Good afternoon.

My the volume is up.

Welcome to the land use public safety and community development committee meeting for Thursday, February twenty-seventh, and we will begin with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Second.

All those in favor.

Uh, I'm joined here with uh uh uh with the Mike Swanson and um Rodney Master from uh independent hose.

And uh uh just to give you a little bit of background.

I'm also joined here with uh Scott Waxter from the legal department.

Uh independent hose uh which owns and operates uh fire station number one.

Um is they own the property, the property was transferred from the city to the fire company, and when that was done, that was done with a deed restriction stating that if the property ceased to be used for a fire rescue purposes, the property would revert back to the city.

Um the company is seeking um uh financing to make renovations to the building and to their assets.

Uh unfortunately, the um uh the banks will uh have refused to provide that financing if it if the deed restriction stays in place.

Uh the company then consulted uh city staff and the office of the mayor, uh and in that uh uh in those conversations it included DPW, um uh parks and recreation planning and engineering.

Uh at which point we uh we recommended that the deed restriction wasn't necessary given that the property is 100% in the floodplain, and because of that, there really isn't any development potential other than the existing building and what it's being used for as it's grandfathered.

Additionally, one more than one half of the property is nearly useless for anything because it's in the Carroll Creek floodway.

Um then, furthermore, uh the uh floodway portion of the property is incidentally a missing tooth in our city, our city's park network, uh, which would be uh part of the North Branch Trail.

So after all of those considerations, uh staff had recommended uh that the deed restriction be removed since there's no other legal use of the property.

Uh and in consideration of this, uh the uh the independent hose would gift the portion of the property that's in the floodway to the city uh to connect the two ends of our park system.

And uh I will turn it over to Rodney Masser, uh the uh uh chair of the uh the board for independent hose to add additional words.

Good afternoon.

Um as Mr.

DeCampo said, yeah, back in 1978, we moved from the church tree property to the West of the City as it was developed, and we uh made a agreement with the city to give them that property in lieu of the 310 Baltmas Lane site.

Um a lot has changed over the years from from the city fire service transferred to the county and that deed restriction being in there.

We have a long-term lease, a hundred-year lease.

Um but when we do financial purposes, whether by large apparatus or such, we don't have a clear asset, clear deed.

And uh it's just been one of those things we like to clean up and it makes it easier when we pursue uh a financial you know obligations for the department.

We're the oldest Maryland volunteer service in the state of Maryland, so I think we're pretty uh reliable, and uh I don't think we're gonna change anything, but it just would clear up our uh documents when we do transactions immensely and then benefit the city by allowing the park to continue through our property by separating that portion of the property.

We've already worked with Mike Swanson in engineering for the uh for the plates, and uh I think we've done everything as far as making the transaction possible other than this review.

So any questions you can ask.

I do have I guess some some just technical questions and clarifications so I can walk through this.

Do you recall when when it was that we transferred the property to independence that from the Bachwins Lane property?

Well, when it was originally done in 1978, it was transferred to us.

Um and with a hundred-year lease, we paid a dollar a year lease, and the city would maintain the property.

That meant any repairs, any maintenance.

The city was responsible for all maintenance.

Uh that went on to the county, took care of the fire service, and then there was some uh very confused because the county wasn't a part of that.

I don't know the exact date.

I'm gonna say maybe about 10 years ago.

We made a change.

Now where we fully maintain the property out of our funds.

And so we're responsible 100% for all property improvements, maintenance, and again, we still have that clause in there.

Uh I think it was something maybe we overlooked at the previous change when we clarified that about 10 years ago, that clause.

Um because it probably would have been advantageous for us not to do it because we got a big data property, but but yeah, I don't know the exact dates.

Okay, so I mean I do recall I was on the board of aldermen at the time, and we were that was something that we wanted to make sure that if we did give you the property and it was all yours free and clear that that it was always going to be a fire station.

I think that was the thinking of putting that clause in there.

Um the subdivision has already been done and recorded.

Is that correct?

So there was a subdivision plat that was ex that was reviewed by the planning commission.

Uh they had approved that uh subdivision plat.

It's there is a plat, I don't think it's recorded yet until uh we're able to um move forward with the deed.

I'm sorry, I thought the backup had said that it had been recorded already.

Have we been?

Okay, I'm so sorry.

It so yeah, there is a there's a recorded plat, but there isn't a deed yet.

And so the idea of transferring over the floodway portion of the property to the city, as well as removal of the deed restriction on the remaining piece, that has not been done yet.

Right.

So as I understand it, the subdivisions done, the piece of land that we want to receive is a separate piece of land already.

We want to create a document, a single document that lifts the restriction about uh the reversion clause, basically, and then that also gives us a deed to that piece of property.

Is that am I following?

Correct.