had spoken with anyone regarding the Port Street house. He stated that he has talked with Mr. Garlick that has been behind a lot of that work. Mr. Glass stated that the contractor was set and ready to do the demolition until some issues came up about fencing and some other things. Mr. Glass stated that Mr. Bibb needs to get involved and get the process started again then work with the Neighborhood Service Center.

Ms. Jackson-Amis asked if there is anything to do as a Town. She stated that it is past time for the building to be demolished as it is a hazard and also a place where people congregate on a daily basis. She stated that if it has come to a stalemate or standstill, there must be something in our zoning that would enable the Town to take this down somehow.

Mr. Glass stated that he has looked at the site and it is fully feasible physically to take the building down without causing problems with the adjacent property. He stated that the contractor would be required to carry liability insurance and also a bond that could be taken out for that construction activity in case there are damages which would necessitate using the bond to make repairs.

Mr. Glass stated that the Town can spearhead the project. He stated that he will talk with Mr. Garlick and get more details.

Ms. Jackson-Amis asked that it be noted that there are young people using the facility.

Mr. Jensen asked the Town Engineer if $24,000 had been appropriated for trees. The Town Engineer stated that Public Works is getting the order together now that the weather is cooling.

Ms. Scott-Taylor questioned if the tree in front of Coffee East would be removed.

The Town Engineer stated that a generous person in the community was willing to pay for some of the replacements and we need to see if that offer still stands.

ITEMS BY THE TOWN PLANNER

The Town Planner, Mr. Hamilton discussed the Annual Report from the Planning and Zoning Commission. He stated that he will forward a copy.

ITEMS BY THE TOWN ATTORNEY

The Town Attorney had nothing at this time.

ITEMS BY THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR

Mr. Bond discussed the need for a Community Legacy Workshop.

Mr. Bond discussed the Easton Affordable Housing Linkage Fees Report – Nexus Study. He stated that this tries to calculate the number of jobs created by commercial development that would trigger households that would likely have unaffordable housing in the Town of Easton. Mr. Bond stated that they needed to come up with a mechanism to determine how big of a gap there is by those jobs that are created and what the local market is supporting in terms of real estate prices; both in rental and various forms of housing. He said that because it is an impact fee, it has to be calculated fairly precisely and be legally defensible so you want to err on the conservative side when you make these calculations. Mr. Bond discussed the steps in calculating how many households would be affected by various different kinds of commercial development and the other six steps involved in calculating how big of a gap there is in what is available in the local market and the different categories of income.

Mr. Bond stated that what it shows is that we can justify linkage fees for commercial development such as office, warehouse distribution, retail and hotel. Mr. Bond stated that commercial development is causing a rise in housing prices which is triggering the affordability issue.

Mr. Bond stated that the affordability issue can be traced back to commercial development and can be traced one step further back and look at the residential development.

Mr. Bond stated that it is his recommendation that if you are going to use the commercial development linkage fee at all, you should use the lowest fees but it is his opinion that as a community we should be tracing the impact back to the user group that is affecting the issue.

Mr. Ford stated that the report was extremely well done but was disappointed in the conclusion. He stated that he needs more time to digest the facts.

Ms. Jackson-Amis asked if wouldn’t we be justified if the commercial industry, due to them reaping the benefits of the mixed residential population, shouldn’t the affordable housing residents who are living here, be supported by this opportunity to do business.

Mr. Bond stated that he sees a problem due to the fact that when you impose an impact fee, you are giving the developer a one time cost for something that has a long term impact and what the developer is going to do is decide to not do their project or go forward and pass it on to their tenants which will have a higher rent. Mr. Bond stated that as a community, he thinks we are far better served by working on higher wage jobs and working our way out of the affordable housing issue that way.

Mr. Ford stated that the affordable housing issue is a community problem and the answer will come from a balanced response from the community. He stated that this report needs to be digested and look at the affordable housing issue and its answer as a shared problem.

Mr. Wendowski commended Mr. Bond on his report. He stated that he feels that commercial development does cause an impact and should contribute. Mr. Wendowski stated that it is important to maintain all sources of revenue.

REQUEST FROM MR. TED PASSYN, III FOR COUNCIL CONSENSUS ON TWO OAKS AT MATTHEWSTOWN PROJECT

Mr. Passyn was present to ask for Council consensus on the Two Oaks project. Mr. Passyn stated that they have talked about impact fees to be determined by the Town Council and offered $2,000 above what is yet to be determined. He stated that they would take approximately 1.1 million dollars and set that out over a five year period so it would have an incremental amount that would go out at approximately $216,000 per year starting in the spring in 2006 with their first available building permit and then every year after that for five years.

Mr. Jensen verified that this would be a straw vote. Mr. Ford stated that it would enable the attorney to draft the Findings of Fact and an ordinance.

Mr. Jensen read a statement as follows:

-- Two Oaks is the new starting point for development design in Easton.

Density, mixed uses, a measure of architectural diversity, and relative affordability all speak for it, but its location on the far eastside of town is a drawback especially because of the traffic it will generate.

-- Town’s East/West traffic flow in his point of view is at absolute capacity right now even if not one additional house is ever built east of 50.

-- The only real solution is a new East/West route that connects the commercial centers on Marlborough and Elliot roads.

-- The town has committed to build the E/W Road in the comprehensive plan, but it will cost at least $8.5 million but probably closer to $10 million.

-- With a town budget of under $12 million per year, this project will not get off the ground without revenue beyond normal taxation.

-- The Two Oaks project has offered two such sources of revenue, which combined mean approximately $1.4 million toward transportation improvements.

a) They have agreed to pay whatever impact fees the town levies, including transportation impact fee. (e.g. county fee: $688/unit x 539 = $370,832)

b) They have proposed an additional $2000 per unit over and above the impact fee to make transportation improvements, which at 539 units means $1,078,000.

-- Because this project represents a new design baseline for subdivisions in Easton, because the town must build the East/West road, and because the town must pay for the East/West road, I am in favor of Two Oaks.

-- But I have a number of stipulations concerning several topics, which I would want written into the findings of fact such that they apply to your group and anybody else, who might purchase this project:

1) Traffic

a) The Passyns agree to pay all impact fees decided upon by the town.

b) The Passyns agree to the $1,078,000 ($2000 per unit) that will be dedicated to property acquisition for, or construction of, the East/West connecter as described in the Comprehensive Plan.

b) will be dispersed to the town upfront, or negotiated to the satisfaction of the Mayor, but to be paid in full by the 5th year after plat approval.

c) Passyns agree to post a bond to pay for a traffic signal at Fisher Range road to be installed as soon as SHA deems appropriate.

Mr. Passyn stated that they had made that.

2) Architecture/Design:

a) Passage requires that deviation from the plan regarding street layout, density, and placement of products (houses, town home, commercial units etc.), the mix of the units, and architecture triggers an amendment to the PUD. (What we see is what we get, regardless of who ultimately builds the project).

b) Before building the developer appears before the Planning and Zoning Commission with specific architectural and landscape plans to make sure those guys are okay with that (like Elm Street).

3) Affordable Housing:

a) 10% of units (54 units) set aside that are affordable to those making between 85% to 110% of Talbot County’s median family income as determined by standard lending institution procedures.

b) That the number of restricted age units in the project does not rise over what is shown in the plan.

I want to be very clear about something. This is a straw vote, and while I have no intention of changing it, my yes vote is predicated on the construction of the East/West Road before significant building takes place at Two Oaks. I am confident this will happen, because I believe my colleagues share this general view, and because building at Two Oaks will not begin in earnest until the town builds its new waste water treatment facility which is going to take a while. However, during the coming month, while the findings of fact are being drawn up, the Mayor and Council will be making some fundamental decisions about the East/West Road. If this important project, being the east/west road, fizzles out, or cannot reasonably be completed in a time frame compatible with Two Oaks, I will vote against the final ordinance because this road has to be done. I don’t anticipate this happening, and it would be a shame if it did, but

I wanted to be upfront with what action I will take.

Mr. Passyn stated that they would post a performance bond.

Ms. Jackson-Amis asked for a point of clarification from Mr. Kehoe. Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that much of what Mr. Jensen has stated, the Council stated with specificity on September 2, 2003 except for the but and ifs. Ms. Jackson-Amis asked if it is in the Council’s purview if we can structure, or have the Town Attorney structure an ordinance in that way or do we go beyond our own authority. She stated that this needs to be clear. She stated that if the east/west road does not happen and Passyns have already begun part of the ground work, they may have relied to their detriment on something the Council has done. She stated that she wants to be clear on how far the Council can go. We have already told them in September what we thought would be a fair contribution from them and they have given us what they are willing to give and they have upped that quite a bit. She stated that she needs to understand if we are revisiting the entire project and what is the limit of the Council’s authority at this point. Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that the issues about the Zoning Board are something she feels we should not even get into; that’s really the Town Planner’s purview and it seems like there should be some guidelines already set forth and we don’t need any more than that.

The Town Attorney, Mr. Kehoe, Mr. Kehoe stated that roughly a year ago, the Council considered this application and each expressed some views as to not whether or not you would vote to grant or deny the application in expressed terms but rather your reservations and what you perceive as strengths and weaknesses. Since then, the decision making process has been more or less on hold since then. In terms of the procedure of your decision making process, which is part of the question asked, Mr. Kehoe stated that he thinks you can revisit any issue you want and you are not bound by what you said a year ago. Mr. Kehoe stated that there are some legal limitations, this goes more to the substance of these various proposals that you operate under; under the Zoning Ordinance and the Zoning and Development Law, the State of Maryland and the United States. He stated that the Zoning Ordinance sets out seven specific standards that you have to make findings about before you can grant a Planned Unit Development application. Mr. Kehoe stated that for the Council’s deliberation he can summarize those. He stated that the one most pertinent in this instance is the traffic issue. You have to find in order to support the application, that the proposed Planned Unit Development in conjunction with the existing and reasonably anticipated development elsewhere in the area will not cause unacceptable traffic congestions or hazards either in or near the site of the development or elsewhere in the town of Easton or in the county. He stated that the comments a year ago and Mr. Jensen’s comments tonight crystallize the difficulty of the issue faced with you. Mr. Kehoe stated that he does not think the ordinance gives the Council the authority to say we will grant the application because we know or think at some point in the future, a road will be built to alleviate that process. With regard to specific conditions, architectural review conditions and things like that, the Council has the right to impose any Council that grants a zoning application has the right to impose reasonable conditions on a project. Those conditions under the Constitution of the United States must bear a direct and rational nexus to the application; there has to be some kind of logical connection between the issue that the condition is attempting to address and the strains upon the community that the proposed development is anticipated to bring; and those conditions have to be roughly proportional to the burden. Mr. Kehoe stated that as an illustration, if you are building a structure and you wanted that property to build the entire east/west connector, that is inappropriate and unwarranted attempt to impose too much of the cost of the solution on a particular project. He stated that proposals to pay sums of money over and above legally imposed impact fees on other properties or generally fees can run into problems. He stated that if these arrangements are approved by the Council or are ever challenged, which can be members of the public; they can also theoretically be challenged by Mr. Passyn or his successors. Mr. Kehoe stated that he thinks that the east/west connector and the traffic generated by the project is probably sufficiently connected to the east/west connector and the court would look at this enhanced payment of $2,000 per unit and say that it is sufficiently connected to the overall project and not an attempt to buy the vote.

Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that the main concern is how far we can go before we cross the line of legality which Mr. Kehoe addressed.

Mr. Ford asked if we get the Tischler report back, and based on the capital improvements which have been included in that study for him to consider, the transportation aspect is $1,900 per lot, Mr. Passyn has agreed to pay that $1,900 plus an additional $2,000 per lot, does it behoove the Town to get an agreement with the Passyns outside of this ordinance, should it pass which would contain the Findings of Fact which would stipulate that, is there an additional legal agreement that we might have?

Mr. Kehoe stated that it is desirable. He stated that entering into a developer’s agreement would strengthen the Town’s hand in case there is ever a dispute or disagreement about it down the line, the imposition of the additional enhanced impact fee.

Ms. Jackson-Amis asked if the ordinance would contain everything that is agreed upon and passed because the ordinance is a governing document.

Mr. Kehoe stated that there is nothing wrong in providing an agreement that the developer and the town enter into that goes into the land records setting out these conditions and other provisions that are appropriate. He stated that the Town of Easton has done that before for instance, with the Easton Club.

Mr. Jensen stated that he thinks this is a good idea.

Ms. Scott-Taylor stated that she would like to speak in favor of this project. She asked Mr. Passyn to give some kind of solution that he would reach with the residents of Swann Haven.

Mr. Passyn stated that they have spoken with residents at Swann Haven. He stated that they are a long-term option owner on that property but they have no intention at this time ever owning that property so, they should talk to the current owner of that property which he believes is Swann Haven Limited Partnership. Mr. Passyn stated that when they went into contract with Swann group, they contracted everything they had out there and that was an enclave that ended up coming. He stated that they still have a long term option on that project; on that piece but as of today, they have no say that they will ever buy that property or exercise that option which is an option that came along with that project. Mr. Passyn stated that the citizens should direct their concerns to Talbot County and Swann Haven Limited Partners which is the owner of the property.

Ms. Scott-Taylor stated that she is concerned that the stormwater management plan is a major concern to her and she wants to see something that Mr. Glass can speak to which will make her feel comfortable; specifically, the development. She stated that she is concerned about runoff during the actual progression of the project. She stated that she wants checks and balances in there to take care of the stormwater runoff.

Ms. Scott-Taylor stated that she echoes Mr. Jensen’s concerns regarding the east/west connector road. She stated that she feels the urgency of having the east/west connector road in conjunction with Two Oaks; one cannot happen without the other and we cannot put 500 more homes in this community without new roads, specifically the east/west connector road. Ms. Scott-Taylor stated that she feels the Passyns have gone above and beyond what he has ever done with the Town before and it shows the town their commitment to this project. She stated that she does not view the Passyns offer of $2,000 per unit as an attempt to buy the Council’s vote but views it as an attempt to pay their fair share. She stated that it is her hope that the Town builds the east/west connector road but her vote is predicated on the Town building that road.

Mr. Ford stated that typically the way the process works is the Town Attorney will prepare a Findings of Fact and an ordinance to introduce for a first reading where we would be allowed to vote. Mr. Ford stated that he thinks it would be great but entirely unrealistic to assume that by the third Monday in October, we will know whether or not we can build the east/west connector road or not. He stated that the Council seems to be resting their hats on that road. Mr. Ford stated that this project does not work without it. Mr. Ford stated that to say a vote is predicated on that road, we won’t have an answer by the second meeting in October.

Mr. Wendowski asked if the application has to go back before Planning and Zoning because of the time constraints.

Mr. Hamilton stated that until the Town Council takes action, it is pending before the Council and no action is necessary before the Planning Commission.

Mr. Wendowski stated that 58 units could be developed on that property as is.

Mr. Passyn stated that they have 79 acres of A1 which are one acre lots then they have 80 acres of R10A which are 10,000 square foot lots.

Mr. Hamilton stated that the final site plan submitted and recommended was for 539 units. He stated that if you look at the land as it sits today, there was a subdivision plat created for the R10A portion however, that subdivision never materialized because some of the lots became part of a PUD and some lots were in a wetland. He stated that 140 to 150 lots could be subdivided out of the R10A portion. He stated that he does not think the A1 would yield 79 units because they have to cut out streets and stormwater management; maybe 60 one acre lots.

Mr. Wendowski stated that some of the Passyns concessions are very vague such as rely on the fairness of the Council. Mr. Wendowski stated that he thinks that the traffic light is a good point, the impact fees over and above what is decided by the Council, the bond for the traffic light should have in it a cost of living or some type of impact because $100,000 today is not $10,000 ten years from now when we might need the light. Mr. Wendowski stated that he has always had a problem with the layout of this subdivision. He stated that his problem is that Phase One is 202 units; mostly built up front then you go into the next five phases where everything is at the back end. That means that all that construction traffic is going to be going through the initial front part of the development. Mr. Wendowski discussed his experience with that situation at the Easton Club. He stated that it is a horrendous thing to put up with such as streets breaking up due to construction. Mr. Wendowski stated that he would prefer that you start in the back and work your way out.

Mr. Passyn stated that this was a request from Planning to start in the front to have a more finished look.

Mr. Wendowski stated that he did not know what type of guarantee the Council would have to ensure the rest of the construction would occur.

Mr. Wendowski stated that Mr. Passyn’s response to VA and affordable housing are whatever the Town sets as opposed to something that will apply to everyone.

Mr. Wendowski stated that he also has a major concern with stormwater management. He stated that he agrees that we have to worry about it.

Mr. Wendowski stated that he still has a problem with the traffic studies. He stated that he cannot see any problem with the traffic study until it gets to the other side of the highway which is not really the developer’s problem. Mr. Wendowski stated that he believes that the east/west road is a town/county problem and the ability of the developer to make a contribution is excellent but he would like to see the funds dispersed a little faster instead of waiting until the first permit is issued. Mr. Wendowski stated that the east/west road does not concern him. He stated that he knows we need the road and we need to move the traffic but there are other developments going on in that area that have not contributed anything towards the road. Mr. Wendowski stated that if we change some of the requirements such as 200 homes up front then the rest in the back end, he stated that he thought he could support the project because he cannot see the Town imposing the road when it has nothing to do with their development. Mr. Wendowski stated that the development is going to generate traffic but there is 3,000 homes going up in Denton which will also generate a lot of traffic which will all come down that road. He stated that he sees the county and town resolving what he thinks could be a regional traffic problem.

Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that she would like a firm contract on this aspect. She stated that September 2003, she specifically asked the developer if they would be displacing the families at the Swann Haven community and at that time, it was said that they would not. Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that if they exercise their option, which they have not and do not intend to, she would like something structured that says that even if the option is exercised or have the opportunity to acquire this land, the existing Swann Haven community would not be displaced. Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that she thinks it is important for more developments to contribute to the east/west road. She stated that there are no plans for this road and it has not been designed. There are not environmental permits obtained or easements applied for; there is no funding that exists for this project and we don’t even know how much the road will cost. She stated that the Council is superimposing on this project; this application which disturbs her. Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that we should exact a fair share from this developer but she doesn’t see how we can go beyond that. If the cost goes beyond more that what we exact now, they have already agreed which she would like in writing that they would pay whatever that fair share comes out to be at the time when we know how much it is going to cost to construct this road.

Ms. Jackson-Amis agreed that the $2,000 Mr. Passyn has agreed to pay is not more than what would be considered a fair contribution for the right to do business.

Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that she is anxious that the developer has agreed to give veterans some type of preference for low income or affordable housing which she expects to be in addition to the 10% of housing. She stated that she would like it to be an active recruitment to know that veterans know that there is some housing especially for those returning from duty.

Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that if the Passyns decide to not build a certain number of units, and the Council is looking for $2,000 per unit, then she would like the developer to be responsible for the units originally applied for irrespective of what they decide to do.

Mr. Passyn stated that they propose to place a performance bond that would be taken down at a predetermined date that would be going down at approximately $216,000 per year for five years. He stated that would be in place with the monies there.

Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that she would like the notes from the September 3 meeting for her smart growth issues and include anything else such as environmental issues.

Mr. Ford stated that he will not support this project at this time. He stated that from his perspective, the reason for the delay for acting on this was not for any other reason other than we were waiting for more information. Mr. Ford stated that in his view, we still do not have what we need to act in the interest of the community; especially in regards to the east/west connector road. Mr. Ford stated that this project and its mitigation of its transportation impacts on the community is heavily dependent on the construction of that east/west connector road and we don’t have enough information on how this is to be financed, where it’s going to be or whether it is feasible. Mr. Ford stated for those reasons, he will not support the application.

MR. KEN BEATTY, DIRECTOR, DELMARVA SPACE TRAINING CENTER TO ADDRESS COUNCIL REGARDING HIS DESIRE TO EDUCATE CHILDREN TO CAREER OPPORTUNITIES IN THE SPACE INDUSTRY

Mr. Beatty was present and stated that he wanted to talk about something that was bothering him in the sense of the nation. Mr. Beatty stated that the nation is losing its leadership roll in space technology because we are not training our young people towards space sciences and math. He discussed having qualified workers for the space industry. Mr. Beatty discussed the need of a vocational school. Mr. Beatty stated that there is not one space certified teacher in the United States. He discussed the potential for students in the space industry and the opportunity for Easton to have the nation’s first Space Vocational Training Center.

Mr. Beatty stated that he is looking for financial support with a $1,000,000 bond issue for five years to acquire the Grayblock Building in which to train America’s future civilian astronauts.

Mr. Beatty stated that DSTC is a non profit 501(c)3 Maryland Vocational Educational Corporation established in 1980 as the NAC program and expanded in to the DSTC in 1997 to serve more people. He discussed their objectives. He stated that DSTC will house an aerospace hands-on history museum, class rooms, and dormitories and will provide space like surroundings. Mr. Beatty stated that the DSTC within one year will gross over $4,727,000 per year which will be used to pay off the bond issue, mortgage, salaries, overhead and purchase new equipment. He discussed the new jobs the Space Training Center will provide.

Mr. Beatty asked for the Town of Easton’s support in helping to purchase the Grayblock building to remove into the DTSC Space Training Center.

Mr. Beatty stated that the Center will benefit all citizens of Easton, Talbot County, the State of Maryland and the whole USA and will also benefit all ages.

Mr. Ford stated that he is intrigued by Mr. Beatty’s idea but all that is tempered by the one million dollar price tag and this town’s ability to provide that assistance. Mr. Ford stated that he needs to get input from the Mayor, Town Attorney, Town Clerk and Economic Development Coordinator.

Mr. Beatty discussed his recommendations and successes.

Ms. Jackson-Amis suggested adding Mr. Beatty’s proposal on the agenda of the county meeting with the incorporated municipalities.

RECESS

At 9:00 p.m., the President of the Council declared a five-minute recess.

RECONVENE

At 9:10 p.m., the President of the Council reconvened the regularly scheduled Council meeting.

MR. ROGER BOLLMAN, CHAIRMAN, EASTON HISTORIC DISTRICT TO ADDRESS COUNCIL REGARDING EXPANSION OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT

Mr. Ford asked the Town Attorney about the process for public input. He stated that this is not a public hearing.

The Town Attorney discussed the legally required process. He stated that a formal proposal to amend that portion of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance that sets out the boundaries of the Historic District Commission would first be submitted to the Town Planning and Zoning Commission for their recommendation. Then their recommendation would proceed to the Town Council for a Public Hearing after which the Town Council would make a decision. He stated that State Law requires this process for all Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Mr. Kehoe stated that the impact on individual properties and neighborhoods can be significant. He suggested having a workshop with the Town staff and members of the Historic District Commission and perhaps representatives from the Maryland Historic Trust and members of neighborhoods and individual properties that are subject to the proposal if the Town Council feels there is sufficient warrant in taking that step.

Mr. Roger Bollman, Chairman of the Easton Historic District was present to discuss expansion of the Historic District. Mr. Bollman introduced Mr. Michael Rouse, Vice Chairman and Mr. Bernie Callan, representative of Maryland Association of Historic District Commissions.

Mr. Bollman discussed why the Historic District Commission was presenting the proposal to expand the Historic District. He stated that in 1970, the National Registry District for Easton was surveyed and recommended the expansion. Mr. Bollman stated that in 2000, consultants recommended the increase in size of the Historic District as well as encouragement from citizens and the Commission. Mr. Bollman stated that there are perceived threats to the community unless Historic District Guidelines apply to other areas currently outside the local.

Mr. Bollman discussed the proposed additions to the Historic District. He stated that they do not control the interior of the home or the color of the exterior. Mr. Bollman discussed the meetings and the commissioners.

Mr. Bollman stated that they would like the District expanded to the National Registry boundary. He discussed what the local Historic District is, the benefits of being in a local Historic District, Easton’s National Register District and the risks and downsides of being in a Historic District.

Mr. Bollman discussed the Planned Redevelopment Zone and its Trigger Mechanism. He stated that it applies only to the portions of the PRD that are outside the eastern NRHD boundary near the Rail-to-Trail. He stated that if the property is outside the NRHD and if there is no application for PRD designation (and hence no change in use), then there is no Historic District Commission involvement.

Mr. Bollman discussed benefits of being in the Historic District Commission.

Mr. Bollman, in summary stated that they would like to grow the boundaries out to the National Registry boundary, add the north end contiguous, add the west end contiguous, add the Idlewild District, add the Bay Street district, add the additional contiguous properties around the outside of town and put in the PRD trigger mechanism. He stated that the guidelines are on the town’s website.

Mr. Bernie Callan, Chair Frederick County Historic Commission, Maryland Association of Historic District Commissions discussed the economic and fiscal impact of local historic districts in Maryland. He discussed studies in a number of states which show historical designation as beneficial to communities and property owners. He stated that it is very important to protect property owners’ rights. He stated that on average, properties in the Historic District appreciate 26% faster than similar properties outside the district and also stabilize the Town’s tax base.

Ms. Jackson-Amis asked what Mr. Callan’s experience is with property owners who do not want to be a part of the local Historic District Commission due to the cost. Mr. Callan stated that it doesn’t cost anything unless the property owner wants to make a change. He stated that there is no ordinance that forces property owners to bring their property up to a certain level. Mr. Callan stated that there are state credits available if you want to fix up your property.

Mr. Ford stated that the way to proceed is with a cooperative workshop with the Historic District Commission and the public. He asked for a consensus by the Council regarding the possibility of exploring.

Mr. Jensen discussed the state tax credit on renovations which are done historically.

Mr. Callan stated that there is a $50,000 cap every two years but you can reapply.

It was the consensus of the council to proceed with a workshop. Mr. Ford set the workshop with the Historic District Commission for October 26 at 6:00 p.m.

The Town Planner, Mr. Hamilton stated that it would be beneficial to property owners to be notified of the prospect of the expansion through a mailing to the owners that may be affected. Mr. Ford directed Mr. Hamilton to proceed with the mailing.

ORDINANCE NO. 476, “AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF EASTON GRANTING THE APPLICATION OF BROOKWOOD INVESTMENTS FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE EASTON ZONING ORDINANCE”

The President of the Council introduced Ordinance No. 476 for a first reading.

ORDINANCE NO. 477, “AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF EASTON AMENDING THE EASTON TOWN CODE BY ADDING ARTICLE VII “SECURITY KEY LOCK BOXES” TO CHAPTER 9 “FIRE PREVENTION”

The President of the Council introduced Ordinance No. 477 for a first reading.

APPROVAL OF INVOICES TOTALING $1,027,745.43

Upon motion by Ms. Scott-Taylor seconded by Mr. Jensen and carried unanimously; invoices totaling $1,027,745.43 were approved for payment.

ITEMS BY MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL

Ms. Jackson-Amis thanked Mayor Willey for attending her mother’s 90^th birthday celebration.

Mayor Willey stated that today is Ms. Jackson-Amis’ birthday. Best wishes were extended.

Mr. Ford reminded the Council about the workshop scheduled for October 11 to discuss possible Charter amendments and discussion on the scheduled housing inspections.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, upon motion by Mr. Jensen seconded by Ms. Scott-Taylor and carried unanimously; the President of the Council adjourned the regularly scheduled meeting at 10:l1 p.m.

______________________________________

Kathy Ruf for Town Clerk