I'm very familiar with this site now.

I've actually been to the site.

Spent two hours just the other day looking at the site.

And I feel like I'm prepared and I'm ready to vote on that issue tonight if that be the case.

Thank you, Mr.

Davis.

Sarah, I'll come to you now for roll call and determination accord.

Mr.

Peterman.

Present.

Mr.

Servon.

Present online.

Mrs.

Kircher is absent.

Mr.

Caufry.

Here.

Mr.

Mills.

May.

Mr.

Davis.

Here.

Mr.

Jester.

Here.

So you have six present.

You do have a quorum.

Thank you very much.

Commissioners, before you have the agenda for tonight's meeting, if there's no correction of their additions, I'll entertain a motion in a second.

Motion to approve.

Second.

I have a motion and a second call the commission.

Mr.

Peterman.

Yes to approve.

Mr.

Servon.

Yes to approve.

Mr.

Galfrey.

Yes to approve.

Mr.

Mills.

Yes to approve.

Mr.

Davis.

Yes to approve.

Mr.

Jester.

Yes to approve.

So you've seven six years in favor of approving tonight's agenda.

Commissioners, you also have before you the draft of the April 9th, 2026 meeting.

If there's no corrections or additions or restractions from that, I'll ask for a motion and a second.

So move.

Second.

I have a motion and a second, sir.

Call the commission.

Mr.

Peterman.

Mr.

Survon.

Yes to approve.

Mr.

Galvery?

Yes to approve.

Mr.

Mills?

Yes to approve.

Mr.

Davis.

Yes to approve.

Mr.

Jester.

Yes to approve.

So you have six days in favor of approving the minutes of April 9th.

You also see on your agenda tonight the actions that were taken.

If you have any questions about those actions, you can contact staff at any time.

We'll now get into our business meeting of the night.

And the first one is CS-26-03.

Tide Water Utilities, Gerald Ridge.

That was for a water tank, and they make gave a great presentation.

And so I'll turn it over to Commissioners.

Would somebody like to make a motion?

Mr.

Galvery.

I move that the Regional Planning Commission recommend conditional approval of application CS-26-03, a conditional use site plan approval of a water tower located inside the growth zone overlay district.

This is based on exhibit A, staff recommendations report dated May 7, 2026.

Exhibit B, public hearing testimony dated May 7, 2026, and the findings of fact that A, the subject site is zoned AR agricultural residential, and subchapter 205-5-3 permits water towers as conditional use.

B, the site plan complies with all applicable conditions of approval as detailed in the staff recommendations report.

C, the location is appropriate and not in conflict with the comprehensive plan.

D, the public health, safety, and general welfare will not be adversely affected.

Pursuance to Chapter 187 and 205 of the Kent County Code and pursuant to 9 Delaware C sub Chapter 4802 and 4811.

The Commission has reviewed the application in the May 7, 2026 staff recommendation report.

And furthermore, as part of this approval, the applicant shall comply with all staff and agency requirements as described in the January 7, 2026 staff recommendation report.

I have a motion by Mr.

Galvery.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Mr.

Mills, second.

Sarah, call the commission.

Mr.

Peterman.

Yes to approve.

Mr.

Sarvan.

Yes to approve.

Mr.

Galvery?

Yes to approve.

Mr.

Mills.

Yes to approve.

Mr.

Davis?

Yes to approve.

Mr.

Jester.

Yes to approve.

So you have six years in favor of recommending conditional approval of the application CS2603.

Thank you for your presentation and good luck with your project.

Next on the agenda tonight, application and title is S 26-02.

East Coast Ag Holdings LLC.

And applicant is Mr.

John Pardee.

Owner is East Coast Ag Holdings.

Engineer is Morris Ritchie.

Comp plan designation is low designate.

Low design density residential.

Zoning district is AC.

It is outside the Growth Zone District.

Is present use as agriculture.

It is the same with distribution of ag products.

There are no proposed sewer or no proposed water on site.

Levy Court District with Mr.

Hertz.

Lake Forest District, School District, Fire District is Harrington Station 50.

I think it is pretty well defined what they're doing and how they're adding additional grain tanks.

I wonder if any commissioners have any questions.

Anybody online, Mr.

Mr.

Servon?

No, I have no questions at this time.

Seeing that on nobody's needed and nobody, the engineer is not required to come up, I'll entertain a motion for what the commission wants to do.

Mr.

Mills.

I moved to Regional Planning Commission grant approval of application S 26-02.

A site plan application for distribution of agriculture products located outside the Growth Zone Overlay District.

This includes approval of the waiver from 187-74.

Required that one tree planning per 3,000 square feet of non-wood woodland site area for non-residential projects outside of the growth zone.

This is based on exhibit A staff recommendation for dated made 2026 and the findings of the facts that A, the site is zone A AC agricultural conservation in which distribution of agricultural products is permitted by rate with the conditions by 205-53.

B the plan complies with all the applicant conditions of approval as documented in May 14th, 2026 staff recommendation report.

C.

The application is complied with a comprehensive plan.

The waiver from 187-74.

Requiring one tree planting per 3,000 square feet of non-woodland site area for non-residential projects outside of the growth zone is approved with the existing 176 trees on the site satisfying the migration requirement.

C 4802 and 481, the Commission has reviewed the application and furthermore, as part of this approval, the applicant shall comply with all staff and agency requirements and planning staff recommendations as described in the May 14th, 2026 staff recommendation report.

I have a motion by Mr.

Mills.

Do I have a second?

Second.

I have a second by Mr.

Peterman.

Sarah Call of the Commission.

Mr.

Peterman.

Yes to approve.

Mr.

Servon.

Yes to approve.

Mr.

Crawfrey.

Yes to approve.

Mr.

Mills.

Yes to approve.

Mr.

Davis.

Yes to approve.

Mr.

Jester.

Yes to approve.

In favor of granting approval of application S 2602.

I'm glad to see this project move forth and good luck with your project.

Next on the agenda tonight is SL-26-02 pintail crossing.

Request for a preliminary approval with a 52-lot major subdivision duplexes and one single family existing home located inside the growth zone.

Last week we had quite a discussion about this for and against, and I compliment those that were against you didn't repeat yourself, and you're very dignified in how you made your presentations.

So I just certainly certainly thank how you did that.

And I think the commission has some uh comments and would like to move forward.

Uh Mr.

Davis, you'd like to go first.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I too uh want to thank the residents that uh came out to the meeting.

Very organized, make a lot of sense what they said to me.

Um I had the opportunity the other day is to go to the site and actually went to the adjoining neighborhood to see basically what was going on.

And when I was there, I spent two hours, talked to a real nice gentleman back there where that uh snub street is.

One of the reasons I went when I did, I wanted to hear and see what was taking place when the school bus comes in there.

Number one, the people who testified last week was absolutely correct.

I took my tape, their streets are 22 feet wide, period.

Two, there's no sidewalks.

Three, I waited for the school bus.

The kids were getting out of the school bus.

Some of them 10, 11, some of them smaller.

Walking down the middle of the street.

That raises a big concern with me about the public safety of our children that we have.

We cannot take the risk of taking a chance on some of those kids getting injured.

I have children myself.

And as I look at the plans, I'm not very happy with what I say.

I think there's some things that can be corrected.

Number one, I do not support the little strip there that ties into your community.

I'm against that 100%.

I think what the people said makes sense, and I think you're dealing with public safety issue.

My whole conversation tonight is involved around public safety.

My job as one commissioner is to make sure that these places are built, and you, the people that live there are protected, and that's what I'm going to do.

Number one, the present plan calls for a bus pickup out on a de-acceleration lane out on McGuinnesspawn Road.

That's unacceptable for me.

People drive down that road, it's in my fire district.

I know about the accidents out there, because we respond many, many times.

Somewhat on a curve.

Are they going to be sitting in the subdivision entrance blocking up traffic?

I don't know.

But what I do know, I want these things corrected.

Number four, there is a street that has a cul-de-sac on it, and there is a possibility that Dell DOT may approve that road to go out to Bear Chapel Road.

That would then become the second entrance.

So that makes me feel a lot better.

What remains?

What do we do with the school bus and the kids?

So tonight, if this came up for a vote, I cannot vote for it.

I think the issue of duplexes is not with our review.

They're not illegal to have, so we can't do nothing about it.

Some people support them, some people do not.

So I'm not getting into that.

I'm getting into the public safety issue.

My concern, I don't want to vote for something that I don't know what's going to happen.

I want to know what Dell Dot is going to do about extending the road that has the cul-de-sac out to Bear Chapel Road.

And believe me, Bears Chapel Road is not the safest road in the state of Delaware.

I went from the Guinness Pond Road intersection all the way out to Route 1.

There's no shoulders.

Personally, I don't think it should be any development on that road that's corrected.

It's not safe.

Your car breaks down, it's foggy out, you stop in the middle of the road, so I was going to hit you.

I don't know why we have such a hard time to get that road improved.

But that's the that's what's going on.

Got other subdivisions have been in there, and it's just not a safe situation.

It's gonna be a serious accident one of these days.

My fire department's gonna respond and try to save their life, and we do our best.

But we shouldn't have to go through that.

We should have the safest roads for any any subdivision for the families, for the children, visitors, whatever the case may be.

So that's one issue that I have.

And I think that the developer needs to re-evaluate what are we going to do with the bus.

I, for one, will not vote for that if they leave it where it's at today.

But I know how I'm gonna vote.

If they don't correct it with the buses, they don't have my vote, period.

So what I'm proposing to be fair for both sides, including the developer, and the people came and testified last week.

I'm making a motion that this is tabled for a period of 30 days.

I want to see in writing what Dell Dots is proposing and what they're gonna do.

That would mean that they're engineers, we have to go to Dell Dot and talk about the bus stop.

If my memory's right, the elevator lane is 10 feet wide.

There's no place for them to get off.

And as I mentioned earlier, there's people, the parents out there picking up the cars or kids.

Maybe raining.

It's not it's not going to be a nice situation.

So because of that, I want to be fair with you, the citizens, the adjoining development.

And I'm going to be fair with the developer.

So I'm making a motion at this time, Mr.

Chairman, that this be tabled for a period of 30 days.

That the developers will meet with Dell DOT and work this out.

If they do not approve the extension, I want to know.

Get the second entrance, how they're going to get the second answers.

I don't vote on things by hearsay.

I look at the facts.

I want to see it in voting.

So that's my my motion, Mr.

President.

I appreciate Bolly's comments.

I'm not here to offend anybody, particularly the developers.

So my motion is now it's a table for 30 days.

And I want this thing to be evaluated.

And I know our county staff would be more than happy to work with them.

They always have and they always will.

So Mr.

President, that's my motion is to table it for 30 days until this gets worked out.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

I'm going to recognize that motion, but I think some of the other commissioners would like to speak first.

If you understand, Mr.

Mills, did you want to recognize or say anything?

He uh he took the words right out of my mouth that I was going to say so.

Uh because we have a safety issue here for school buses, and I know the transportation supervisor come along and he signed off on it.

But the reason he signed off on because more than likely this development is not a half a mile.

And all school buses have to stop on the road if it's not a half a mile deep.

So but we still have got a safety issue on these roads, getting these kids on and off these roads and until something's done about putting a place in that development for those kids for those buses to get off of that road and get back on it in a safety issue, and that's getting them unloaded and getting them picked up.

Um I'll suck at this motion.

Yeah, I'm not recognizing the motion yet.

I'll ask for a second in a minute.

I think I'll ask our attorney, he wants to make some comments.

Yeah, so this is an unfortunate one because as you guys know, we don't have the ability to turn down a subdivision that meets all the requirements of the code.

But hearing the motion, I'd like to read a few things in from the code and then maybe give you a suggestion.

Um with respect to Can't use my hand, sorry.

With respect to the long cul-de-sact that goes down and where the tie-in is to Barrett's Tapel Road, I refer the commission to 1875 F two of the of the code, which it says it talks about access and connect connectivity requirements for minor and major subdivisions.

This subdivision has 52 lots.

And it says 51 or more lots, uh fronting on a connected route, second entrance required when possible and permissible.

So they're required to have that connectivity unless Dell DOT says no.

So it's required unless Dell DOT says no.

So that's the first one.

With respect to the uh the linkage or the connect with between the streets, I refer the commission to the same section eight street linkages, subsection four.

It says when a proposed subdivision or land development is being planned adjacent to previously subdivided or developed land and a previously subdivided or developed land has incorporated street linkage stubs, which we have here, to its perimeter as part of its record plan or approved plan, the proposed subdivision or land development must incorporate street connections to the existing linkage street right-of-way stubs as part of a street system.

So that's a requirement under the code.

Finally, with respect to the um to the bus stop issue.

187-62A, and I'll read it, all subdivision and residential site development plans, again, involving more than 50 units, which we have here, and or greater than three dwelling units per acre, shall be required to designate and reserve locations for transit and school bus stops accommodations within and or adjacent to the proposed development.

So the argument from the developer side would be that the proposed bus stop location is adjacent to, I think, and we might want it within.

But that's what the code says, so we need to follow the code.

Now, to to the request for for a continuance, I think that that would be fine, especially if we were going to say if you wanted planning staff to work together on the questions that were raised, right?

But I think that um that if they meet the requirements of the code, we have to approve.

So I think you could stay subject to a discussion between planning staff to see if there's another location for the bus, things like that.

So his motion would be okay to extend it for 30 days while they're working on this.

That's correct, but there was a lot of conditions.

For example, one of those conditions in the motion was we want to know from Dell DOT whether or not they're going to do it.

They have to do it unless Dell DOT says no.

In other words, to have a letter from Dell DOT saying yes or no, they have to do it.

And Dell DOT would have to have a pretty damn good reason not to do it, right?

They would have to have some safety entrance.

I don't think it's reasonable within 30 days to get the developers' attorney and to get an entrance permit.

I myself just submitted an entrance permit, and I know it's going to be 45 days at least before I get comments on that.

So I don't think we can do it, and we can't extend it indefinitely that period.

So can we make this motion or not?

What do you what are you advising us?

So I would advise that you would change the motion to to get the same effect to discuss the issues that have the developer discuss the issues that were raised with the planning staff here, and also to discuss whether or not there's another suitable location for the bus stop because that's been an issue for the commission.

And then if we did that, then we could see if there's other proposals that want to be brought back or maybe compromises that could be reached.

We can't postpone it indefinitely, but I think a 30-day continuance would be okay.

So make it for 60 days.

You're pushing it.

I I I I don't know.

Um That's a yes or no, though, is what I'm looking for you.

I would rather have you at 30, and then if there's you know if you come back and there's something that remains unresolved or couldn't be resolved, I'd rather at least have them report at the next meeting.

Because otherwise you could get forced to move or or the courts could force you to move, and I don't want to be in that situation.

A question.

I'll go back to the motion maker.

Are you okay with how he wants to rectify the motion?

Absolutely no.

And I I think the role of the attorney.

I just want this thing resolved.

I don't want to have these people sit them out and worry about what's going to happen.

They have a right to know.

We have a right to know.

If it takes 30 days or 45 days, so be it.

They've uh worked on this project for uh I know at least a year, and I don't think 30 days is going to hurt them.

I want it, I want it in writing, yay or nay about those two issues and particularly about the school bus.

If we do if we don't vote on that tonight, I'll be right up front about it.

I'm not going to vote for this thing tonight.

Thank you.

Mr.

Mills, you have a question?

We'd be better off just to vote on the motion.

It's already written here and see if it passes.

You could do that.

You could vote on that motion.

I told you what I think it should ultimately you guys, right?

I'll just have to defend it, but I gave you what I thought onto the code.

But there wouldn't be no written thing from Dell DOT telling us in that time period, like Mr.

Davis wants.

So I have a motion on the floor.

I'll ask for a second.

I'll second it.

Mr.

Galvery seconded.

Everybody understand the motion.

You're okay with it now, Mr.

Attorney.

Yeah.

I am I am not okay with the motion as presented.

We have a difference of opinion.

I'm not okay with it.

So you're going against the advice of counsel, but you that's your choice.

So you're saying we can't ask for a 30-day extension?

You can.

I think it's unrealistic to try to have an answer from Delvet during that period of time.

I think you could table it for 30 days.

If the motion was table it for 30 days to allow the planning staff to discuss the issues that were raised with the planning staff, I'd be better than that.

I would be better with that.

Well, if you if we do do it for 30 days and they discuss it, they'll be coming back to us and it'll be on next month's agenda, correct?

That's correct.

I wouldn't have a problem with that at all.

Keeping it on the agenda for next month after they discuss it and Sarah have the answer to all these questions that they'll be presented to the engineer.

Whether or not they can get it to answer in that period of time, but I don't want to continue.

We have an obligation to vote on projects.

And I've told you what I think.

But I think that a period of time, if we tabled it for 30 days, they could gather as much information that they could and bring it back to the commission.

Yeah, that would that would work because I know Dell DOT's a little slow in their workings and how they get back to you.

But I still think I'd like to have the written possibility in that time period and leave the motion like was made and we'll have one on next month's agenda.

I would prefer that you change the motion, but you've got a motion in a second.

You vote on it.

But I would prefer that you change the motion to say something like 30 days to allow the planning staff and the applicant to discuss the issues that were raised and to determine if there's another or better location for a bus stop within the proposed development and leave it at that.

So that wouldn't be mentioning the entrance at all, correct?

It could.

Yeah, well, I mean, the entrance was obviously discussed.

Right.

That was an issue, right?

It was discussed.

Do we need the motion read back?

Is Mr.

Galvery and Mr.

Davis okay with the modified motion?

I want it read by that motion.

Can you read the motion back before we act on it?

Are you talking about the motion that was made or the one I suggested?

Oh, I have to have Mr.

Davis read it back because I didn't write it all down.

My motion, and I'll stand by this motion, is that it be tabled for 30 days is to give the applicant it's on Dell DOT to see if they can work this thing out.

They currently have a drawing.

In no way, but it's 30 days or 60 days or 100 days.

I'm not going to vote for it.

I'm one person.

I don't like what I say here.

And I think if the developer is a credible person, quite sure he is.

Then who understand my situation?

I'm speaking for myself.

So if it takes him 30 days, what's the big deal about it?

We're talking about the safety of children.

And I'm not going to letdraw on the motion.

They want to turn it down, turn it down.

I just I respectfully say that to you, Counselor.

I got a lot of respect for you.

It's nothing about you and I.

It's however very strongly about this bus.

I don't want to go out my fire company and see if some child has been killed on the car.

Knowing that I voted, let it stay out there.

It's got to be worked out.

And I'm not going to budge on it.

I'm sorry.

All right, all right.

Sarah, are you are you okay with how the motion is has been made?

I certainly understand what it is you're trying to achieve.

You have advice from council.

Well, I guess we have a motion in a second, unless it's modified.

We just need to go vote on it.

Am I correct, Council?

Procedurally, that's correct.

Well, we'll get some kind of answer in 30 days with that kind of motion, and hopefully that it everything will be taken care of.

We really don't know.

We don't know if it's going to be taken care of.

And I guess my point is some of the things that are asked for in the motion already covered by the code.

And so that's fine.

You guys can move forward with your vote, and we'll take it from there.

We appreciate your counseling.

I certainly do.

Go ahead with the motion.

Mr.

Peterman.

I vote yes to table.

30 days.

Mr.

Sarvan.

I vote yes.

Mr.

Godfrey?

Yes for the motion as read.

Mr.

Mills.

Yes, for the motion as read.

Mr.

Davis.

Yes, for my motion.

Mr.

Jester.

Yes, per the motion, and I thank everybody for their patience.

Do you have six A in favor of tabling application SL2602 for a period of 30 days?

So I'll now put it back to the engineer and he'll know where to go with it.

Thank you very much.

Next on the agenda tonight is SL-26-04 Hampton Ridge.

Request for primary approval of a 175 single family lot major subdivision located inside the growth zone.

I think the we went through a lot of stuff last week, and the only thing that was arrived at was the gentleman out along uh Canterbury Road asked for some additional uh barrier request and buffer requests.

And I think they also asked for a waiver on that one sidewalk.

So now turn it over to commissioners for uh anybody would like to make a motion.

Mr.

Galvery.

I move that the Regional Planning Commission grant conditional approval of application SL 2604 Hampton Ridge, a preliminary plan for 175 lot single family detached major subdivision located inside the Growth Zone Overlay District.

This is based on Exhibit A staff recommendation report dated May 7, 2026.

Exhibit B public hearing testimony dated May 7, 2026.

And the findings of fact that A, the subject site is zoned AC agriculture in which single family residential subdivision is permitted use.

B, the applicant application complies with the King County Comprehensive Plan, future land use map.

C, the applicant agrees to staff recommendations.

One, remove the open space bumper along the rear of lots 50, excuse me, 45-66, 45 to 66.

Two provide a crosswork at the crosswalk at the intersection of Chesser Drive and Shakespeare Way between the sidewalk near lot one and the trail behind the stormwater pond.

The commission has reviewed the application and furthermore, as part of this approval, the applicant shall comply with all staff and agency recommendation recommends requirements and planning staff recommendations as described in the May 7, 2026 staff recommendation report, including but not limited to the following conditions.

A, the waiver from 187-60.

Requiring that sidewalks be installed on both sides of all residential collectors is granted to allow installation of sidewalks on only one side of the road from the entrance to lot one as shown on the preliminary plan.

B the street trees shall be planted and inspected prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy for the individual lots where street trees are proposed.

I have a motion by Mr.

Galvery.

Do I have a second?

I have a second by Mr.

Peterman.

Sarah, call the commission.

Mr.

Peterman?

Yes to approve.

Mr.

Servan.

Yes to approve.

Mr.

Galfrey?

Yes to approve.

Mr.

Mills?

Yes to approve.

Mr.

Davis.

Yes to approve.

Mr.

Jester.

Yes to approve.

So you have six A's in favor of granting conditional approval of application SL2604.

Thank you very much, and good luck with your project.

Next and final on our agenda tonight as far as the business is ordinance LC-26-03.

The water supply facilities.

It's actually simplifying and combining some lines.

And I don't know if you want to make any mention of it, sir, or not, but I think we're all pretty much understanding what's happening.

It is largely a housekeeping measure as we discussed last week.

Okay, thank you very much.

Uh I'll put it to commission.

Somebody would like to make a motion.

Mr.

Davis.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um move that the Regional Planning Commission uh recommend approval of ordinance LC 26-03.

Water supply facilities to align with the provisions of Table X-1.

Water supply facilities with tables X-2.

With 11 or more lots.

Thank you.

I have a motion by Mr.

Davis.

Do I have a second?

I have a second by Mr.

Peterman, call commission.

Mr.

Peterman.

Yes to approve.

Mr.

Servan.

Yes to approve.

Mr.

Galfrey?

Yes to approve.

Mr.

Mills.

Yes.

Yes to approve.

Mr.

Davis.

Yes, approved.

Mr.

Jester.

Yes to approve.

So you have six A's in favor of recommending approval of ordinance LC 2603.

I hope that makes it better for the county employees.

We're now down to public comment.

Is there anybody who would like to come to the mic and do any public comment on anything?

Anybody on the phone, Mark?

For our guests joining us online if you would like to make public comments at this time.

Please indicate by raising electronic hand or pressing star three if you're joining us by phone.

I see no hands raised online at this time, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you very much.

So we're down to commission comments.

And once again, I just comment on that pintail crossing.

I was very impressed with all your talk and how you presented the things there, and you didn't duplicate or anything else.

So thank you for doing what you do.

Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

I have a motion.

Okay.

Motion second.

Yes.

Yes to adjourn.

Mr.

Goffrey?

Yes to adjourn.

Yes to adjourn.

Mr.

Davis.

Yes to adjourn.

Mr.

Jester.

Yes to adjourn.

Thank you all for coming and giving your time.

Come see us any time.