Good morning, everyone. It is approximately 10 o'clock on the morning of April 10th, 2025. We are here for BA24-034V, which is a request for three variances by Michael Singh trading as Troy Farms' S, right? Thorns, S, okay, because there's some confusion about that. Lickers. trading as Troy Farms, Farms S, right? Farms S, okay, because there's some confusion about that. Lickers, LLC. The request is for three variances to reduce the 30 foot minimum structure and use setback from 30 feet to 17.66 feet on the northern property line for parking uses. request to reduce from 30 feet to 19.68 feet from the northern property line for a retaining wall and a reduction from 30 feet to 16 feet for a retaining wall on the eastern property line. And so Mr. O, it's your case. Yes, good morning. Good morning. For the record saying, oh, on behalf of the applicant, we first like to call our witness, Jeff Sonera, please. Oh, from all the questions. Okay, thank you. You can start here. Thank you. All right, sir, I need to swear you in. Do you solemnly swear or affirm under the penalties of purgeary that the responses given and statements made should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Please state your name and address for the record. Jeffrey Sennaro, 4925 Ellis Lane, Elecate City, Maryland, with CMS Associates, the Civil Engineer with the project. Thank you. Mr. Scenario, you're a licensed professional engineer, is that correct? Yes, sir. And you are instrumental in preparing this plan for the variance. Yes. It's submitted in this case. Have you had an opportunity to review the technical staff report that was prepared by the Department of Planning and Zoning for this case. If you had an opportunity to review the technical staff report that was prepared by the Department of Planning and Zoning for this case. Yes sir. Do you concur with the findings in that report? I do, yes sir. Okay. Why don't you, if you would, just explain to the hearing examiner what variances you're seeking in this case and how they came about? The three variances are one to the north, one to the east, and one to the south having to do with parking asphalt and the retainer. Is the southern one the one to reduce it to 16 feet? There's some confusion about which one's the southern one. Is that the reduction to 16 feet or the reduction to 19.68 feet? I need to see the plan to remember that. The one to the south is for that the gas tank that has existed there forever. It was a part of supporting that facility. OK. I don't have a request for a gas tank. Can I take a look at the which one, that report? No, no, the report itself. I did not. Yeah, I apologize. Okay, I'm reading from the tech. I didn't mean to jump in. No, it's fine. The technical staff report gives me, says three requests are for the Northern, for, and for the retaining wall on the eastern. So I need to know which one of those is the southern one if it's not northern. And the other question that I had was somewhere in here is reference to the request for the variance for the tank. And I don't have a request for a tank variance. Yeah. Okay. So you do my math right, with the 34th structure and use to the north, the pavement extends where it is offset 17.76 feet from the property line to the north. So that means 12 point. 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, from 30 feet to 19.68 feet also on the northern property line for a retaining wall. Is that on the northern line? Correct, yes ma'am. And that would be the northeast corner. Correct. Okay, so that's correct. And then the third request was from 30 feet to 16 feet from the eastern property line for a retaining wall. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay, so there's no request for a tank. That is correct. I apologize. It was something that was a discussion between staff and myself at one time. And somewhere in the paperwork, there is some discussion of it, but it didn't seem to rise to a request. Correct. So we've got two from the northern properties, and one from the eastern, nothing from the southern, and nothing from the stories, Jack. Correct. I'm gonna jump out of your case. Here we go. Mr. O back is case. Thank you. Thank you. Previously in BA case 0927 there were variances that were approved on this property. Are you aware of that? I was aware there were some previous variances. Okay. And at that time it was determined that this property was unique. Correct. You agree with that? I do, yes. I can't quite hear you, so I'm sorry. I don't know what's going on with my voice today. I'll speak into the mic. For a one acre B1 piece of property, that's a relatively small piece of property, isn't it? It is in where it sets. It's very unique from that side. It's surrounded on three sides by residential. That's correct. And each of those properties requires a 30-foot structure and you set back. Correct. The program that you have on this, I know it's a replacement of existing structure that was burned during a fire, but it's slightly over 5,000 square feet of retail. Do you believe that is an appropriate, reasonable amount of retail square footage on a one acre lot? Yes, because it actually does for the most part fit. And if you didn't, if the variances requested were not approved, you would not be able to sufficiently park that program. That's where? That's where the problem comes in to a certain extent. Yes. And then- Are you keeping the same square footage? Are you rebuilding on the same foundation? I was not- I got into this process late with this because of the issues. Because originally they were not required to do a site plan. And that's what I do for living. So I don't know offhand whether the square footage was more, except for the fact, well, the footprint, I don't know if it was exactly more, which I think it was, they did include a full basement associated with this for storage. And that basement did not exist. I think there's more of a crawl space back then. OK, but Mr. O, it's not an expansion. It's not an expansion. It's not an overall. No. No. And so to essentially replace what was there previously, perhaps adding some additional storage and so forth, it's basically the same program as before. That is correct. Okay, by the way, with a site configuration that was not conducive to that use, and it needed, it could function that way, but because of the way that the site is configured, it had to be expanded just a little bit for the, to make parking work. And in fact a lot of this was driven by the need to install sprinklers in the building, which had previously not existed. Is that right? There was a portion of that in the project, yes. That was late in the project, it was required. Yeah, do you believe that the granting of these variances in any way would change the character of the community or result in harm to the community specifically? I do not know. And some of the parking that you're formalizing here, it was parking that existed. Right. Yes. Okay. Those are the questions that I have at this witness. All right, how many parking spaces were previously provided and how many are being provided now? That number I don't have the number of being provided now that's on the plane. It's 26. 26. What was provided previously? There were none. And I mean that from the standpoint of it was never striped. So the uniqueness of this is that typically on any kind of property where you have people coming and going, you have a driveway on one side or the other with a little bit of a buffer between the road. between the road, it is basically pavement from where you can enter that project to the southern part as well. And so it was just a lack of a bit of a free for all of the people coming in, you parked on the pavement and you went and did what you had to do with the store. We had to formalize it just to meet code and for accessibility purposes. This used to be a tavern, right, Mr. Senoe? To mind all, a jam for the history of it, but that was a long time ago. So it was like a roadhouse and people would just kind of drive off the road and park right in front of the establishment and then walk in and park standing. To my understanding, yes. Okay. There is, and you can help me with this, Mr. O, because I always have difficulty. The agency conment form. There is one that has a comment on it, actually. I can't read the signature, and I'm not sure which agency provided it. But it's the one that says, development engineering division. I'm assuming that's the division, takes no exception to the request for A variance. So they only reviewed one and they indicated the one that they reviewed was the reduction from 30 to 16 feet. So do you know whether they ever reviewed the other variances? have have no knowledge of what they reviewed the other variants. I can answer that. Because I understand. The development and engineering division being the people that see the engineering stuff, I can't say whether they actually did, but the planning department, planning and zoning did because that was a discussion that we had with them where the wall became the original issue because the project was shut down because of extending into that without permission. When we looked at it, we kind of understood the fact that if you're going to go with the variance for that, we already have pavement That is part of that parking lot that extends on the northern side We're in that wall on the northeast side that kind of got put into that so that was the discussion with the county and The staff but not necessarily with the Engineering because I don't even think that they got involved with that To start with. It was really planning and zoning that we had those discussions about the variances. So this referral indicates that the engineering division is saying they're taking no exception provided that the request is subject to the installation of a six foot high private fence. I guess we'd call that a site tight fence. Correct. Along the property line adjacent to 6159 Meadow Ridge to help screen the adjacent home from the parking lot in store. Does your client have a problem with that? No, I think we, Mr. Sinerok could talk about that, but I think there's been discussions between the applicant's representatives and the neighbor and what the neighbor would like as a condition of this approval. And I think we're agreeable to that. Maybe Mr. Sinerok can expound on that. No, it's something that when we knew we were encroaching into that U-setback, that was something actually that we as the representative of the owner of myself had offered out there was to put the site-type fence there because at that point the whole idea of the setback was to buffer from residential. And so we actually approached the neighbor who actually is here about that to say, OK, let's put a site-type fence here. Would that be OK? And that would give you a little bit more of a visual blocking of the facility itself. OK. Is OK. Thank you. Mr. O? So we have no problem with your condition. Okay is Okay Thank you Mr. O so we have no problem with you conditioning that we were gonna do that anyway. Okay, okay That's all we have no more witnesses No, no more witnesses. No more witnesses. All right. Well, let me look this over then one more time. There you have on to other people online are they with your case I'm jagged meat saying and Mike seeing yeah there with us but they don't need to testify All right the The letter you sent sir dated December 17 That really is only with regards Well, this is where the tank issue gets kind of folded into things. And there's not a tank issue before today, here today. So you list seven items in which you are saying the application complies. And I'm just a little questioning about the fact that I think you're using variance without an S, but you mean variances to be plural. Correct. You're right. Okay. All right. And so it was a one story building and it is now a one story building. Correct. Can correct. And the building has been built? Yes. Okay. And the parking spaces? The the pavements there, the parking spaces have not been striped at. Okay, what about the retaining wall? The retaining wall is in place as described. So everything is in place and you just discovered problems after the fact. Yes, ma'am. There was no violation notice, right? I don't believe there's been violation notices. Notice a violations issue? Forgive me, I'm trying to think. project was stopped but I don't think it was by an official notice of violation. I think they came to us and said we've got a problem and you have to submit a site plan. Is it open and operating? No, no. That's the way it's all right. Okay. And is it open and operating? No, no. No, I thought. Now everything stopped until, in fact, all of, I think, to my knowledge from what the contractor told me the other day, that all the final inspections are just being held off until all this is for this. Yes, ma'am. And then if these three are approved, the project can then continue. But physically it's all there. Right. So they're just looking for final inspections and a UNO? Yes, ma'am. Yes. Most NOVs, as you know, are triggered by a complaint. Right. And I wanted to know how this came about. It came about because an inspection showed that there was something going on. Yes, the field inspection showed that the STP was not in a line. And that's what I was trying to find out whether there was a complaint or just that. They had to be clear. They had extended themselves out beyond the limit of what the work should have been, which is kind of different than the limit of disturbance. They had kind of gone beyond that and the inspector who was out there said, stop. We have an issue. Okay. All right. But so everything's in place. The paving is in place, the building is in place, the retaining wall is in place. Correct. And I don't know about the story to tank and I don't have jurisdiction over that. Okay. All right, Mr. O. Do you have any further questions? We do, Don. No. Is this your case? Yes. All right. Then I'm going to close the record. Evidential hearing? Yes. I believe there's maybe a resident. Oh, I was asking. I'm so sorry. I thought everybody was with you all. So they're not. The people present here today. The people that are virtual. I'll go with you. That's right. All right. So, sir, I thank you very much for your testimony. And this concludes your case, Mr. O. Yes. All right. And then anybody else present that would like to testify, come right on up here. Come on up, sir It's a green one right there. Take pictures. I have some pictures here. You want want to hear them too. Thank you very much. Good morning. Hi. Good morning. I need to just where you insert. Do you solemnly swear a firm under the penalties of purgey? The response is given and statements made should be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record. My name is Bob Palmer. Bob Palmer, I reside at 9621 Frederick Road in Ellicott City. So Palmer, P.A.L. and M.E.R.? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I'm here representing my mother who is physically unable to attend. She lives at 61.89 metered road. That property is directly south of the liquor store property. Her driveway runs through the liquor store property. We have three concerns and I may be a fish out of water, but I'm trying to understand or give you my concerns about it. I don't know much about the setback, but I was hoping that there would be no new paving done to the south side of this building. Unless there was some type of water containment put in place from the amount of water that's run off of this property into our yard. We've had to put a ditch at the end of the driveway to relieve the rainwater. Excuse me, I have a cold. I gave you a couple pictures if you would mind looking at them at your convenience. The second concern is keeping our driveway with the same size as it was in some areas. It's down to 10 feet wide from the over paving. Just don't want it to get any smaller and it would be nice if there were some type of sign out there. Do not block private driveway or such if possible. The third concern we have is there's a pipe that runs underneath the driveway now that never was there before. I was told that this pipe is to relieve rain water off the roof of the liquor store. And that's fine, but it empties into our lawn in the middle of the lawn. I was told by the contractor, but then again, he told me many things that that would be temporary. It would be buried into a system of some type, but I'm not sure. But the pipe is still there. And one of the pictures I've given you when you have time to look at them, you'll see the pipe emptying into the middle of the yard. Our family has lived there over 100 years. We understand border has to go somewhere, but I don't think we should take the brunt of it. Thank you, and thank you for your consideration. All right, sir. I didn't understand that you all weren't with the applicant. So I did something out of turn, and we gonna get you back into the right place. Do I have to repeat myself? No you do. But we are gonna go over your photos right now. Okay. And I'm gonna mark them as exhibits one A through whatever it is. So first of all, because you're gonna tell me about the photos. So what I've marked is 1A appears to be, tell me what this picture is. OK. The driveway used to be wider. So what you're looking at is the driveway from Meta Ridge Road into our house. So what they did was they, I just think they overpaid. Well, well, it's their property, but that driveway's been there since 1918, something like that. And it used to be 20 feet wide, then it got to be 15 feet wide. So they picked up our concrete barriers, paved and then put the barriers on top of it, if you can see how that is. Okay. What I'm going to mark it as 1B. So if there was some type of signage that just said private driveway or do not block or something we would be satisfied with that. Okay. 1B, what I marked as 1B is a picture that you've marked as ditch at the end of our drive. Well, the water pulls up about 18 to 20 feet in a hard rain at the bottom of the driveway. I put a ditch in just to relieve the water. What I'm hoping that there's no more paving done on that side of the property, the south side because I don't think we can take much more water coming down there. So I was just trying to show you what I put in to relieve the water. So where the traffic cone is sitting? I put it there just so I could take a picture and you'd see it. No, that's fine. But is it sitting on pavement? Yeah, and yes. It's the end of our driveway. I'm just trying to figure out where the pavement ends. Does the pavement go all the way over to the grass here? It doesn't look like it. It does, but it's a lot of stuff that come dirt. So then the pavement ends across here? Well, that's in front of my mother's house. So yes, yes. The answer is yes. OK, but this is your driveway. Yes, me. I mean, your mother's driveway? Yes. Okay, but the pavement goes to here. Yes. All right. When I'm marking as one C looks to be the discharge pipe that you were talking about, it's like. I had a numerous conversations about that and I did talk to Mr. Jeffrey who's been very kind. I think I talked to him twice or something. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think he said it either goes there or would be worse if we redirected it or whatever. But backing up from talking to Mr. Jeffrey, don't know your last name, sir. The contractor who I've dealt with numerous times because of silk fence run, whatever, get away from that. He told me that that pipe was temporary, that it was going into a system. It would be cut off and it would go into some, I don't know, some kind of containment system. Mr. Jeffrey said that that pipe will stay there. You can see the property line I made a mark and you can see the discharge. So you've also provided me a picture that doesn't have markings on it. That's correct. It's going to a previous picture. We're going to call that the unmarked picture 1D. And then 1E is indicated behind the liquor store. What is this telling thing? Well, there's two pictures there. There's one, unfortunately, when the store burned. But you can see at that time if you have both them in front of you. This is the other one? The contractor told me that it was going to be a road around the liquor store, a single lane road with grass on both sides. So I know that the grass in the dirt absorbs the water from the runoff, which is fine. When I came home taking care of my mother, the entire back of that building is paved. So if you look at it, the reason I did two pictures is you saw that the water was absorbed by little dirt in grass. Now it looks like a runway coming down there. Which the paving's done, it's done. I was just hoping you don't allow any more paving done to the south side of that building. Doesn't look like there's room for any more paving. It looks like it's going to be. Well, there is a, when you're coming down our driveway on the right-hand side, there's a grassy area that I've taken care of forever and to the right, towards south side of the garage behind the liquor store. There's a grassy area where that propane tank that you were talking about is. I'm one g is the picture that is noted as before paving. There it is. Okay. Because I didn't understand your position, I'm going to do things a little differently. I'm sorry. So, sir, if you could come over and sit right here in this chair here and if you could turn the mic on for him, Kel. And then, Mr. Scenario. Scenario. Scenario? Scenario? Yeah, you come and sit back where you were. Because I should have allowed Mr. Palmer to ask you questions. And we skipped that part of this. So Mr. Palmer, you have questions, you have pictures. What questions would you like to ask of Mr. Scenario? Well, how you doing? How you doing? Will there be any more additional paving to the south side of the property? There will not. As you and I had discussed it before, the area that you're concerned with that is south of the driveway and just for the hearing examiner's purposes, the driveway exists on the liquor store property. There's an easement that allows that access for that driveway to the house. So south of that driveway is still liquor store property. So when all this took place and the inspector stopped everything and we went through planning and zoning and engineering review for the project, we had to provide stormwater management, which was not there at the time that this storm parking lot and the pavement was all built originally, much less when the additional pavement was put out there. So there is proposed a rain garden type facility which controls and cleans the first flush of rainwater and the most erosive storms as a part of the state regulations. So we all have to do that. It hasn't been done yet because it all got stopped from a site standpoint. So the project continues on, that actually will be put in that rain leader that you're talking about, will end up being into that so no longer discharge directly onto a grass property will go into the facility to allow it to settle before it sheep flows over. When you and I talked though you said that that pipe would stay there. What was mentioned, it will stay there. What we'll mention is that that part where it discharges now end up being a sort of say of a picture in your mind or be a depression in the ground, where it'll go into first, settle the water. So it doesn't come out of a pipe velocity wise to create that ditch that you're showing on your picture. OK. So it'll slow down the water, allow it to clean the water before it actually goes onto the, what is your mom's property? Okay. Is there a plan that shows that in this record? I believe the conditional use, or sorry, the variance plan shows shows that it does. What do you think about getting some type of signage out there for? I think it's a great idea from the standpoint you had mentioned to me before when we spoke previously that your major concern was the emergency vehicles. And if somebody were to park on that driveway that was not associated with that for one reason other, which I'm sure was probably a bigger problem, it was a tavern or could have been at that time. But I would think that that would probably be an appropriate thing to do so that there's no impedement to any kind of emergency vehicle getting back to that house. It can be mistaken. There's a side by side. Oh, no. Yeah. I have no issues with that. Yeah. Well, that's my questions. I don't know what the follow-up is. Do I just make sure the rain garden will be put in or do I? Well Let's just say that this gets recommend gets approved Might end up as a condition Maybe maybe It is currently now required. So for them to eventually even go to start business again, it's going to have to be put in. Put in as built and put correctly. OK. In Maryland's stone-butter management regulations are pretty strict these days. And certainly wouldn't allow with that picture shows. Wouldn't allow the current situation. The easement that you mentioned for the driveway, I don't need a copy of it, but I do need to know how wide that easement is. I mean, either one of you, but you referenced that there's an easement. I mentioned that I assumed that there was one, because we had talked about that. You haven't seen one. My guess, it probably is. There always was, but that could be that. I don't know for a fact, but I can tell you that there was never a my great-grandfather owned the property. So the easement was as laid out at that time. So it actually was wide, wide. So I don't think there was ever a dimension on it, even back in that time, when my parents built the house where they built, all I can tell you it was wider. We're good neighbors, we haven't had any issues with it. It's just now it's getting smaller. So in some areas, it's just because I went out there to try to be truthful today to make sure you understood some areas are 10 feet wide. We haven't had any problem with fire trucks or ambulance. We haven I just want, I don't want to get it smaller where they can't get down through there. I'm going to ask you for some help here. Obviously, as I understand it, the subject property extends all the way over to here. Yes. Yes. Okay. So the driveway to access the home from Mr. Palmer's mother is on the subject property. That's correct. Therefore I have control over that driveway. I don't believe so. If as a condition of this variance approval, the hearing examiner will require the conveyance of a land interest. So that's where I'm trying to go here. Nobody seems to know whether there's an easement. I have no idea it could be permissive. It could have been. But everybody agrees that subject property goes to. It extends further than that actually. that there's subject property, but yes, that's encompassed within the subject property. All right, so, and everybody also will agree that emergency vehicles would need to access this drive if there's a need at the house. Sure. So what is the normal with that emergency vehicles would require? Usually for a single driveway, the minimum with is 12 feet. So that's ordinarily what is required. So Mr. Palmer, your picture, you say that where the cement blocks are, distance between them is 15 feet. No ma'am. In some areas it's 10 feet wide. I just didn't want it to get any smaller. The pay portion is 10 feet wide. That's correct. I didn't hear you, Mr. I pointed out I think his statement is that pay the pay portion of the driveway is 10 feet in places. I wanted to say under the design manual a single driveway is specified to be 12 feet with a 16 foot easement. I don't know if any of that occurs in this case. that's an existing driveway. 12 feet with a 16 foot. East Middaria. I doubt that that is what is written as an East Midd in this case. Well, it sounds like it's meets and bounds anyway that the tree is now long dead that was used as a marker. Tree. Okay. I don't think it's a proper marker. All right. Mr. Palmer, do you have any further questions of this witness? No, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much. You have anything further that you'd like to say? No, ma'am. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Okay. Anybody else present in this room that would either like to testify or like to ask this witness questions? I like the question. Okay. Do you have any questions of this witness? No. No, then thank you sir. All right come on down All right, I need to swear you in Do you solemnly swear or affirm unto the penalties of perjury that the responses given in statements made should be the truth the, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes. Thank you, please state your name and address for the record. Barry Hoover, 61.59, Meadow Ridge Road, Oak Ridge, Maryland, 21075. Okay, what would you like to say today? I'd just like to say that our family, our property, were in support of this project. We've been a longstanding neighbor to both the Palmer's and the liquor store property in its entity. And we're anxiously awaiting completion of this so that we can have the proper barriers as everyone is in a grants between my property and the liquor store property. So you're in favor of the site type face? Yes. I can get it. We, my comment for Marside is that we only wish had had progressed a little faster, but I know there were some hurdles with the variances that had to come through. But the variance that they seek in the main reason that we're in agreement with is that the natural line where they would place defense, which is critical for us, the defense is more critical than the distance is. There's a natural drop off from the property line. If you were looking at what a normal 30 foot setback would be, and if that, already put trees to help With that border and buffer at the property line so the fence will Be at a level where there's a pitstrap off that'll maximize the Screening of that property from residential and we've've worked back and forth with the construction company, and we're confident in our areas and what they're doing, that this will make it a better situation for that buffer. And to speak on behalf of what would benefit the paulmers is that the variances that are sought on the northern end of the property and the eastern end that border me and the northern end, the better those variances are accepted and faster, that creates a parking environment that takes almost all the strain or fear off of the Palmer's issue with their side. So in other words, the better you make the north with these variances and the east to me for parking and security, the better it is for the pressure to be off the southern side. And from I've been in the property since February of 2003 and I can tell you that most of the activity and parking is promoted to that northern side and it basically makes a better situation for both property owners that border and we've had no issue with this project outside of the time. We desperately want our buffer because they've removed the invasive vines and things that were there that were creating issues. They've all been removed. Of course, you know, they're never, they're always in there and can be dealt with. And not only are the concerns that one, all these are met and this project is done, the fence is all, everything's done and is operational. That the property owner does maintain the other side of that fence. Because there will be a buffer area between the actual property line and where the fence is and then where the retaining wall is. But just wanted to say that we are in support and we have had no issue whatsoever with the project. Okay. No questions? No questions? No questions. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. The gentleman in the back in the hat. We have one sign in, Mr. O. Gina Peggani, is she with you? That's my paralegal. Okay, then there's nobody. All right, is there anything further? No. No. No, man. You can rest your case. Yes. You are. Okay, all right. The hearing of this matter will deem to have been held and a decision will be Decision in order will be rendered shortly. Thank you very much. Thank you all. Thank you all for participating. This meeting is no longer being recorded.