>> This webinar is being
recorded and summarized.
>> Good evening everyone. This
is the council's JUNE
legislative session in which we
introduce new legislation and
give final consideration to
legislation previously
introduced and heard this
legislation session. This
legislative session is being
conducted as a hybrid meeting,
which is available in person
and virtual via WebEx. It is
also available to the public
through live stream on the
Howard County Council website
and broadcast on channels 44
and 1071. The council will hold
a hybrid public hearing on
Monday, JUNE 15th at 7 P.M. On
the legislation introduced this
evening. Testimony can be given
in person or virtually via
WebEx. Written testimony can be
sent to Council mail at Howard
County, md.Gov. You MAY sign up
in advance through the
council's website, or you MAY
sign up in person in front of
the room via a laptop. Monday,
JUNE 15th prior to the start of
the public hearing. When
signing up to testify, you will
be asked if you are a student
in grades k through 12 so that
you can be called to testify
early during the public hearing
and whether your testimony
will be provided in person
or virtually via WebEx. If
you select virtual, you
will be provided
instructions for logging
into the WebEx session. If
needed, the council will
hold a work session on new
legislation on Tuesday,
JUNE 22nd at 10 A.M. In the
c Vernon Gray Room. Public
participation for these
meetings will be available
virtually via WebEx and
viewed live streamed
through the county
council's website. At this
time, I'm going to do a
roll call for the council
members, MISS Rigby here,
MISS Jung here, MISS Walsh
here, MR. Yungmann here.
And I am Opel Jones. We
will now recite the Pledge
of Allegiance.
>> Of the United States of
America. One nation under GOD,
indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
>> Moving on to our agenda, we
will begin today's session with
approval of journals and
minutes of meetings. I move to
approve the Journal of
Legislative Session MAY 5th and
Legislative Session, MAY 20th.
>> Second.
>> MISS Harris, could you
please call the vote to approve
the Journal of Legislative
Sessions on MAY 5th and MAY
20th?
>> Chair Jones yes. MISS Young
yes, MISS Rigby yes. MISS Walsh
yes. MR. Yungmann yes.
>> The motion to approve the
journals pass. I move to
approve the minutes of the
budget. Work session. Operating
budget, work session number two.
On MAY 5th, the general budget
public hearing on number three.
Number three. MAY 7th,
operating budget work session.
Number three. MAY 11th. The
operating budget work session
number four on MAY 15th and the
legislative Public hearing on
MAY 18th.
>> Second.
>> MISS Harris, could you
please call the vote to approve
the minutes previously noted.
>> Chair Jones.
>> Yes.
>> MISS Young yes, MISS Rigby
yes. MISS Walsh yes. MR.
Yungmann yes.
>> The motion to approve the
minutes pass with the Council
administrator. Please read the
legislation for introduction.
>> The following legislation is
introduced by the chairperson
at the request of the County
Executive. Unless otherwise
noted. Council resolution 120
26, a resolution confirming the
appointment of Elaine Yaowu to
the Asian American and Pacific
Islander Commission Council
Resolution 101, 2026, a
resolution confirming the
appointment of Elizabeth a
Leiba to the Commission for
Women Council Resolution 102,
2026, a resolution confirming
the appointment of Lucia Urena
to the La Alonza Latino
Commission Council Resolution
106, 2026, a resolution
confirming the appointment of
Wanda I. Colon Canales to the
Alonza Latino Commission
Council Bill 40, 2026, An
Act pursuant to section 612
of the Howard County Charter
approving a lease agreement
between Howard County, Maryland,
and Gateway Crossing 95, llc, a
Maryland limited liability
company, for the lease of
approximately 38,285 rentable
square feet in space, located
at 7138 Columbia Gateway Drive,
Columbia, Maryland, and
authorizing the county
executive to take certain
actions in connection with that
agreement. Council Bill 41,
2026, and that pursuant to
section 612 of the Howard
County Charter approving a
Fourth Amendment to lease
between Howard County, Maryland,
and mayor ptf Linwood for the
lease of approximately 12,477
rentable square feet of space.
Located at 6095 Marshall Drive,
Elkridge, Columbia, Maryland,
and authorizing the County
executive to take certain
actions in connection with the
agreement. Council Bill 42,
2026, an ordinance authorizing
the issuance, sale and delivery
of up to $18,169,588 bond
pursuant to a bond enabling law,
providing that such bonds shall
be general obligations of the
County. Authorizing the County
Executive to specify, prescribe,
determine, provide for or
approve the final principal
amounts, maturity schedules,
interest rates and redemption
provisions of such bonds and
other matters, details, forms,
documents or procedures and to
determine the method of sale of
such bonds. Providing for the
disbursement of the proceeds of
such bonds and for the levying
of taxes to pay debt service on
such bonds and providing for
and determining various matters
in connection therewith.
Council resolution 104, 2026. A
resolution endorsing the
provision of fine by the state
Department of Commerce for an
economic development project in
Howard County and certifying
that the project is consistent
with the county's goals for
Economic Development Council
Resolution 105 2026, a
resolution adopting Howard
County's fy 2026 Annual Action
Plan for Housing and Community
Services to qualify for the
receipt of federal Community
Development Block Grants and
Home Investment Partnership
Program funds. Council
Resolution 106, 2026, a
resolution adopting the School
Capacity Chart pursuant to the
Adequate Public Facilities Act
of Howard County to designate
the elementary school regions
and the elementary school,
middle schools and high schools
constraints for new residential
development during each of the
following ten years as based on
the definition of program
capacity as defined by Howard
County public school system
policy and requiring certain
joint special work meeting
in accordance with section
16.1103 d of the Howard
County Code Council,
resolution 107, 2026, a
resolution adopting the Howard
the Housing Unit Allocation
Chart pursuant to the Adequate
Public Facilities Act of Howard
County Council Bill 43, 2026,
introduced by Opel Jones. An
act designating certain days of
commemoration requiring certain
legislative findings regarding
the religious, ethnic, ethnic
and cultural heritage of county
residents. Authorizing the
Chief Administrative Officer to
designate certain days as
commemoration. My apologies.
And generally relating to
county employees and the
religious, ethnic and cultural
heritage of County residents.
Council Bill 44, 2026.
Introduced by Liz Walsh. An Act
amending the Rules of Procedure
for the Board of Appeals to
require that a representative,
excuse me from the
administrative agency, appear
before the Board of Appeals
when named as a party of
certain administrative appeals
and generally relating to the
Board of Appeals Council Bill
45, 2026, introduced by Louis
Walsh, an act requiring. Excuse
me, the director of the
Department of Housing and
Community Development to
include annual reporting of
student yields of housing
developments that are subject
to an approved payment in lieu
of taxes by taxes. Pilot
agreement in the annual
analysis of moderate income
home housing programs under
section. Excuse me. 13.402 j.
I'm losing my voice of the
Howard County Code and
generally relating to reporting
requirements.
>> Okay.
>> I know right.
>> It's allergy.
>> Yeah, allergy. I will read
my next part slower. So, MISS
Harriet, can I take a moment?
That concludes our legislation
for introduction. MISS Harriet,
would you please take your time
and read the legislation for
final consideration? Council
members, unless there's an
objection, MISS Harriet will
read all of the appointment
resolutions together with the
exception of Council Resolution
56, and we will vote on them
together. Is there any
objection, colleagues?
Hearing no objection, MISS
Harriet, please proceed.
>> Thank you. I will do my
best. If not, MR. Anderson,
the following legislation
is introduced by the
chairperson at the request
of the County Executive.
Unless otherwise noted, Council
resolution 52, 2026 appointment
of Joseph c Hudzik to the Adopt
Public Guardianship Review
Board. Council Resolution 53,
2026 appointment of Ning Lee to
the Asian American and Pacific
Islander Commission Council
Resolution 4554 2026.
Appointment of Keith Louie to
the Asian American and Pacific
Islander Commission Council
Resolution 55, 2026.
Appointment of Seema Agarwal
Harding to the Asian American
and Pacific Islander Commission
Council. Resolution 57, 2026.
Appointment of Swati Sharma to
the Asian American and Pacific
Islander Commission Council.
Resolution 58, 2026 appointment
of Rebecca Paulson Fields to
the Commission for Women
Council Resolution 59, 2026.
Appointment of Bronson Palmer
to the Commission for Women
Council Resolution 60, 2026.
Appointing Janine m Campbell to
the Commission for Women
Council resolution 61, 2026.
Appointment of Angel m Robinson
to the Martin Luther King
Junior Holiday Commission
Council Resolution 62, 2026. A
appointment of Carlita. S
Burton to the Martin Luther
King Junior Holiday Commission
Council Resolution 63, 2026.
Appointment of Lena c
Collington to the Martin Luther
King Junior Holiday Commission
Council Resolution 64, 2026.
Appointment of Alison Karen
Nichols to the Martin Luther
King Junior Holiday Commission
Council Resolution 65, 2026.
Appointment of Ella Thacker to
the Martin Luther King Junior
Holiday Commission Council
Resolution 66, 2026.
Appointment of Sandy pagan to
the La Alonso Latino Commission
Council Resolution 67, 2026.
Appointment of Erica Tustin to
the La Alonso Latino Commission
Council Resolution 68, 2026.
Appointment of Lauren m
Abdullah Doobie. I am so sorry
to the Recreation and Parks
Board Council Resolution 69,
2026 reappointment of MAY Fong
to the Asian American and
Pacific Islander Commission
Council Resolution 70, 2026.
Reappointment of Jung Ren Smith
to the Asian American and
Pacific Islander Commission
Council Resolution 71, 2026.
Reappointment of Kimberly
Eggborn to the Asian American
and Pacific Islander Commission
Council resolution 72, 2026.
Reappointment of Samir c o'Hara
to the Asian American and
Pacific Islander Commission
Council resolution 76, 2026.
Reappointment of Phil Share to
the Multimodal Transportation
Board.
>> Okay, I move to approve
Council resolutions 52 through
55 and 57 through 73 2026.
>> Second.
>> The previously read Council
resolutions have been moved and
seconded. Any discussion?
Please call the vote.
>> Chair. Jones.
>> Yes.
>> MISS Jung yes, MISS Rigby,
yes, MISS Walsh yes. MR.
Yungmann yes.
>> All right. The previously
read Council resolutions pass.
>> Council Resolution 56, 2026
appointment of Jason Zao to the
Asian American Pacific Islander
Commission.
>> Okay, I move to table cr56,
2026.
>> Second.
>> All right. The motion to
table cr56 has been moved and
seconded. MISS Harriet, would
you please call the vote.
>> Chair Jones.
>> Yes.
>> MISS Jung yes, MISS Rigby,
yes, MISS Walsh yes. MR.
Yungmann yes.
>> I the motion to table cr56
passes.
>> Council Bill 25,
2026cra224zra224. Is there any
regulation amendment 224 for
age restricted adult housing
cottage clusters.
>> Okay I move to approve.
Cb252026.
>> Second.
>> I move to approve amendment
one to cb25. Second MISS Sager.
>> Sure. Amendment one age restricted adult
housing cottage clusters in
areas that are designated
single family, low density,
single family, medium density
apartment and apartments on an
ftp, and it also provides that
age restricted adult housing
cottage clusters that use the
optional design project. Their
density will be consistent with
new town density provisions in
the zoning regs.
>> Okay, amendment one to cb 25
has been moved and seconded.
Any discussion?
>> Yes, I, I have some
questions. Since this is a new
amendment, I'd like to know
more about it, particularly
since it involves New Town and
I represent five of the
villages of Newtown. I see you
are there, MISS Eisenberg,
could you please approach and I
could ask you these questions?
>> I'm sorry. When you say new
amendment, what are you
referring to?
>> Well, it's an amendment to
the bill and it wasn't part of
the bill originally. Right.
>> Well, that's an amendment.
Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I thought
you meant like new as in we
didn't know about this
beforehand, but I'm sorry, MISS
Eisenberg. Please.
>> So we didn't have an
opportunity to ask about it
when the bill was introduced.
>> Yes.
>> Good evening, Council.
>> Doctor Jones.
>> So to answer your question,
so originally when we put
forward the bill, we were
looking at how it was
incorporated into Newtown, and
it was an oversight on our part,
thinking that the residential
suburban cluster, which is what
most of the prevailing Newtown
zoning district uses for its
residential uses, we thought it
was going to be incorporated
into that. So upon further
revisions and review, it was
brought to our attention that
we did not commit it into
Newtown. So it was an oversight
on our part. So we have
inserted it here to make sure
that Newtown is now included as
part of the cottage cluster.
>> So how many I mean, you know,
three of us. Well, two of us, I
guess, live in Columbia. And
I'm just trying to think, where
could you even put cottage
clusters and still maintain
that 30% open space that's
required under Newtown zoning?
Did you do a partial look at
this? I mean.
>> So we did look at parcels,
but we looked at the individual
smaller parcels that would meet
the basic criteria of less than
ten acres. So looking at what
the Newtown zoning district
allows for density, that's how
we were basing this on.
>> And when you looked at
parcels, what did you did you
see anything that was actually
available and would maintain
the 30% open. Space requirement?
>> Look, that was not part of
the consideration. I don't
believe that's required. If
this is to have 30% open space
for these small types of infill
development.
>> You're saying that that
putting in this infill infill
development does not impact the
30% requirement that you can
just add this without having
anything to do with the 30%
requirement?
>> Clarifying question. That
30% requirement is not parcel
by parcel.
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you. Right. I
understand that it's not parcel
by parcel that it's overall.
But I guess the answer I just
got from you, I was getting the
impression that you're saying
that these cottage clusters
wouldn't count toward the
overall.
>> No, they would count, but
they're not. But I think to MR.
Rigby's point, not for each
individual. Each individual
community does not need to have
30% open space.
>> I understand.
>> With the calculations it
would be probably negligible
with meeting the 30%
requirement, so it would not
take away or diminish that open
space requirement that we have
in Newtown.
>> And and you believe that
there's actually lots somewhere
in Newtown where we could put
cottage clusters?
>> Depends on how people want
to redevelop or develop their
space. So we do have a web page
dedicated to this, or we do
have a zoning map showing where
the probability of these
occurring could happen.
>> So you, you can you put that
zoning? Can you sure. Share
that zoning map.
>> I can share my screen. I
don't have a link. I think, to
the meeting. Pardon me. Are you
going to send it to me? Okay.
Yep. And I can.
>> While you're pulling that up,
does anyone have any other
comments or questions. And
we'll go back to MISS Jung. Go
ahead.
>> I would just say that I was
really glad to hear testimony
in support of including Newtown.
I know that many of our seniors
in Columbia are looking for
smaller housing options to
downsize into, especially those
that will meet their mobility
needs. A lot of our housing
stock in Newtown is very stair
centric, so I appreciate the
administration being responsive
to the resident's request.
>> MISS Walsh.
>> Yeah, we also heard that
request in the public testimony
and have a similar minded
amendment coming up in the form
of amendment number four. But I
just wondered why they looked
so different. If one if one is
achieving something that four
doesn't or vice versa.
>> So I think one of the things
that was remiss in the
amendment four was putting it
towards r 12 zoning
specifically, and then looking
at Newtown for their densities.
The densities aren't based on
zoning. Districts are based on
the land use categories of
single family, low density,
single family, medium and
apartments. So that was the how
our the the dp's put forward
amendment was written as
opposed to the amendment put
forward by council.
>> Okay. So technically
amendment one would be the same
would be the better way to
achieve what's intended. Yes.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> All right.
>> Okay. Do we have that link?
Okay.
>> Just got it.
>> Okay. MISS Jung.
>> So while I'm waiting to see
the zoning parcels that MISS
Eisenberg referred to.
>> Oh, you could just you could
email it to us. I mean, we.
>> Yeah. We are.
>> I'll put it.
>> Up there. Okay.
>> Right.
>> If we can. MR.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Yeah, I guess.
>> I do have a couple more
questions while you're getting
that up, but sure.
>> Go ahead. You can.
>> Ask will, we'll let you work
on that.
>> No, go ahead. Please. Please
ask them so that we can we can
be expeditious as this is not a
work session if you want us to
be able to ask questions. So
please go ahead.
>> Well, we didn't have a work
session, so that's why I'm
asking these questions now.
>> Do you have a question to
ask?
>> I do.
>> So please ask it.
>> Well, I want to let MISS
Eisenberg finish.
>> Does any other colleagues
have any questions?
>> I'm trying to share my
screen. It's not coming up.
>> We see it in the WebEx. Can
we get charity?
>> There you go.
>> There we go.
>> So these are the feasible
locations of potential
properties that could. I'm
trying to zoom in to Columbia.
It's not the best resolution,
but based on sites that were
200 zero square feet up to ten
acres and that had limited
development on them and had
potential to at this point have
cottage cluster as it's written
currently and proposed. So it's
not the be all and end all.
There could be other
opportunities, but we wanted to
look and see what types of
properties would have some
potential for this type of
development type.
>> MISS MISS Rigby.
>> And just to clarify that
every parcel marked in red,
they MAY have additional
challenges that would prevent
their development, such as
streams, setbacks, steep slopes,
those types of things.
>> To some extent. Yes, we did
take some of that into
consideration when we did the
analysis.
>> These are the more feasible
ones. Correct.
>> Thank you. So it did look
like there were maybe 50
parcels that you identified in
Newtown. Is that right?
>> I don't have an exact number.
I'd have to get that for you.
>> I'm just trying to eyeball
it right now.
>> We kept this very general.
Just to give an idea of the
order of impact. And this is
only allowed in the planned
service area as well.
>> Okay. Can you help me
reconcile the the map of
impacted parcels that was
included in the technical staff
report that basically showed
the entirety of district one in
red. I'm happy to show it up
next to my face for the camera,
but.
>> Like.
>> I believe those are just the
zoned parcels. I don't know, I
have to.
>> Write. The information we
got previously through the
technical staff report was that
there were 55,651 impacted
parcels, with an approximate
acreage of 32,723 acres. This
that you have up on the screen.
Now, this is the old one.
>> Yeah. So that goes based on
the impact of parcels that meet
the zoning criteria. What we
were doing with the impact of
parcels beyond that. So that's
part of what the zoning staff
report is supposed to require.
What we have done here is that
we looked at properties
specifically within the planned
service area that had to have a
minimum lot size of 20,000ft!S.
So that was just the basic
criteria within the technical
staff report that just looks at
properties that have the zoning
that could hold this type of
optional design project project.
>> Okay, so the difference
between that technical staff
report map and this that you
put up on the screen that's
available on the Department of
Planning website. Can you
articulate that again for me
please?
>> So this is so the one that I
just had posted had to do with
areas that were specifically in
those zoning districts that are
allowed to have cottage cluster,
but also having minimum lot
size of 200 zero square feet
and no more than because it
follows the criteria of no more
than ten acres as well, was one
of the limitations we put. And
that would be within the zoning
districts that have been put
forward for this amendment. So
as opposed to the technical
staff report that basically
looks at any parcel that hits
the potential zoning.
>> Okay. So one regard zoning
and the other has zoning plus
lot size.
>> Correct, more feasible. What
the feasibility based on what
the code would state.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Would you about to say
something, MR. Yungmann? Okay,
MR. Rigby. Okay. MISS Walsh.
>> I do have some more
questions. Can you tell me how
this amendment will impact the
apartment maximum percentage,
which is capped at 13%. Cottage
clusters are rentals. Will they
be classified as apartments?
>> No. So they could be for
rent or for purchase, depending
on what the property owner
chooses to do. They are not
considered apartments. So when
you look at the new town land
use designations, that has to
do more with the association of
density.
>> So this won't impact the
apartment maximum percentage,
which is capped at 13%. Okay.
And how does the amendment
impact the overall? No. I just
already ask you that. So the I
just want to make sure it
appears that new town's
existing density per acre
remains the same for a cottage
cluster.
>> If you're talking about the
overall density, then yes, that
would be calculated at the time
of the proposal being submitted.
And if you know densities need
to change, that would be up to
the applicant to make a
proposal to a pdp amendment.
>> Okay.
>> Great, MISS Walsh.
>> All right. Thank you. So
just so I'm clear, if I own
a parcel within New Town
that is between 20,000ft!S
and ten acres, and it's in one
of those three land use
categories that you identified
in amendment one that we did
not identify an amendment for.
If I have just a singular home
there right now, I could once
this this legislation passes,
raise that House and build up
to whatever the. The new
density set forth is in the
form of these cottage clusters,
right.
>> Potentially with the
optional design project.
>> Okay. I mean, I think that's
the concern is that we're we're
we're putting we're putting
that risk on any, any size lot
anywhere in the county that's
not outside the public service
area to, to remove existing
housing and replace it with
tenfold.
>> I mean, that can happen now
with any zoning district. You
could have something zoned, you
know, apartment and have a
single family home on that and
certainly raise that home and,
and build an apartment or Todd
or any of our other zoning
categories on that.
>> Well, but the density
contemplated here is much
higher, right? You could have a
home in our 20, and you could
have two, two units per acre
under our 20, right?
>> Correct.
>> And under this cottage
cluster, in that same zoning
district, you could have how
many?
>> It depends on the acreage,
but they would fall under the
same density requirements if
they're outside of New Town as
the.
>> The answer is nine. You
could have nine units where you
can have two. Now in our 20.
>> And that's how rh currently
works as well. The age
restriction. So this is no
different than age restricted
adult housing that we currently
have this conditional use
within those districts.
>> Then why do we need this
legislation.
>> Because we don't allow this
development style, this cottage
cluster style with no lot lines,
essentially, and with a uniform
universal design. And so that
was the intent of this.
>> So the density in in this
bill is no different than
what's already allowed under rh.
>> That was what we mimicked it
after. Correct.
>> That mimicked or the same.
>> The same.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. Any last questions?
>> Well, one last question. I
guess if we vote yes on the
county executive's amendment,
does that then make MISS
Walsh's amendment moot?
>> I'm not moving it. I mean,
it sounds like.
>> You're not going to.
>> Move it right. The right
version of it.
>> Okay. Thank you. Colleagues.
MISS Harris, could you please
call the vote on amendment one
to cb 25?
>> Chair Jones.
>> Yes.
>> MISS Young.
>> Yes.
>> MISS Rigby yes. MISS Walsh
yes. MR. Yungmann.
>> Yes.
>> The motion to approve
amendment one to cb 25 passes.
I move to approve amendment two
to cb 25. Second amendment to
the cb 25 has been moved and
seconded. Any discussion, MISS
Sager? Oh, wait. Sorry, MISS
Sager.
>> Sure. Amendment to just
changes the maximum height for
principal structures from 20ft
to 22ft.
>> Okay. Any discussion?
Colleagues?
>> Yes. Yes. Yes.
>> MR. Yungmann, MISS Jung.
>> And that's to make sure you
can accommodate a second level.
>> More comfortably. Yes. So
even with the 20 foot that we
had originally proposed, there
was some concern that variances
would be coming in to raise it
so we can do an administrative
adjustment up to 20%. So the
concern from the community was
that it MAY not comfortably fit
a second story. So typically
how we measure the second story
is by the main roof line. So
you could have a two story unit.
But then I think there was
concern that if they had a
creative roof line, so to speak,
that that might be eaten up in
the roof line as opposed to
having a true second story
being added.
>> I ask that because, I mean,
when we talked the other day,
you know, to make it clear, I
mean, 900 square foot footprint
plus a 900 square foot upper
level plus basement is just an
1800 square foot single family
home, which in a lot of areas
of Howard County is gonna be
$800,000.
>> Yeah.
>> So once you, once you double
that square footage and
potentially add a third bedroom,
you're now creating a market
situation. The whole point of
this is to, instead of through
regulation, creating
affordability and through
subsidy, creating affordability
is just to, to limit sizes. So
affordability just sort of
happens as a market driver, but
it that's going to be a big
house. I mean, you basically.
>> It's a very big house. It's
a regular.
>> Single family detached house.
>> I don't get this whole thing.
This isn't a cottage any longer.
This is a regular size
townhouse. In fact, it's bigger
than the townhouses of the
people that I know that live in
it. I. Where does the
affordability come in at this
point? Nobody's. What now? The
deal is, I guess you get a
single family detached townhome
under the cottage cluster that
doesn't, but does have. It has
a zero lot line, I guess. Kind
of like Maple Lawn.
>> I'd say like Owen Brown,
Hopewell.
>> Well, I see it like Maple
Run because it's going to be,
I'm sure, as expensive as Maple
Lawn as opposed to Owen Brown.
Well, yeah. So because these
are brand new. Yeah, these are
brand new. These are going to
be brand new houses. A cottage
is is a single story.
>> It looks like.
>> Sorry, can I just one
clarifying question. So this
could with the additional roof
height, would that mean that
you could have a second unit
and sort of do instead of two
over two, like a one over one.
>> With an elevator?
>> Ideally, yeah.
>> Now we're looking at at 740
000 over 55 senior house.
>> That's their seniors.
>> It's ridiculous.
>> Obviously. Okay, I would
just like to finish my comments.
So a few things. One, right now
we have the base outline of
900ft!S, correct? Correct.
>> For yeah, for the building
footprint. And that was based
on the state was suggesting 800.
We want a little bit bigger
with 900, but we base this off
the silver and starter home
state legislation that was
moving forward, but
subsequently did not pass the
Maryland General Assembly. So
that's what we look to for our
guidance and where we came up
with the 900ft!S, thinking that
seemed a little small in some
ways for some of our
constituents who felt like 900
was more appropriate.
>> And then with the optional
design process, if a project
were to sort of begin and it
came in and it looked just like
every other massive villa, a
rah, how does that process go?
Because there's more back and
forth with the design process
than there is your sort of by
right zoning.
>> Correct. So, absolutely. So
the design process would be put
forward similar to how we do
our site development plans with
the requirements of what would
be be put forward by the
applicants. But the back and
forth would come from the
design advisory panel to make
sure that good design is
adhered to, keeping into the
character of the community as
well as them back and forth
with the Planning Board. So
this MAY be not this. These MAY
not be settled in one night,
especially the Planning Board
understanding within their
criteria that these are to be
age restricted, affordable,
naturally affordable housing.
So they very much could deny
having large units being put on
these particular sites, knowing
that that's not the intent of
the legislation, and that would
be within their power through
this actual design process. The
idea was to give flexibility so
we could utilize creative
design to have these particular
units be built in Howard County.
>> I mean, because every time
I've looked at trying to do
cottage clusters legislation,
we get hit by the infill
requirements. And it basically
you can build one unit and it's
impossible. So I thought it was
really wise to go the optional
design route, because then
there's a lot more back and
forth and it's much more sort
of site specific. And also you
can make sure that they're
adhering to the spirit, not
just the letter of the law.
Correct. Thank you.
>> All right, MR. Jung.
>> I, I, I jumped ahead a
little bit and it looks like
what we're going to talk about
in a couple of minutes might be
moving the 900 up to 1200. But
in one story that feels more
like a cottage, it feels more
like, okay, you know, maybe if
900 is tight, I'm not sure if
I'm even comfortable with 1200,
but whatever that number is,
that's more than 900. You know,
as flat. I mean, that is going
to be kind of affordable. I
mean, your, your two bedroom,
two bath, 1600 square foot
condos that are all over Howard
County age restricted in the
four over four buildings, you
know, or 350 to 4 and a quarter,
let's say, but with big condo
fees because they have a lot of
amenities. Whereas if you've
got 1000 1102 bedrooms.
>> Not requiring a million
amenities.
>> One level, not a lot of
amenities, you know, maybe
these things can come in in the
low 300 seconds without
exorbitant condo fees.
>> So I guess my question is
the 1200 foot amendment, MISS
Walsh, that you did, was that
anticipating a single story?
>> Then I did an amendment to
an amendment to clarify the
single story piece because I.
>> So, so really fast before
his amendment two. I know, I.
>> Know, but these are all kind
of related.
>> Yes, but we we haven't. I
just don't want to get too far
into discussions on amendments.
We haven't moved yet because
before us is amendment two. But
go ahead. Please continue.
>> I mean, I just I am at a
loss here to understand how
this bill brings affordable
senior housing to Howard County,
when it could be an 1800 well,
more than 1800. If it has a
basement, it could be 2400
square foot home, which is
exactly what is being built
right now. Can you please tell
me how this bill, the way it is
being amended, amended will
help seniors live in more
affordable, smaller homes.
>> So which amendment are you
referring to? The height. The
height. The height.
>> Gives us 22ft, which makes
it easy to add on a second
story, 900 foot, 900 square
foot footprint. That's 900. And
then you put something on top
that's 1800ft!S. You have a
basement. There's not there's
no basement prohibited in here.
That's a not another 900ft!S.
That's 2700ft!S. That's about
the average size, probably of
most of these over 55
retirement villas. And those
are those are really expensive,
that they're an average. Now I
think of about 740 000 people
were looking for these for the
cottages. This is not a cottage.
This is a 2700 square foot
townhome.
>> Well, so first of all, I
think a couple things to keep
in to take into account is that
one of the things that MR.
Rigby said, that this would be
an optional design under the
Planning board's discretion. So
this is not but.
>> It's discretionary. And and
then it might not be. So it
might or it might not be. And
and if you're a builder, why
wouldn't you want to build the
thing you're going to get the
most money out of? That's what
you're going to do. And you'll
get the most money out of the
2700 square foot apartment or
I'm sorry, townhome, as opposed
to a little cottage, which is
the affordable thing that I
thought we were trying to
create.
>> So again, I believe, you
know, the Planning Board has a
lot of discretion to adhere to
the intent of the law to make a
naturally affordable single
family cottage cluster home.
I'm sorry, age restricted
cottage cluster, smaller units.
The second story, you know, the
idea was to have these
universal design and that's put
into the law. Universal design
has to have all of the
amenities on the first floor
for someone. So they have to
have a bedroom on the first
floor and eating space and a
living space for them. So
everything can be accommodated
for on the first floor under
the universal design becomes
more challenging to meet the
universal design requirements
with multi story unless they
put in some type of elevator.
>> That's what all these
retirement places have right
now, MISS Eisenberg, all of
them.
>> And that is what our rh
allows. But the idea again is
because these are clusters, not
condo units, you're not getting
as many on the particular site.
So you're having smaller units
potentially. Potentially with
no no, no lots, no maintenance,
no amenities. So there's
another choice because that's
one of the things we also wrote
into this is to put a guardrail
to demonetize these spaces to
actually penalize, to make
these two, two attractive from
the amenitized area. So no
pickleball. No. Right. I get.
>> That and I think that's good.
Actually, I, I think these hoa
fees for these retirement
places have gotten out of
control. And most of the, a lot
of the seniors I've talked to
have said they want to move out
of their retirement or they're
over 55 homes because of the
hoa fees, which they're being
charged for because of the
amenities. So I think that's a
really good aspect of this bill.
But the the size and the height,
I just think take it out of the
affordable range. When people
are looking to downsize,
they've got a 2400 square foot
home. Now. They want something
that's half that size. And now
we're saying to developers, oh,
here you can make something
just as big and don't put any
amenities in there, and you can
sell the house for just as much.
>> So I would say, you know,
it's under this body's purview.
If you want to lower the size
and make an amendment to not
allow second story or basement,
I mean, that's certainly under
your jurisdiction to make those
changes. If you feel that these
are too big of units to make
them affordable. We were basing
it on best practices and the
state law and legislation that
was being put forward.
>> Okay. Any other comments? Go
ahead. MR. Yungmann.
>> Back to back to amendment
two. You know, I. Can you can
you get a second story on at
20ft?
>> We've heard it's very, very
challenging to do.
>> Because it's going to end up
being flat roof.
>> Correct. And that will
really.
>> Really ugly in, in these
neighborhoods, you know, having
these flat roof. So I almost
feel like I almost feel like we
need to, if we're going to do
these in order, we have to
agree to the 22ft and then
reopen the discussion about one
level, because we really don't
want to get stuck with two
levels at 20ft, because then
you're going to end up with
things that look like seven
elevens.
>> So yeah, we have several
amendments coming up. The order
MAY be not to everyone's liking
in terms of how it's going to
happen, but there's others that
are coming up. If we could if
we could vote on amendment two.
And as we see, we have a couple
of others coming, but I'll give
a last chance for any other
last comments or questions on
amendment two so that we can
move on. MISS Walsh, please.
>> Thank you. I went back and
pulled a public testimony and
this request to change from 20
foot height to 22 height came
from Barry Mayeda, who's a
developer at least predominant
in Elkridge area. And he
explained that the 20 foot max
height to the middle of a roof
line stated in the bill is a
bit too tight for a two story
home. It would force an
architect to use a cheaper
looking, flatter roof of a four
inch 12 pitch. So.
>> I was channeling my inner
barometer. I guess I don't
remember him saying that. Yeah.
Okay.
>> All right. So okay. All
right. So let's let's wrap up
amendment two. Then we have
amendment three just ahead in a
few seconds. MISS Harry, could
you please call the vote on
amendment two?
>> Chair Jones.
>> I'm going to vote yes. I'm
looking forward to amendment
the discussion on amendment
three, but my vote is yes.
>> MISS Jung.
>> No.
>> MISS Rigby.
>> Yes.
>> MISS Walsh? No. MR. Yungmann.
>> Yes.
>> The motion to approve
amendment two passes. Okay.
>> Yeah, but I don't want to
move this. If the net effect is
now going to be a two story,
3600 square foot home.
>> Well, do you want.
>> To move it so we can talk
about.
>> And then maybe we can amend
it from the dais.
>> Anyone can move it.
>> Okay, okay. I move amendment
number three to Council Bill
number 25, 2020 second. And
this bill was in response to
public testimony by Fran
Lopresti, who did an informal
survey of the size of two
bedroom units in in the county
and noted that there were
somewhere between 9 and 1200ft!S.
So thinking that these were
cottages and cottages are
generally not two stories or
even have basements, that that
was that was where we were
proceeding. Now we've moved and
approved. At least the majority
has this notion of as many as
three inhabitable floors in one
of these so-called cottages.
And so I agree with the earlier
discussion. We're moving
further and further afield from
something that's even remotely
affordable.
>> Okay. You want to move yours?
>> Yes. I move amendment one to
amendment three.
>> Second.
>> So what this amendment does
is it essentially, I know I was
concerned about the cumulative
total even prior to amendment
two, thinking, okay, if we go
up to 1200, then you could have
1200 square foot basement, 1200
square foot first floor, and
then you can do a 1200 square
foot second floor. It would
just be with an ugly roof.
That's really the decision. So
I was concerned about that
cumulative total. And so I put
in this amendment to allow for
or 1200ft!S only when the
cottage cluster dwelling unit
is a single story dwelling and
does not include a basement. So
that's just some language to
begin working off of. But again,
it was the cumulative total
that I had concerns about.
>> All right, MR. Yungmann.
>> What's what's the what's the
threshold when you lose your
second floor? You know.
>> 1200.
>> Sorry, 1200 the.
>> Max 900ft!S and do a full
second floor, or you have
1200ft!S, but only a first floor.
>> What about 901?
>> No, apparently, the way this
is written, you can have
nothing between 900 or 1200ft!S.
>> Well, is that the intention?
>> I would say I'm I'm open to
some flexibility, but I was
working off amending MISS
Walsh's amendment, which
strikes the 900. So I restored
it. But I'm certainly open to
friendly amendments.
>> Yeah, I mean, I, I, I think
that I think you, I mean, based
on the site, if the footprints
of things can only be 600ft!S,
then sure, let them do a second
level and it's 1200 total and
that's great. And if you want
to do 1200 all in one story or
1100 all in one story, that's
great. We just have to figure
out, are we going to target a
total floor space versus a
building footprint, or are we
going to have some threshold at
which you lose your second
level? I mean, I would just go
total floor space because
that's what's going to drive
cost.
>> So what would you suggest
that MR. Yungmann. For total
floor space.
>> I would.
>> Well, what's the term of art
that is preferential for dpc?
If it is floor space.
>> I mean, what if he did 1200
total floor space?
>> Because I mean, these are
senior houses. We're trying to
get them out of stairs. We
don't want.
>> But but a lot of them are
saying they want the bedroom
for their grandkids or whatever,
which you can absolutely do at
1000ft!S on one level. I mean,
that's kind of the size of my.
>> The heart of amendment 1 to
3 is really I was concerned
about the cumulative total. And
then by saying, you know, if
you ban the basement and then
say it must be on the single
story, then I hoped we were
getting closer to the the
cottage clusters.
>> Okay.
>> I mean, my preference would
be 1200ft!S, period. And, and
nothing, no second floor. That
that seems to me to be if we're
really, truly putting this in
place to create affordable
senior housing, a cottage is
one story and it's going to be
a lot less expensive if it is
only one story than if it's two
stories. It just.
>> I'm regretting moving my, my,
my amendment.
>> You could vote.
>> It down.
>> All right. So before us is
amendment one to amendment
three. It sounds like there MAY
be an appetite for a friendly
discussion about maybe having a
1200 or less or at most 1200 to
handle the 900 or 1200
situation. But I'll leave it up
to.
>> Well.
>> I mean.
>> I don't I don't remember the
count. It wasn't me, but some
majority of you determined that
it was okay with you to call a
cottage a two story building.
Right? So, so how does this.
>> How does.
>> This anyway, it.
>> Would have done it anyway.
This would have a flat roof. I
voted for the 22. Just so.
>> You have a picture.
>> It would be.
>> That is an interesting
argument. Okay.
>> I mean, because you're
putting this you're squeezing
this in between like two
colonials probably. So it'd be
nice if it at least looked like
those.
>> Okay, any more discussion on
amendment one to amendment
three to cb 25.
>> Amendment one to amendment
three. Correct. I, I, I don't
know, I think we still should
be. What about making it
1200ft!S? And you can have a
basement. So that way if
somebody needs to have 1200ft!S,
single story and you can have a
basement, that way if somebody
wants their grandkid to sleep
downstairs or they need some
extra space or whatever, then
they can have it down there.
But the 1200ft!S is, is the
that's the space.
>> That's not going to be more
affordable.
>> To go up than to go down.
>> Do you? Don't you, would you
say.
>> More affordable to build?
But not.
>> That's what.
>> I mean, not more valuable as
far as the price you're going
to pay. It would be you're
going to pay more for a second
floor with windows than you're
going to pay.
>> For basement. Right.
>> I think we don't know what
we're talking about.
>> I would.
>> I mean, look at any like
structured parking. The costs
are there when you have to go
down and build a foundation.
>> Know what I'm saying?
>> So for construction.
>> We've had conjecture on flat
roof and the willingness of the
private sector to build a flat
roof at 20ft versus 22. And,
and, and I mean, the, the law
is pretty strict in terms of
who is downstairs in the
basement. It's limited. Like
we're going to build a whole
second story for someone to
visit us. Three days. I just.
>> I don't mind the concept of
a second story if it's a second
unit, but I don't know that we
have those types of
prescriptive guardrails written
into this.
>> I mean, I invite you to
drive through any older
neighborhood, like, for example,
done Logan or Valley Mead and
see the ramps that are into
those homes just to get up the
one step. Like if we're going
to just start saying things,
you know, Conjecturally falling
is the number one. We can't.
The whole notion of this, I
thought, was to eliminate the
step that we are rolling into
our home, if need be, and
rolling around it, not rolling
down the stairs or up the
stairs like this. We like.
>> I thought the concept was to
make it affordable, affordable,
and safe, but I thought, yeah,
affordable.
>> Can I try to?
>> Okay, go ahead, MR. Yungmann.
>> So just where I am. I, I
could live with 1200ft!S if it
doesn't have a second story.
And that's like the, the total
square footage or whatever,
which means we would have to
rework this amendment to
amendment three. So it's not
like you can only have 900 or
1200. You can't have 950. Or
you could just move amendment
three and we make the whole
thing.
>> What's the procedure? How do
I move it? What do I need? An
unmoving of two motions. Now.
>> Just to clarify that.
>> Yeah. Before us amendment
was Cristiano's amendment.
>> Did I misread yours?
>> Well, I just want. So if we
undo this and say we don't want
to take action, then we're
saying we want them to be multi
story. We don't want to put a
restriction for 1200ft!S for a
single story without a basement.
>> Well, we wouldn't we
wouldn't be at 1200. We'd be
back to nine.
>> We'd be at nine. But you can
still go up.
>> Yeah. You'd still be at
1800ft!S.
>> And from a land use policy
that's better in terms of
impervious surface. But as soon
as you're in a second story,
we're not talking about age
restricted and universal design.
>> No.
>> What if you. But we are
talking about age restriction.
>> Or affordability.
>> Not realistically.
>> What if you did total total
footprint and total finished
square foot. So you could do
you know, your total footprint
could be up to 900ft!S, but not
900 plus 900. You had a cap of
like 1300ft!S in the total
building. So then you could
build like seven and 7 or 6 and
6 or 1200 and zero, but you
couldn't build 900 plus 900.
>> And just to be clear, we're
talking 55 plus. So that covers
an entire range of mobility.
>> Oh yeah. I mean, 55.
>> So, you know, we want.
>> To be working and.
>> Stuff, but this is where
they're eating a place where we
don't want them to move into a
second like 75 plus, right?
That this is where we're having
them downsize.
>> Well, they. MAY sometimes
when you're 75, you don't,
there MAY be medical things
that happen that you don't get
to choose independent living.
You have a stroke, you have
other situations. So it's, it's
really old, older and oldest.
Ideally, you would be able to
live there until you don't. But
I think it would be unwise of
us to think that this is the
final destination for every
single person, and just not how
they're really used.
>> Office of law can't unwind
this until we vote on the
amendment to my amendment. I
mean, I can't unwind it unless
I have votes to unwind it, but
I can't even try that
procedural.
>> You know, tactic. Go ahead.
>> So right now, the, the I'd.
>> Actually like the last 20
minutes of my life back. Is
that possible?
>> No. Right. But amendment 1
to 3 is pending. Okay. It's
been moved and seconded. So the
the person who moved and the
person would have to be, you
know, agreeable and then you
could unwind.
>> We can.
>> Yes. That's fine. I will
withdraw mine if everybody
wants to be able to up and does
not want to.
>> I was the second for
amendment one to amendment
three. I withdraw that as well.
Okay, so now we're back to.
>> I.
>> Move I withdraw my motion to
advance amendment three.
>> Okay. MISS Jung was the
second, if I remember correctly.
>> And I withdraw the second.
>> Okay, perfect.
>> My apologies from the proxy.
Okay.
>> All right. Great discussion
everyone.
>> So so where we ended up are
just so we don't want to
contemplate any other
amendments as we go.
>> We are we're back at two 900,
right.
>> We ended up back at.
>> a townhouse, an expensive
900.
>> You know, up, up to 1800ft!S
above grade, plus a 900 square
foot basement.
>> We've also closed.
>> Out the opportunities for us
to make those changes.
>> What do you mean?
>> We have no vehicle? We
withdrew the vehicle. We have
no vehicle.
>> We can do it.
>> She can remove her amendment.
>> Okay.
>> Are we going to amend one of
the other amendments? I'm just
again, I'm not trying to be
difficult, but I think the
sites are going to be different
where some sites you're going
to want to build 1100ft!S all in
one level, like
>> What we kind of pictured
some sites you say I can get a
nice living room, kitchen and
bedroom on one level, but I'm
going to build a half of a
upstairs so the building looks
cool and doesn't look like a
box. And they have a second
bedroom upstairs and it's 800
downstairs and hundred upstairs
or something like that.
>> So do you want to make move
an amendment to the. So we were
on amendment two. You could
move amendment.
>> Amendment two is already.
>> Passed, right. I know we
finished amendment two and the
original amendment three was
withdrawn. You could make a new
amendment three from the dais
here for your idea to.
>> We would need four for that,
right? I mean.
>> Yeah.
>> For a new amendment we would
need four. But we could amend
an amendment that's already
here and try to put it on one
of these others. But we
couldn't we couldn't.
>> Or you guys could withdraw.
Withdraw passage of amendment
two.
>> Yeah. Because I think the
problem with pulling amendment
two is that they'll still
figure out a way to build
1800ft!S with a flat roof.
>> Look at amendment number
five saying a style guide or a
pattern book that would that
would address that kind of
thing.
>> But I don't think a style
guide or a pattern book is the
right answer here. I think it's
preapproved build plans, and I
don't think that the developer.
I wouldn't want a developer to
suggest preapproved build plans.
>> And I don't trust the
planning board or you, I, I
mean, even if you had stuff
available to the community,
they don't have any like
authority to make sure it
doesn't pass. They're going to
have opinion.
>> So do you want is it time
for me to move amendment five?
>> No.
>> Okay.
>> Well, sure. I mean, any, any
amendment that is on the agenda
can be moved if you want to
jump to five. Sure. We'll be
skipping four. But if that's
what you wish to do, we can.
There's nothing wrong with that.
Is that true or you have to go
in order.
>> Well, I'm not going to move
forward because one okay. One.
>> Oh, gotcha. Okay. So there
you go. Go ahead.
>> And we have removed we have
withdrawn collectively three
three and its amendment.
>> Okay. Go ahead, MR. Cook.
>> So. If you land somewhere in
terms of what you want to do,
you could move again. Three and
then start amending. Three
differently from how I guess
one proposed to amend three. So
amendment 2 to 3.
>> That's what I've been.
>> Saying, right?
>> Yeah. The vehicle.
>> Of like, there's a lot of
different ways you could do it.
Okay.
>> All right. That makes sense.
>> So do you want to move it
again?
>> I don't know, I don't I mean,
someone else can, but I don't
hear the solution. Right? That
was that 20 minutes. I don't
hear like I don't hear the
solution. And so all we have is
the lowest common denominator,
which is you're right. The
first project that comes in is
going to be a two story,
whatever that square footage is
with a flat roof. If that's the
only way that you can actually
shelter that kind of
construction. But no, I'm not,
I am not, as I said, when, when
we were discussing it in that
20 or so minutes, I'm not
interested in building or in
any way enabling multi-story
housing in this so-called
cottage cluster legislation.
That was never my intent.
>> Why are we all opposed.
>> To doing single story with a
square footage limit and
banning the basements? Why is
there opposition to this?
>> So you could go back to her
exhibit three of 1200. Only we
could we could amend this
exhibit three and say it's 1200,
but only on one level.
>> Okay.
>> But that's what amendment
one to amendment three was.
>> But but no, it didn't tell
you what happened between 900
and 1200.
>> All you have to.
>> Do is change what's in.
>> Yeah, that's what I was
saying. I was saying that we
could do a 1200 or less or, or
something like that.
>> Or if we're.
>> Committed to 1200, go ahead.
No. Go ahead.
>> No, I'm popping off.
>> No go ahead.
>> But it's just if we.
>> If we want them to all be
single stories, then it doesn't
really matter. And we say
single story and ban the
basement and move forward.
>> You can.
>> Do that. I'm for that.
>> Okay. Yes.
>> Perfect. All right. So we
can we can do that in amendment
three is on the agenda. We can
move. We could do it there or
we could do it in a future
amendment.
>> Okay. But I'm sorry, did we
did somebody move MISS Walsh's
amendment or are we still
waiting on that to be moved? So
we have a vehicle.
>> Well, that was already
withdrawn amendment. So we
passed amendment one. We passed
amendment two. Now we can
either move on to amendment
five, or we could start right
with amendment three, and then
start that all over again. And
MISS Walsh will have another 20
minutes to no.
>> Or if we have a consensus,
four of us can just move a new
amendment as a late file.
>> Well, I'm gonna say if.
>> You take amendment one to.
We'll just. Yes. Okay. I move
amendment.
>> Nine nine.
>> And amendment nine.
>> Do we do we have to move to
allow for the late file first?
>> Yeah. That's okay. We could
do that. So so this this is the
process. Everyone we want to we
we have four. It seems we have
four. For a brand new amendment.
We first have to if my
recollection is correct, move
to allow for the late filing of
ignoring a rule or something
like that. 1.05 b three I'm
making up numbers, but
something like that.
>> You four members can allow
for a late filed amendment. So
this would be amendment nine.
The motion be moved to allow
the late filing of amendment
nine. Go ahead and then you'll
have to figure out what
amendment nine actually.
>> It's okay. I've got I've got
amendment nine.
>> So okay.
>> Go for it. I move to approve
the late file of amendment nine.
>> Second, MISS Amendment. The
motion to allow the late filing
of amendment nine has been
moved and seconded. Is there
discussion on that or. Yeah.
Any discussion? I can't
remember if we just go straight
to the vote. I say we just go
straight to the vote. But any
discussion? I have to allow it.
MISS Harry, could you please
call the vote chair? Jones yes.
>> MISS Young.
>> Yes.
>> MISS Rigby,
>> Yes.
>> MISS Walsh, yes. MR.
Yungmann. Yes.
>> Okay. The motion to approve
the late file of amendment nine
passes. Now let's figure out
what amendment nine is. MISS
Rigby.
>> Thank you. I move amendment
that on page two in line two
immediately after feet, insert
an Em dash so that it reads 900
dash 1200ft!S only when the
cottage cluster dwelling is a
single story dwelling and does
not include a basement.
>> Second.
>> Colleagues, does that get us
there? And what language do we
need?
>> Okay. Can you can you.
>> Go over?
>> So basically the wording was
look, just like the wording
looked just like amendment one
to amendment three from before.
It is now amendment nine. And
there's an Em dash between 900
and 1200.
>> Okay.
>> I think actually.
>> I think all the other words
are pretty much.
>> Then if you were at like
eight, nine, nine, you could
still you'd still you're still
getting 1800ft!S. I thought we
were going down the road of
they just have to be single
story, that is. Oh, okay.
>> Got it. So but.
>> And also we also have to
strike less right before I
believe. But I would ask for an
assist from MISS Mitchell and
MR. Cook.
>> And drafters and everybody.
>> That grouping at least.
>> Yes. So let's go ahead and
take it is 811. Let's come back
at 820 something. No, no, no
later than like 825 and figure
this out before us is amendment
right. I'm ready when you are.
>> Yeah.
>> Yay.
>> Okay. We are back in session.
And before us is amendment nine
which has been moved and
seconded. We got the wording.
So for everyone we'll read it
now. Let's make sure.
>> So this really goes to
redefining the definition and
makes it quite clear that it is
a grouping, including a common
courtyard of at least four
single storey detached dwelling
units that have a footprint of
no more than 1200ft!S and does
not include a basement.
>> Awesome. Any final
discussion or. Well, it's a new
amendment. So any discussion?
>> Yes. I just want to say that
I think the five of us did a
great job of pulling this
together and coming up with
something that we all agree on.
So thank you, colleagues, for
your good work and your
thoughtful comments.
>> All right.
>> Is it true that there's an
amendment to this amendment or
that was for something? Okay,
okay. Gotcha, gotcha. Okay. All
right. MISS Harry, could you
please call the vote on
amendment nine to cb 25?
>> Chair Jones.
>> Yes.
>> MISS Young.
>> Yes.
>> MISS Rigby yes, MISS Walsh.
>> Well done. Yes.
>> MR. Yungmann yes.
>> All right. The motion to
approve amendment nine to cb
2543 minutes later passes.
>> Yes.
>> That's how it works. That's
how the process works.
>> I move to approve amendment
number five to Council. Bill
number 25, 2026.
>> Is there a second to the
motion to approve amendment
five? Amendment five to cb 25
fails due to the lack of a
second.
>> Okay, I'm going to skip
amendment number six and move
right to amendment seven. All
of these amendments forwarded
by office were the the result
of public hearing testimony,
largely, and or emails that
succeeded that. But I move
amendment seven to Council bill
number 25 2026.
>> Second.
>> This amendment requires
cottage cluster age restricted
adult housing to utilize or
that are utilizing the optional
design project to incorporate
the most recent universal
design features from the
Department of Planning and
Zoning. And so that's the most
recent, is the phrasing that
we've added by virtue of
amendment number seven.
>> Okay. Amendment seven to cb
25 has been moved and seconded.
Any discussion? Can I ask a
question? Go ahead.
>> What if, what if. What if
the code changes while the
process is. While the the
project's already in process?
>> I mean, I think that happens
all the time with with dps and
they make some. Yeah, I would
need.
>> I mean, would. It would you
still have that regular
grandfathering in? Like they
didn't have to go and redesign
their project again?
>> So, you know, how we
currently interpret is we have
grandfathering provisions
depending on what phase of the
plan that it's in. So that
would be based on, on that.
>> So as long as, as, as when
it comes in, it's using the
most recent or before it gets
to that threshold.
>> Correct? Yeah. They would
have to be grandfathered under
our grandfathering provisions,
just similar to what we did
with the landscape manual that
was just updated.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Amendment seven.
>> Okay.
>> What are we doing?
>> Yes, yes. Amendment seven is
before us.
>> Let's vote it, baby.
>> Okay. Any other discussion
on amendment seven to cb 25?
And just to just to clarify,
you are saying the most recent
is the on two places. I do
apologize for some reason my
book is missing page ten and 11.
And it wasn't earlier that
break did someone take my. Page
1011. I had it earlier.
>> I took it just.
>> You took it just a minute.
Okay. I don't.
>> See it, I really didn't.
>> Yeah, I'll give me a second.
>> Yeah. Okay. And do we have.
>> I didn't.
>> Want to. I didn't confuse.
>> So I figured I figured I'd
hold it.
>> Somebody use it.
>> I'm going to give you.
>> Ten or Isaiah.
>> I give you an extra one.
>> Yeah. 1119 and 24. Would be
the most recent.
>> Okay. All right. Sorry about
that. Okay. Amendment seven is
before us to cb 25, please call
the vote chair. Jones yes,
>> MISS Young.
>> Yes.
>> MISS Rigby yes. MISS Walsh
yes. MR. Yungmann.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. The motion to approve
amendment seven to cb 25 passes.
>> Okay. I move to approve
amendment number eight to
Council. Bill number 25, 2026.
And then I'm passing down an
amendment to that amendment,
and I'll describe it.
>> Picture that we need a
second.
>> Oh, before I even describe
it. Okay.
>> Is there a second for
amendment eight to cb 25? Is
there a second? Okay. Amendment
eight fails for the lack of a
second. All right. Amendment
nine is done. No new amendments.
We are back to the main motion
of cb 25, as amended. Any final
discussion? Okay. MISS Harris,
could you please call the vote
chair? Jones yes,
>> MISS Young.
>> Yes.
>> MISS Rigby yes, MISS Walsh.
>> I'm sorry. What are we
voting on?
>> cb 25.
>> Okay. Right. Okay. So that
last amendment that I couldn't
get a second on related to the
affordability requirement, and
as is this new cottage cluster
development has none. And it
requires it so long as you
provide a whole host of
additional public amenities.
That is noted by one of our our
notable followers includes all
kinds of things that do not
denote affordability, like
pools and pool houses. And it's
not an exhaustive list, but
rather a demonstrative list. So
the point of amendment number
eight was to actually just
require affordability here in a
place where we're increasing
dramatically affordability. I
think we have done good by some
of the earlier amendments to
actually build in affordability,
but this would have been that
second last step. I am
encouraged by the map that we
saw tonight versus the one that
was presented in the technical
staff report that made it look
like all of district one and a
lot of other places that are
already suffering from infill
development done bad, and the
lack of actual planning and or
zoning that makes sense for
people who live here or want to
live here. So I think this is a
good place to start. I think we
could have done better by
actually requiring
affordability. But but we can
see what happens as this builds
in. So my vote is. Yes.
>> MR. Yungmann.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. The motion to approve
cb 25, as amended, passes.
>> Council Bill 31, 2026,
introduced by Christiana Rigby,
smart strategic Moratorium for
assessing Responsible
Technology Siting Act.
>> I move amendment one to cb
to move the bill. I mean, I
move the bill, I move cb 31
2026.
>> To approve it. Yes, to
approve it I second.
>> Okay, I also move
amendment one second. So
what amendment does this
was addressed by I think,
MISS Lopresti, but it
addresses the issue of red
lines for previously
approved plans. So that way if
someone needed to make changes
to their existing building,
that they would be able to. So
this is more to allow for those
changes for existing and still
prohibit the new.
>> Okay. Amendment one to cb 31
has been moved and seconded.
Any discussion, MISS Welsh?
>> We have now moved on to the
data center. Pause. Right. Yes.
And this amendment number one,
that the sponsor of that data
center pause has has put
forward says that to the extent
there are ongoing projects in.
>> Or like.
>> It's previously approved. So
if you have a previously
approved development plan, so
like you exist now you've been
operating, you want to upgrade
your, I think she said chiller
that this would allow you to do
that.
>> That existing data
processing processing centers.
>> Yeah, we have some that are
like that are not like ai
sprawling ones, but are more
under the sort of 90s concept,
like within an office building
that are a stack.
>> Where like, how many, what
are we talking about?
>> I couldn't tell you how many,
but I'm positive that apl has
like this smaller scale type is
in use by apl, probably cpss
potentially hospital. Howard
County government would have
some that would be similar. And
then I know that there's at
least 1 or 2 off of the Gilford
Industrial Park, but they're
more like like ones next to a
church. It's just it looks like
an office building. But if you
were to upgrade like some of
your equipment, then that would
require like if you were to do
a rooftop change, then that
would require a red line.
>> Okay, well, I still think
it's a mistake to go forward
with something like this if
it's serious enough to put a
pause on new construction. And
the period that we're asking
for that pause to extend is
relatively de minimis, I don't
I don't really see or hear
>> Now.
>> Although I still have no
sense of the scope, you know,
any compelling reason to veer
from the spirit of that
original bill as submitted?
Putting that pause as to all
data centers proposed, existing,
expanded or new.
>> To be clear, the bill
specifically addresses new.
>> Any other discussion on
amendment one to cb 31? Please
call the vote.
>> Chair.
>> Jones. Yes, MISS.
>> Jung yes, MISS.
>> Rigby yes.
>> MISS. Walsh no. MR. Yungmann.
Yes.
>> Motion to approve amendment
one to cb 31 passes.
>> I move to approve amendment
two to cb 31.
>> Second.
>> This amendment expand sort
of specifies the constellation
of expertise, utilities,
infrastructure, water resource
management, climate resilience
and environmental science,
acoustic mitigation, economic
development, data center
operation, and two members from
the building trades. And then
it also requires the county
executive to establish, by a
separate executive order, the
members of the task force, and
then it requires a public
process to solicit the names,
and then also requires a public
hearing to receive public
comment.
>> Okay. Do you have an
amendment one to amendment two?
>> Why yes, I do. I move
amendment one to amendment two
second. So this adds additional
instruction instead of consider.
It requires recommendations.
And then it also asks asks the
group to assess the impact of
data centers on the Howard
County climate forward Climate
Action and Resiliency plan.
>> Okay.
>> I'll give colleagues a
moment to read it, including
myself. Okay. Before us is.
>> Well.
>> I guess we just do one
amendment to.
>> Yep, yep. That's okay.
Amendment one to amendment two
to cb 31 has been moved and
seconded. Any discussion? Okay.
MISS, could you please call the
vote?
>> Chair Jones.
>> Yes, MISS.
>> Young yes, MISS Rigby yes.
MISS Walsh no. MR. Yungmann.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Amendment one to
amendment two to cb 31 pass.
>> I move amendment two. Where
is my. I meant I move amendment
two to amendment two to Council
bill number 31, 2026.
>> Second.
>> This amendment to amendment
strikes this notion of
including persons involved in
data center development and
data center operation from the
experience requirements from
the task force and adds
requirement that each Council
Member district shall be
entitled to nominate one member
each to the Task force.
>> Okay, okay.
>> Amendment two to amendment
to the cb 31 has been moved and
seconded. Any discussion?
>> MISS Walsh would the.
Substantial experience in the
following areas of expertise,
from MISS Rigby's amendment to
still apply for the Council
member selections?
>> Yeah, that was the intent of
this amendment that it would be.
>> So we're just I, I see
we're taking out 12 lines
12 and 13 and putting in
the council member and the
county executive. That
makes sense.
>> So I think we should
have industry experts on
this task force. But I like
the second part of the
amendment, where the County
Council gets to appoint
some people to the task
force.
>> I do too, so. Do we have
we do have.
>> To pursue that.
>> You did.
>> Your amendment right,
MISS Walsh. I don't have it. So
I'm I'm just.
>> Going to do.
>> I passed him down.
>> No, no.
>> I don't have one.
>> It's.
>> Yeah it's probably under
some other ones. Got it.
>> I got it.
>> I mean my amendment two is
two part one part strikes this
notion of data center and
development and data center
operation being part of the
required expertise or
experience. And then the second
part says that we, the five
council members or our
successors will nominate one
member each to the task force
and that there will be
additionally appointed by
individual council resolutions.
>> Sorry. So to clarify, it
says that it now sets the total
number for the task force as
well. So it's setting a number
of seven. Or is it setting
seven additional?
>> No. Seven total.
>> Seven total to get utilities,
infrastructure, water resource
management, climate resilience
and environmental science,
acoustic mitigation, economic
development. And then two
members from the building
trades within that.
>> Seven. Yes.
>> MISS Rigby, what were you
anticipating? Did you have
numbers in mind for the list of
expertise that you were that
you have listed in your.
>> I did not, because ideally
through the public process, you
know, I didn't want to close
out. If you had two really
great acoustic mitigation
experts that had different
areas of expertise, maybe one
is on the generator side and,
you know, on the actual
technical pieces, and the other
is in a different area that
that would prohibit them. So I
didn't want to limit the number,
and I really wanted it to be
more technically focused to, to
provide the technical
recommendations.
>> Okay. So MISS Walsh's
amendment would still include
this list.
>> But limits it to only.
>> Seven, but limit it to only
seven.
>> We all have to pick a person.
>> Well, again, the way this
this amendment is drafted to is
not written like many of our
others that say to serve on a.
I don't even want to use an
example because we don't have
one for Board of Appeals, but I
think human rights. I know
Historic Preservation
Commission has like a list of
qualifying things, not a
required entity representing
each of these in. In my view,
this was a way to stack a
commission with a certain
number of viewpoints before
they open their mouth. And so I
am less concerned about meeting
all of those now listed. Eight
is your proposed amendment
number two, but rather having a
good cross-section of people
who actually live here and will
deal with the consequences of
all of those things that you've
listed in one through eight and
maybe more. But I would suggest
that the that the better
improvement to amendment two
would be to word it like every
other commission is empaneled
and not create this one that
does this one that does that,
one that does this. And I'm not
even sure that's what you
intended, but that is how I
read it. I think it, it reads.
>> I don't, I don't.
>> Yeah, I don't read it like
that.
>> And I'm disappointed because
I did send out emails
requesting feedback and got
nothing.
>> So I, I read it, as you know,
one person could have all eight
of these in their expertise.
One person could have 2 or 3. I
didn't see it as one person per
area of expertise.
>> Okay. The, the number of, of
appointees doesn't then yeah,
I'm back to seven. I don't I
don't think 14 or 9 or I think
seven again, is, is
commensurate with some of the
other commissions that we put
in place and I think is, again,
representative of the
cross-section of, of the county
as a whole.
>> I like the task task forces
that are a little bit bigger,
because you can break down into
sub sections or even
subsections, just as long as
you have an odd number, maybe
the chairs chosen by the
council, the county executive
or something. But having 15 or
13 or, you know, 17, you could
have three or maybe even four
beefy committees to do their
work, come back, meet. So I
like the bigger numbers. Having
the County Council members pick
one I don't think is a bad
thing, but I definitely
wouldn't want to limit it at
seven. I think something like
this, you know, looks better at
like 15 or 13 with committees,
which we've seen before as well.
I think the way the bill is
written, MISS Rigby, would the
county executive determine like.
So let's. Yeah, yeah. And past
past practice has been in the
low teens or mid teens. And
we've seen committees form from
them. All right. Good
discussion. Any other
discussion on amendment two to
amendment two. Okay. Yeah go
ahead.
>> So what what task force are
you thinking of Doctor Jones
I'm trying to this this one
seems like the ones that the
only one I can think of is Apfo.
1450. Oh of course I remember.
>> It was grueling.
>> We endured that.
>> Yes we did. It was a. Yeah,
we won't go there.
>> Yeah.
>> Maybe 17. But yeah, actually,
I think it made that task force
unworkable.
>> Well.
>> That's we yeah. It was. So
that's I guess I'm thinking if
we wanted to expand it, maybe
nine or even 11. But that would
be I think that would be the
maximum number. I think the
larger you get, the more
unwieldy you get, the harder it
gets to come to a resolution,
even make recommendations.
>> Okay.
>> But you don't have any
number at all. And Liz has the
number seven.
>> Yes.
>> Well, I.
>> I think.
>> I.
>> Assumed we're not going to
be it was not going to end up
being unreasonable.
>> Right? Not like 70, 72,000.
>> Is required to staff and you
know, right. They're not going
to make it more painful than it
has to be. But I didn't want to
be so prescriptive on the set
number.
>> But very prescriptive in
terms of the expertise.
>> Well, I was really going for
a constellation and asked for
feedback because I wanted it to
be a constellation of expertise
so we could consider a variety
of elements and variables in
this.
>> Did this, does this, does
this have legal sufficiency
without specifying the size of
this task force? It could be
anywhere from 1 to 37,000. Like
what?
>> If you're asking if it's
sufficient, it it is the the
bill doesn't have to set a
number. So the effect of your
amendment would. To actually
cap it at, I guess, seven,
right? Two for the executive
and then one for each council
member. That's basically the
way it reads. Now, there is no
limit. There's no set number.
Amendment two would just sort
of set expertise. Areas that
appointees, whoever they end up
being, should have.
>> Okay. So in that example,
what would prevent the county
executive from appointing
exclusively 15 task force
members who comport with the
data, the two that were that
I'm proposing we strike data
collection and data development
or something.
>> Because they have to have.
The other. Ones as well.
>> The compilation, I'm
assuming the compilation of all
the people comprised of this
task force would hit at some
point. All of these, maybe some
more than others, but all of
these eight would be covered by
x number, hopefully an odd
number, but x number of task
force members. Go ahead, MR.
Yungmann.
>> Why don't you just put a cap
on it? That's more than seven,
but less than 37,000.
>> I mean, like I said.
>> I.
>> Mean.
>> I would just make it 15.
>> I mean, this is why I was.
>> Going to let them make that
decision.
>> Yeah. Who's them.
>> Who's who is them.
>> The administration.
>> Lines 12 and 13. The county
executive shall establish the
members of the task force who
shall be chosen from a
selection of names solicited
through a public process.
>> Yeah. But they could do
37,000. I'm just saying, like,
if we want to cap it then just
put a cap on it.
>> But yeah, I'm okay.
>> I mean, that is typical of
boards. When you look at board
bylaws, it says a minimum of
seven, a maximum of 15. That's
not unusual.
>> Yeah.
>> This was always a big
omission in the original bill.
Yes it was. Our question. Was
how is this how is this body
comprised and and initially
established.
>> I'm under the impression I'm
under the impression by reading
this bill and with the
experience that we have seen,
with the examples we have seen
with other task forces, other
task forces that the county
executive would comprise a body
with a sizable number, whether
that's 9 or 11, you know, 13.
To hit all of these points, I
don't I would hope that a
county executive elected by the
people wouldn't pick 51 data
center experts. And then, I
don't know, that's just, you
know, again, you'd have to
staff it where they're going to
meet and that that would just
be a bit unreasonable. But I do
understand the concern. So if
there's an appetite for an
amendment to amendment two that
just deals with minimums and
maximums, I'm cool with that.
Or a minimum and a maximum, but
other than that, I'm ready to
vote if there's no more
discussion.
>> Okay, you want to vote on
amendment number two. And
depending on where that goes,
I'll I'll move amendment number
three that just proposes lines
eight through 11 of amendment
two.
>> Yeah, I'm I'm happy with a
minimum and a maximum. Other
than that, I like the way the
bill. The bill reads. So is
there any more discussion on
amendment two to amendment two?
Oh, actually I do have one more
question. MISS Walsh. You said
to strike the phrase in
accordance with section 902 of
the of the County charter. Was
that for a specific reason?
Because I didn't want to.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Sorry.
>> I'm looking.
>> On page three in line.
>> MISS Walsh, would you like
me to answer that, please?
>> Yes.
>> Yes, please.
>> I can't find.
>> So that was added more as a
technical suggestion at our
request, because the way that
the bill is structured, it's
really a section, a charter,
section 902 board, which the
executive can appoint his board.
And the council also has the
authority to appoint their
board. But the way that
amendment two to amendment two
was structured, it kind of it
made it a joint task force. And
so it was no longer. 902 board.
>> Thank you. Thank you, MISS
Mayo. I know I asked it on the
front side, but I can't
remember. Okay.
>> Okay.
>> So we would need to I'll get
there when we get.
>> So if there's, if there's an
appetite for a minimum and a
maximum for a future amendment
to amendment two, in this case,
amendment three to amendment
two, then we could deal with
that. Section 902 situation you
just mentioned. But let's go
ahead and vote. Amendment to
the amendment two, and then we
can take up another one if we
need. MISS Harris, could you
please call the vote Chair?
>> Jones.
>> No.
>> MISS Young.
>> Yes.
>> MISS Rigby no.
>> MISS Walsh. Yes. MR.
Yungmann no.
>> Okay. The motion to approve
amendment two to amendment two
to cb 31 fails.
>> Okay. I move amendment
number three to amendment two
to Council bill number 31, 2026.
>> Do you have to say what it
would say before you get.
>> I thought I couldn't do that
until I got a Second. Amendment
number. I know this is the one
we just discussed that is going
to do a top no more then or no
less than okay.
>> Second.
>> I do apologize. I, I haven't
had dinner and it has been a
long day. What did we do with
amendment one to amendment two
to cb 31? I swear I don't
remember. We just talked about
it. One did we not? Did we.
>> Skip amendment to. No.
>> We owe it passed.
>> Passed it passed.
>> Okay I see oh right right
right right right. Okay. Got it,
got it, got it. Okay. I think
it's because I just finally saw
the paper. So I just remember,
okay, I found the paper and was
like, we didn't talk about this,
so sorry. Okay. Amendment three
to amendment two to cb 31.
>> Okay. Would read the same as
amendment number two to
amendment two, except that it
would strike. Lines four and
lines six, she says slowly,
looking over it. Office of law
on amendment number two. So we
would be we would not be
striking the data operations,
data center development and
data center operation in lines
eight through nine of amendment
two. And I wouldn't need an
extra end in line seven. So we
would be striking four and five
from amendment two. But keeping
intact this notion of a council
member will appoint one, the
county executive will appoint
two. And if if this body wants
to create a floor and a ceiling,
then I would say the county
executive shall nominate no
more than four members to the
task force, which would be a
total of nine. Does that
suffice for you guys?
>> Okay. I, I like I like to be
in the teens, but I hear what
you're saying. With the county
executive appointing more than
each council member
collectively, I like 1315 just
because you can get committees
out of that and you do some,
you can do so much more work.
But that's just me. Okay.
That's your amendment. Is there
a second for amendment three to
amendment two?
>> We had Deb, I thought
seconded.
>> Oh you did. Seconded. Okay.
Can we repeat the wording of it?
>> Can you can you live with. A
with a little higher number?
Like if there's five council
members, the administration can
do. Six. That gets you to 11.
>> Okay.
>> I'm happy with that.
>> Okay.
>> So do since it was moved and
seconded, do we have to
withdraw and then move it.
>> The the.
>> Okay.
>> So basically.
>> The last sentence of or the
last two sentence is of
amendment number three to
amendment two would read. The
county executive shall nominate
no more than six members to. I
don't know why I'm not touching
my mic to the task force. Task
force members will be appointed
by individual Council
resolutions.
>> Okay, so amendment three to
amendment two would would
strike in accordance with 902
of the County charter, then
jump a.
>> We gotta keep that one.
>> Because we're having a
council. We're having a
commission nominated by both
the executive and the
legislative branch.
>> Okay.
>> That was your question,
right.
>> I thought that was the
reason for striking in
accordance with.
>> Right. So we gotta keep we
gotta keep striking it so that.
>> That's what.
>> I'm saying.
>> Yes. Yeah. Strike it.
>> Oh, GOD. Okay.
>> Right. Not strike line two.
Continue to strike. I got it.
Okay. We're saying the same
thing. All right. Perfect. And
then the last three lines says
each council member shall
nominate one member each of the
task force. The county
executive shall nominate no
more than six members of the
task force. And then task force
members shall be appointed by
individual council resolutions.
Is that cool? Roger that. Okay.
Is that okay? Do you still
second MISS, MISS? MISS Young?
>> Yes, that sounds good.
>> All right. Amendment three
to amendment two has been moved
and seconded. Any discussion,
MISS Harry? Call the vote.
>> Chair. Jones.
>> Yes,
>> MISS Jones.
>> Yes.
>> MISS Rigby. Yes, MISS Walsh.
>> Yes.
>> MR. Yungmann.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Amendment three to
amendment two to cb 31 passes.
Chair Jones. Yes.
>> I am going to move an
amendment four. Okay. To
amendment two.
>> Okay.
>> And no.
>> No, it's happening. Right.
>> It's happening.
>> It's happening right now. Go
for it. And it's a very, very
simple change to change the 18
months to 12. I think that the
administration, no matter who
that administration might be,
it's human nature, it's
government nature. They're
going to take every minute that
they need. There's really no
reason why the task force can't
wrap up by early winter and
allow the the next council to
get it done by, you know, once
it gets going. So.
>> Okay, is there a second for
this motion to amend amendment
four to amendment two?
>> I will second, mainly so I
could a moment to do math.
Second.
>> Okay, amendment four to
amendment two to cb 31 has been
moved and seconded and
essentially is changing the 18
month clause to 12 months. Any
discussion?
>> So is it a late filed
amendment that needs the four.
>> Know because it's an
amendment to an amendment.
>> Oh, GOD. Okay.
>> So on amendment two, there'd
be a line, I guess 18 unless
the lines have changed based on
these other two amendments that
would just revise line six on
page five of the bill from 18
months to 12 months.
>> MISS Rigby, can I ask you a
question? Yeah, because I know
you dig deep. So. In your in
the course of preparing this
bill, what did you find was the
average number of months that a
task force like this took in
order to study these issues? I
I'm sure you didn't pick 18 out
of the air.
>> No, but I did pick 18 more
based on what we know to be
coming before the Council. So I
wanted to make sure that they
would they wouldn't necessarily
be forced to do it prior to
budget or forced to do it
during budget. And then the
only concern I have with the 12
is that that takes you to
AUGUST of 27. So 13 would be
would get you to SEPTEMBER.
>> I could do.
>> That because if you end
during the recess and there's
not really a chance to, to
change it.
>> Yeah. I mostly want the task
force to get stood up, meet and
get their recommendations done,
because then the xray is going
to have to get drafted. It's
going to have to go through
Planning Board and all those
other steps. And these are
significant business
development opportunities that
are going to be on the table.
And I know we have to do this.
Like I know we have to do this,
but I just there's no need for
it to take a year and a half,
that's all. So you will make it
13. That's totally cool.
>> Well, what if we so you
wanted to make it. 12 and.
>> Actually no, because this is
a bill. So this won't go into
effect until.
>> 61 day.
>> Oh, you did okay.
>> Already on it.
>> I'm just thinking OCTOBER
would be even better because
then we would be in the perfect
place to get the legislation
done, and.
>> You'd actually have time to,
like, file a bill.
>> And you would have. Right.
>> Well, actually, I think 11
would be better.
>> Okay.
>> But, you know, I just I mean,
how long does it take to, to,
to if the task force gets its
recommendations done by
DECEMBER, JANUARY?
>> What if they got it done
beforehand? I mean, there's no
reason why they might.
>> Well.
>> It's government, okay, but
it's just nature.
>> Let's let's.
>> Work it backwards. Okay, so
we have a proposal for
SEPTEMBER 27th and AUGUST.
SEPTEMBER is 13 months. OCTOBER
would be 14 months. I'm writing
this down so I don't forget. So
it's still it would have to be
a zra (Zoning Regulation
Amendment). So it would still
have to be working its way
through that process. Right.
And that would, it would still
have to like go before the
Planning Board do be the public
hearing, have a technical staff
report and then come to the
council. So in trying to plan
out the time, I wanted to make
sure I thought, okay, well,
they could still all that could
still happen. While council is
doing budget and everything
else, but they're going to need
time to finish that process
before the council gets it.
>> And it's probably not
something you want to do during
JULY, even though they're not
on recess. But it's somewhat
like recess. So get us to
SEPTEMBER. That's okay.
>> Well, I, I would just like
some clarity, I think, from the
Office of Law on this about
when if we say 13 months, does
that end? That would end on the
around the first Monday,
because then we're ending
without an opportunity to pass
something. Is that am I mapping?
Is my math mapping.
>> So what's your what's what's
your what's your day 61 for the
effective date, where are you
roughly?
>> I'll do it.
>> Today.
>> Since first. Six seven.
>> Did you did you build it?
>> I mean, you figure if the
task force can get wrapped up
by JANUARY, FEBRUARY dp's give
them two months to draft. The
bill gets pre filed in APRIL
not not pre filed but gets gets
to the Planning board technical
staff by APRIL. They go through
APRIL MAY maybe it even gets
pre filed in JUNE or JULY. But
the council doesn't have to
take action on it until
SEPTEMBER. AUGUST. Like that's
that's fine.
>> Okay. Wait.
>> Or or instead of doing 18
months, we could just pick the
month. Yes, we.
>> Could just.
>> Say OCTOBER. We could say
OCTOBER 31st, 2027 or SEPTEMBER.
>> Yeah, yeah, that's.
>> That's fair. OCTOBER,
whatever that first Monday is,
we could set it for right after
that first Monday.
>> Sounds good to me.
>> Okay.
>> So is that so.
>> Would you redo your
amendment for to amendment two.
>> Instead of instead.
>> Of 18 months, it'll say.
>> Instead of subbing in 12
months for 18 months, just take
out where it references number
of months and say that not
expires, you know, on or before
would we say OCTOBER 30th 1st.
>> Or NOVEMBER 1st?
>> OCTOBER 31st, I think is
great because that gives you a
good window. But that is a
Sunday, maybe NOVEMBER 2nd.
NOVEMBER 2nd. That covers you
on the Monday.
>> Okay, there we go.
>> And drops you right on the
Tuesday is the second.
>> So is that cool? NOVEMBER
2nd, 2027. Okay. Is there a
second.
>> Second, second.
>> Okay. It has been moved and
seconded to approve amendment
four to amendment two, which
takes out on page five. Line
six. No, not no later than 18
months. And places in there no
later than NOVEMBER 2nd, 2027.
Any discussion? MISS Harriet,
could you please call the vote?
>> I just want to. You had MR.
Allman, you have 2027, correct?
Yes. Okay. Chair Jones.
>> Oh, yes.
>> MISS Young.
>> Yes.
>> MISS Rigby.
>> Yes.
>> MISS Walsh no. MR. Yungmann.
Yes.
>> Okay. The motion to approve
amendment four to amendment two
to cb 31 passes. All right. We
are back to amendment two, as
amended to cb 31. Any further
discussion on amendment two?
MISS Eric.
>> Can we just. Okay, so now
amendment two includes the
council members nominate a
member. There are. How many
there are. There are 11 people
on the task force.
>> Correct?
>> Four appointed by the county
executive. Six six. Up to six
six. No more than okay. And
five are appointed by the
County Council members.
>> Correct.
>> And then. And then the the
task force will end on NOVEMBER
2nd,
>> 2027, 2027.
>> The moratorium.
>> Would the moratorium, the
moratorium. Right. The
moratorium. Okay.
>> All right. So that's
amendment two. Any further
discussion, MISS Harris, please
call the vote.
>> Chair. Jones.
>> Yes.
>> MISS Young.
>> Yes.
>> MISS Rigby.
>> Yes.
>> MISS Walsh.
>> I presume the bill sponsor
knows that a lot of the
advocates who asked for this
bill in the first place are
unhappy with this amendment.
When it was first introduced,
pre filed and put forth in
public hearing, it was
presented as as a way to to
take a reasonable pause on
something that was viewed as as
potentially calamitous to
environment, electric usage and
all sorts of other downstream
consequences. This amendment
that was filed only Thursday
seems to throw a giant wrench
in that. And those same
advocates have asked, at least
some of us not even to sponsor
or to to vote in support of
this bill. Overall, I've seen
this council delete my bills or
dilute my bills over and over
again by amendment. But this
notion of diluting one's own
bill by your own amendment was
a new a new spin on things. I.
I cannot vote in support of
this amendment to.
>> MR. Yungmann.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. The motion to approve
amendment two to cb 31 passes.
We are now back to the main
motion to approve cb 31, as
amended. Any further discussion?
MISS Heritage, please call the
vote.
>> Chair.
>> Jones yes.
>> MISS Young.
>> Yes.
>> MISS Rigby.
>> I'm gonna take a little bit
more of a minute because it's
not just a pause, it's a pause
with purpose. So we really need
to update our outdated
regulations that were last
really put in around 1993. So
this is not just a pause to say
hold on calamity. It's actually
a pause to make meaningful
recommendations and create
meaningful change. And we've
just discussed the timeline to
do that. And it doesn't. It's
important to take into
consideration the real world
responsibilities that the next
group is going to have to deal
with. So that's why the
timeline matters. Our community
already has many smaller data
centers that are responsible
for securing state, local and
federal information. But as we
continue to grow, we know that
in this modern world that data
centers will grow. But we have
to ensure that any of that
growth is occurring in a way
that is thoughtful and
respectful to our residents and
businesses that are here, and
to the planet that we all
inhabit. A moratorium and a
task force provide the county
with the appropriate time to
study the impacts of data
centers, engage with residents
and stakeholders, and develop
appropriate policies, zoning
regulations and performance
standard recommendations. My
vote is yes, and I appreciate
my colleagues. Thank you.
>> MISS Walsh.
>> a lot of Tory, a lot of Tory
and and fanfare rhetoric that
accompanied the introduction of
this bill does not match up
with where it has landed. And
notwithstanding, various
advocates ask that I vote no.
Nonetheless, I do support a ban
or a pause of any sort so that
at least some pretense of
independent analysis can
proceed. Whether that actually
happens. And certainly I feel
like that's less likely to
happen, given these amendments
that have passed this evening,
which remains to be seen. But
for now, my vote is yes.
>> MR. Yungmann.
>> I certainly understand the
the pushback by some for us to
for us to do this. But the
reality is, is we're not alone
doing this. Just pretty much
everybody around, all the
counties around us are doing
this. And while I don't want to
put the brakes on business
development, existing
businesses need to pay electric
bills and just have their water
bills go up. And we've got to
figure out the impact of these
things on those somewhat scarce
and expensive resources right
now. I appreciate shortening
the time up a little bit. This
just seems like a balanced
approach to, to just biting the
bullet and knowing that we have
to rewrite some code. And I
appreciate you for putting it
out there. So I vote yes.
>> All right. The motion to
approve cb 31, as amended
passes.
>> It's a tabled. We have.
>> To.
>> Oh, okay. Oh, okay.
>> Cool.
>> Give me a second. Give me a
second. I move to remove kr six
2026 from the table.
>> Second.
>> The motion to remove kr six
from the table has been moved
and seconded. Sir, could you
please call the vote chair?
Jones yes.
>> MISS Young.
>> Yes.
>> MISS Rigby yes, MISS Walsh,
yes. MR. Youngman.
>> Yes.
>> The motion to remove kr six
2026 from the table passes.
>> Council Resolution six, 2026
appointment of James r Bartlett
to the Historic Preservation
Commission.
>> I move to approve kr six,
2026.
>> Second.
>> I move to approve amendment
one to kr six.
>> Second.
>> MISS Sager.
>> Sure. Amendment one changes
the expiration of the
appointment since he was filed
almost six months ago, so not
so as to not cut his term short
by.
>> Okay, okay.
>> Thank you. Amendment one to
kr six has been moved and
seconded. Any discussion? MISS,
could you please call the vote
chair? Jones yes.
>> MISS Young.
>> Yes.
>> MISS Rigby yes. MISS Walsh
yes. MR. Yungmann.
>> Yes.
>> The motion to approve
amendment one. The kr six
passes. We're now back to the
main motion of approving kr six.
Any further discussion? MISS
Harry, could you please call
the vote.
>> Chair Jones.
>> Yes.
>> MISS Young.
>> Yes.
>> MISS Rigby.
>> Yes.
>> MISS Walsh yes. MR. Yungmann.
>> Yes.
>> The motion to approve kr six,
as amended, passes. This
concludes our JUNE legislative
session. We are adjourned.
Thank you. Have a wonderful