[0:00] >> This webinar is being
[0:04] recorded and summarized.
[0:05] >> Good evening everyone. This
[0:07] is the council's JUNE
[0:08] legislative session in which we
[0:10] introduce new legislation and
[0:13] give final consideration to
[0:14] legislation previously
[0:16] introduced and heard this
[0:17] legislation session. This
[0:18] legislative session is being
[0:20] conducted as a hybrid meeting,
[0:22] which is available in person
[0:24] and virtual via WebEx. It is
[0:25] also available to the public
[0:26] through live stream on the
[0:28] Howard County Council website
[0:30] and broadcast on channels 44
[0:33] and 1071. The council will hold
[0:34] a hybrid public hearing on
[0:36] Monday, JUNE 15th at 7 P.M. On
[0:38] the legislation introduced this
[0:40] evening. Testimony can be given
[0:42] in person or virtually via
[0:45] WebEx. Written testimony can be
[0:47] sent to Council mail at Howard
[0:51] County, md.Gov. You MAY sign up
[0:52] in advance through the
[0:54] council's website, or you MAY
[0:55] sign up in person in front of
[0:59] the room via a laptop. Monday,
[1:00] JUNE 15th prior to the start of
[1:02] the public hearing. When
[1:03] signing up to testify, you will
[1:05] be asked if you are a student
[1:07] in grades k through 12 so that
[1:08] you can be called to testify
[1:11] early during the public hearing
[1:12] and whether your testimony
[1:13] will be provided in person
[1:15] or virtually via WebEx. If
[1:16] you select virtual, you
[1:18] will be provided
[1:18] instructions for logging
[1:21] into the WebEx session. If
[1:21] needed, the council will
[1:23] hold a work session on new
[1:25] legislation on Tuesday,
[1:27] JUNE 22nd at 10 A.M. In the
[1:29] c Vernon Gray Room. Public
[1:30] participation for these
[1:32] meetings will be available
[1:33] virtually via WebEx and
[1:34] viewed live streamed
[1:35] through the county
[1:36] council's website. At this
[1:37] time, I'm going to do a
[1:38] roll call for the council
[1:40] members, MISS Rigby here,
[1:43] MISS Jung here, MISS Walsh
[1:44] here, MR. Yungmann here.
[1:46] And I am Opel Jones. We
[1:48] will now recite the Pledge
[1:55] of Allegiance.
[1:57] >> Of the United States of
[2:01] America. One nation under GOD,
[2:04] indivisible, with liberty and
[2:15] justice for all.
[2:17] >> Moving on to our agenda, we
[2:18] will begin today's session with
[2:20] approval of journals and
[2:22] minutes of meetings. I move to
[2:24] approve the Journal of
[2:26] Legislative Session MAY 5th and
[2:29] Legislative Session, MAY 20th.
[2:29] >> Second.
[2:30] >> MISS Harris, could you
[2:32] please call the vote to approve
[2:33] the Journal of Legislative
[2:34] Sessions on MAY 5th and MAY
[2:35] 20th?
[2:37] >> Chair Jones yes. MISS Young
[2:40] yes, MISS Rigby yes. MISS Walsh
[2:42] yes. MR. Yungmann yes.
[2:44] >> The motion to approve the
[2:47] journals pass. I move to
[2:48] approve the minutes of the
[2:50] budget. Work session. Operating
[2:52] budget, work session number two.
[2:55] On MAY 5th, the general budget
[2:56] public hearing on number three.
[2:59] Number three. MAY 7th,
[3:00] operating budget work session.
[3:02] Number three. MAY 11th. The
[3:03] operating budget work session
[3:06] number four on MAY 15th and the
[3:07] legislative Public hearing on
[3:08] MAY 18th.
[3:09] >> Second.
[3:10] >> MISS Harris, could you
[3:11] please call the vote to approve
[3:13] the minutes previously noted.
[3:14] >> Chair Jones.
[3:15] >> Yes.
[3:17] >> MISS Young yes, MISS Rigby
[3:20] yes. MISS Walsh yes. MR.
[3:21] Yungmann yes.
[3:24] >> The motion to approve the
[3:27] minutes pass with the Council
[3:28] administrator. Please read the
[3:30] legislation for introduction.
[3:32] >> The following legislation is
[3:33] introduced by the chairperson
[3:34] at the request of the County
[3:35] Executive. Unless otherwise
[3:38] noted. Council resolution 120
[3:41] 26, a resolution confirming the
[3:43] appointment of Elaine Yaowu to
[3:45] the Asian American and Pacific
[3:47] Islander Commission Council
[3:50] Resolution 101, 2026, a
[3:51] resolution confirming the
[3:54] appointment of Elizabeth a
[3:56] Leiba to the Commission for
[3:59] Women Council Resolution 102,
[4:00] 2026, a resolution confirming
[4:02] the appointment of Lucia Urena
[4:05] to the La Alonza Latino
[4:07] Commission Council Resolution
[4:09] 106, 2026, a resolution
[4:11] confirming the appointment of
[4:15] Wanda I. Colon Canales to the
[4:17] Alonza Latino Commission
[4:20] Council Bill 40, 2026, An
[4:22] Act pursuant to section 612
[4:24] of the Howard County Charter
[4:25] approving a lease agreement
[4:27] between Howard County, Maryland,
[4:32] and Gateway Crossing 95, llc, a
[4:34] Maryland limited liability
[4:36] company, for the lease of
[4:40] approximately 38,285 rentable
[4:42] square feet in space, located
[4:45] at 7138 Columbia Gateway Drive,
[4:47] Columbia, Maryland, and
[4:48] authorizing the county
[4:49] executive to take certain
[4:51] actions in connection with that
[4:56] agreement. Council Bill 41,
[4:57] 2026, and that pursuant to
[4:59] section 612 of the Howard
[5:00] County Charter approving a
[5:01] Fourth Amendment to lease
[5:02] between Howard County, Maryland,
[5:06] and mayor ptf Linwood for the
[5:10] lease of approximately 12,477
[5:12] rentable square feet of space.
[5:16] Located at 6095 Marshall Drive,
[5:17] Elkridge, Columbia, Maryland,
[5:19] and authorizing the County
[5:20] executive to take certain
[5:22] actions in connection with the
[5:25] agreement. Council Bill 42,
[5:27] 2026, an ordinance authorizing
[5:29] the issuance, sale and delivery
[5:35] of up to $18,169,588 bond
[5:37] pursuant to a bond enabling law,
[5:39] providing that such bonds shall
[5:42] be general obligations of the
[5:43] County. Authorizing the County
[5:45] Executive to specify, prescribe,
[5:47] determine, provide for or
[5:48] approve the final principal
[5:50] amounts, maturity schedules,
[5:52] interest rates and redemption
[5:53] provisions of such bonds and
[5:56] other matters, details, forms,
[5:58] documents or procedures and to
[5:59] determine the method of sale of
[6:01] such bonds. Providing for the
[6:03] disbursement of the proceeds of
[6:04] such bonds and for the levying
[6:06] of taxes to pay debt service on
[6:08] such bonds and providing for
[6:10] and determining various matters
[6:13] in connection therewith.
[6:16] Council resolution 104, 2026. A
[6:17] resolution endorsing the
[6:20] provision of fine by the state
[6:21] Department of Commerce for an
[6:23] economic development project in
[6:25] Howard County and certifying
[6:26] that the project is consistent
[6:28] with the county's goals for
[6:30] Economic Development Council
[6:33] Resolution 105 2026, a
[6:34] resolution adopting Howard
[6:38] County's fy 2026 Annual Action
[6:40] Plan for Housing and Community
[6:42] Services to qualify for the
[6:44] receipt of federal Community
[6:45] Development Block Grants and
[6:47] Home Investment Partnership
[6:50] Program funds. Council
[6:52] Resolution 106, 2026, a
[6:54] resolution adopting the School
[6:55] Capacity Chart pursuant to the
[6:57] Adequate Public Facilities Act
[6:59] of Howard County to designate
[7:01] the elementary school regions
[7:02] and the elementary school,
[7:05] middle schools and high schools
[7:07] constraints for new residential
[7:08] development during each of the
[7:10] following ten years as based on
[7:12] the definition of program
[7:13] capacity as defined by Howard
[7:15] County public school system
[7:17] policy and requiring certain
[7:19] joint special work meeting
[7:21] in accordance with section
[7:23] 16.1103 d of the Howard
[7:25] County Code Council,
[7:27] resolution 107, 2026, a
[7:29] resolution adopting the Howard
[7:31] the Housing Unit Allocation
[7:33] Chart pursuant to the Adequate
[7:35] Public Facilities Act of Howard
[7:40] County Council Bill 43, 2026,
[7:41] introduced by Opel Jones. An
[7:44] act designating certain days of
[7:46] commemoration requiring certain
[7:48] legislative findings regarding
[7:51] the religious, ethnic, ethnic
[7:53] and cultural heritage of county
[7:55] residents. Authorizing the
[7:57] Chief Administrative Officer to
[8:01] designate certain days as
[8:02] commemoration. My apologies.
[8:04] And generally relating to
[8:05] county employees and the
[8:08] religious, ethnic and cultural
[8:10] heritage of County residents.
[8:12] Council Bill 44, 2026.
[8:15] Introduced by Liz Walsh. An Act
[8:16] amending the Rules of Procedure
[8:17] for the Board of Appeals to
[8:20] require that a representative,
[8:21] excuse me from the
[8:22] administrative agency, appear
[8:24] before the Board of Appeals
[8:26] when named as a party of
[8:28] certain administrative appeals
[8:30] and generally relating to the
[8:31] Board of Appeals Council Bill
[8:34] 45, 2026, introduced by Louis
[8:37] Walsh, an act requiring. Excuse
[8:39] me, the director of the
[8:40] Department of Housing and
[8:43] Community Development to
[8:44] include annual reporting of
[8:46] student yields of housing
[8:47] developments that are subject
[8:49] to an approved payment in lieu
[8:52] of taxes by taxes. Pilot
[8:55] agreement in the annual
[8:56] analysis of moderate income
[8:58] home housing programs under
[9:04] section. Excuse me. 13.402 j.
[9:05] I'm losing my voice of the
[9:06] Howard County Code and
[9:09] generally relating to reporting
[9:10] requirements.
[9:11] >> Okay.
[9:13] >> I know right.
[9:14] >> It's allergy.
[9:16] >> Yeah, allergy. I will read
[9:19] my next part slower. So, MISS
[9:21] Harriet, can I take a moment?
[9:22] That concludes our legislation
[9:26] for introduction. MISS Harriet,
[9:29] would you please take your time
[9:31] and read the legislation for
[9:33] final consideration? Council
[9:34] members, unless there's an
[9:37] objection, MISS Harriet will
[9:38] read all of the appointment
[9:41] resolutions together with the
[9:43] exception of Council Resolution
[9:46] 56, and we will vote on them
[9:48] together. Is there any
[9:51] objection, colleagues?
[9:53] Hearing no objection, MISS
[9:55] Harriet, please proceed.
[9:56] >> Thank you. I will do my
[9:59] best. If not, MR. Anderson,
[10:01] the following legislation
[10:03] is introduced by the
[10:04] chairperson at the request
[10:05] of the County Executive.
[10:08] Unless otherwise noted, Council
[10:11] resolution 52, 2026 appointment
[10:13] of Joseph c Hudzik to the Adopt
[10:15] Public Guardianship Review
[10:21] Board. Council Resolution 53,
[10:23] 2026 appointment of Ning Lee to
[10:24] the Asian American and Pacific
[10:26] Islander Commission Council
[10:30] Resolution 4554 2026.
[10:32] Appointment of Keith Louie to
[10:34] the Asian American and Pacific
[10:36] Islander Commission Council
[10:38] Resolution 55, 2026.
[10:41] Appointment of Seema Agarwal
[10:43] Harding to the Asian American
[10:45] and Pacific Islander Commission
[10:48] Council. Resolution 57, 2026.
[10:50] Appointment of Swati Sharma to
[10:52] the Asian American and Pacific
[10:54] Islander Commission Council.
[10:57] Resolution 58, 2026 appointment
[10:59] of Rebecca Paulson Fields to
[11:01] the Commission for Women
[11:03] Council Resolution 59, 2026.
[11:05] Appointment of Bronson Palmer
[11:08] to the Commission for Women
[11:11] Council Resolution 60, 2026.
[11:14] Appointing Janine m Campbell to
[11:15] the Commission for Women
[11:18] Council resolution 61, 2026.
[11:20] Appointment of Angel m Robinson
[11:21] to the Martin Luther King
[11:23] Junior Holiday Commission
[11:28] Council Resolution 62, 2026. A
[11:30] appointment of Carlita. S
[11:31] Burton to the Martin Luther
[11:33] King Junior Holiday Commission
[11:36] Council Resolution 63, 2026.
[11:39] Appointment of Lena c
[11:41] Collington to the Martin Luther
[11:43] King Junior Holiday Commission
[11:46] Council Resolution 64, 2026.
[11:48] Appointment of Alison Karen
[11:49] Nichols to the Martin Luther
[11:51] King Junior Holiday Commission
[11:55] Council Resolution 65, 2026.
[11:58] Appointment of Ella Thacker to
[12:00] the Martin Luther King Junior
[12:02] Holiday Commission Council
[12:05] Resolution 66, 2026.
[12:06] Appointment of Sandy pagan to
[12:09] the La Alonso Latino Commission
[12:12] Council Resolution 67, 2026.
[12:15] Appointment of Erica Tustin to
[12:17] the La Alonso Latino Commission
[12:22] Council Resolution 68, 2026.
[12:26] Appointment of Lauren m
[12:29] Abdullah Doobie. I am so sorry
[12:32] to the Recreation and Parks
[12:35] Board Council Resolution 69,
[12:37] 2026 reappointment of MAY Fong
[12:39] to the Asian American and
[12:42] Pacific Islander Commission
[12:44] Council Resolution 70, 2026.
[12:46] Reappointment of Jung Ren Smith
[12:47] to the Asian American and
[12:49] Pacific Islander Commission
[12:52] Council Resolution 71, 2026.
[12:53] Reappointment of Kimberly
[12:54] Eggborn to the Asian American
[12:57] and Pacific Islander Commission
[13:00] Council resolution 72, 2026.
[13:03] Reappointment of Samir c o'Hara
[13:04] to the Asian American and
[13:06] Pacific Islander Commission
[13:09] Council resolution 76, 2026.
[13:11] Reappointment of Phil Share to
[13:13] the Multimodal Transportation
[13:15] Board.
[13:18] >> Okay, I move to approve
[13:21] Council resolutions 52 through
[13:27] 55 and 57 through 73 2026.
[13:28] >> Second.
[13:29] >> The previously read Council
[13:31] resolutions have been moved and
[13:34] seconded. Any discussion?
[13:35] Please call the vote.
[13:36] >> Chair. Jones.
[13:36] >> Yes.
[13:40] >> MISS Jung yes, MISS Rigby,
[13:42] yes, MISS Walsh yes. MR.
[13:44] Yungmann yes.
[13:45] >> All right. The previously
[13:48] read Council resolutions pass.
[13:50] >> Council Resolution 56, 2026
[13:53] appointment of Jason Zao to the
[13:55] Asian American Pacific Islander
[13:56] Commission.
[13:59] >> Okay, I move to table cr56,
[14:01] 2026.
[14:02] >> Second.
[14:03] >> All right. The motion to
[14:06] table cr56 has been moved and
[14:07] seconded. MISS Harriet, would
[14:10] you please call the vote.
[14:11] >> Chair Jones.
[14:11] >> Yes.
[14:13] >> MISS Jung yes, MISS Rigby,
[14:16] yes, MISS Walsh yes. MR.
[14:18] Yungmann yes.
[14:20] >> I the motion to table cr56
[14:22] passes.
[14:29] >> Council Bill 25,
[14:30] 2026cra224zra224. Is there any
[14:32] regulation amendment 224 for
[14:34] age restricted adult housing
[14:35] cottage clusters.
[14:38] >> Okay I move to approve.
[14:39] Cb252026.
[14:39] >> Second.
[14:41] >> I move to approve amendment
[14:45] one to cb25. Second MISS Sager.
[14:49] >> Sure. Amendment one age restricted adult
[14:51] housing cottage clusters in
[14:52] areas that are designated
[14:54] single family, low density,
[14:56] single family, medium density
[14:58] apartment and apartments on an
[15:00] ftp, and it also provides that
[15:02] age restricted adult housing
[15:04] cottage clusters that use the
[15:07] optional design project. Their
[15:09] density will be consistent with
[15:11] new town density provisions in
[15:13] the zoning regs.
[15:16] >> Okay, amendment one to cb 25
[15:17] has been moved and seconded.
[15:18] Any discussion?
[15:20] >> Yes, I, I have some
[15:22] questions. Since this is a new
[15:23] amendment, I'd like to know
[15:24] more about it, particularly
[15:26] since it involves New Town and
[15:28] I represent five of the
[15:30] villages of Newtown. I see you
[15:31] are there, MISS Eisenberg,
[15:32] could you please approach and I
[15:36] could ask you these questions?
[15:37] >> I'm sorry. When you say new
[15:39] amendment, what are you
[15:39] referring to?
[15:41] >> Well, it's an amendment to
[15:43] the bill and it wasn't part of
[15:45] the bill originally. Right.
[15:47] >> Well, that's an amendment.
[15:48] Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I thought
[15:49] you meant like new as in we
[15:51] didn't know about this
[15:52] beforehand, but I'm sorry, MISS
[15:52] Eisenberg. Please.
[15:54] >> So we didn't have an
[15:55] opportunity to ask about it
[15:57] when the bill was introduced.
[15:58] >> Yes.
[15:59] >> Good evening, Council.
[16:00] >> Doctor Jones.
[16:01] >> So to answer your question,
[16:03] so originally when we put
[16:06] forward the bill, we were
[16:08] looking at how it was
[16:09] incorporated into Newtown, and
[16:10] it was an oversight on our part,
[16:12] thinking that the residential
[16:15] suburban cluster, which is what
[16:19] most of the prevailing Newtown
[16:24] zoning district uses for its
[16:25] residential uses, we thought it
[16:26] was going to be incorporated
[16:27] into that. So upon further
[16:29] revisions and review, it was
[16:30] brought to our attention that
[16:33] we did not commit it into
[16:34] Newtown. So it was an oversight
[16:37] on our part. So we have
[16:38] inserted it here to make sure
[16:40] that Newtown is now included as
[16:41] part of the cottage cluster.
[16:45] >> So how many I mean, you know,
[16:47] three of us. Well, two of us, I
[16:49] guess, live in Columbia. And
[16:51] I'm just trying to think, where
[16:53] could you even put cottage
[16:55] clusters and still maintain
[16:57] that 30% open space that's
[17:01] required under Newtown zoning?
[17:03] Did you do a partial look at
[17:03] this? I mean.
[17:05] >> So we did look at parcels,
[17:08] but we looked at the individual
[17:09] smaller parcels that would meet
[17:12] the basic criteria of less than
[17:14] ten acres. So looking at what
[17:16] the Newtown zoning district
[17:17] allows for density, that's how
[17:22] we were basing this on.
[17:24] >> And when you looked at
[17:25] parcels, what did you did you
[17:27] see anything that was actually
[17:28] available and would maintain
[17:31] the 30% open. Space requirement?
[17:32] >> Look, that was not part of
[17:33] the consideration. I don't
[17:34] believe that's required. If
[17:36] this is to have 30% open space
[17:38] for these small types of infill
[17:39] development.
[17:40] >> You're saying that that
[17:43] putting in this infill infill
[17:45] development does not impact the
[17:47] 30% requirement that you can
[17:49] just add this without having
[17:51] anything to do with the 30%
[17:54] requirement?
[17:55] >> Clarifying question. That
[17:56] 30% requirement is not parcel
[17:57] by parcel.
[17:58] >> Correct.
[17:58] >> Okay.
[17:59] >> Thank you. Right. I
[18:01] understand that it's not parcel
[18:02] by parcel that it's overall.
[18:04] But I guess the answer I just
[18:07] got from you, I was getting the
[18:08] impression that you're saying
[18:10] that these cottage clusters
[18:12] wouldn't count toward the
[18:12] overall.
[18:13] >> No, they would count, but
[18:15] they're not. But I think to MR.
[18:16] Rigby's point, not for each
[18:17] individual. Each individual
[18:20] community does not need to have
[18:21] 30% open space.
[18:22] >> I understand.
[18:24] >> With the calculations it
[18:27] would be probably negligible
[18:29] with meeting the 30%
[18:31] requirement, so it would not
[18:33] take away or diminish that open
[18:34] space requirement that we have
[18:35] in Newtown.
[18:37] >> And and you believe that
[18:39] there's actually lots somewhere
[18:41] in Newtown where we could put
[18:42] cottage clusters?
[18:44] >> Depends on how people want
[18:45] to redevelop or develop their
[18:47] space. So we do have a web page
[18:49] dedicated to this, or we do
[18:53] have a zoning map showing where
[18:55] the probability of these
[18:57] occurring could happen.
[19:00] >> So you, you can you put that
[19:02] zoning? Can you sure. Share
[19:04] that zoning map.
[19:06] >> I can share my screen. I
[19:08] don't have a link. I think, to
[19:14] the meeting. Pardon me. Are you
[19:16] going to send it to me? Okay.
[19:17] Yep. And I can.
[19:18] >> While you're pulling that up,
[19:20] does anyone have any other
[19:21] comments or questions. And
[19:22] we'll go back to MISS Jung. Go
[19:23] ahead.
[19:25] >> I would just say that I was
[19:26] really glad to hear testimony
[19:27] in support of including Newtown.
[19:29] I know that many of our seniors
[19:31] in Columbia are looking for
[19:32] smaller housing options to
[19:33] downsize into, especially those
[19:35] that will meet their mobility
[19:36] needs. A lot of our housing
[19:39] stock in Newtown is very stair
[19:42] centric, so I appreciate the
[19:43] administration being responsive
[19:45] to the resident's request.
[19:48] >> MISS Walsh.
[19:49] >> Yeah, we also heard that
[19:50] request in the public testimony
[19:53] and have a similar minded
[19:54] amendment coming up in the form
[19:57] of amendment number four. But I
[20:01] just wondered why they looked
[20:04] so different. If one if one is
[20:05] achieving something that four
[20:11] doesn't or vice versa.
[20:13] >> So I think one of the things
[20:14] that was remiss in the
[20:16] amendment four was putting it
[20:18] towards r 12 zoning
[20:20] specifically, and then looking
[20:23] at Newtown for their densities.
[20:24] The densities aren't based on
[20:26] zoning. Districts are based on
[20:27] the land use categories of
[20:29] single family, low density,
[20:31] single family, medium and
[20:35] apartments. So that was the how
[20:37] our the the dp's put forward
[20:38] amendment was written as
[20:40] opposed to the amendment put
[20:43] forward by council.
[20:44] >> Okay. So technically
[20:46] amendment one would be the same
[20:48] would be the better way to
[20:51] achieve what's intended. Yes.
[20:52] >> Correct.
[20:53] >> Okay. Thank you.
[20:54] >> All right.
[20:57] >> Okay. Do we have that link?
[20:58] Okay.
[21:01] >> Just got it.
[21:04] >> Okay. MISS Jung.
[21:06] >> So while I'm waiting to see
[21:11] the zoning parcels that MISS
[21:13] Eisenberg referred to.
[21:14] >> Oh, you could just you could
[21:17] email it to us. I mean, we.
[21:19] >> Yeah. We are.
[21:20] >> I'll put it.
[21:21] >> Up there. Okay.
[21:22] >> Right.
[21:31] >> If we can. MR.
[21:32] >> Okay. Thank you.
[21:39] >> Yeah, I guess.
[21:41] >> I do have a couple more
[21:42] questions while you're getting
[21:43] that up, but sure.
[21:44] >> Go ahead. You can.
[21:47] >> Ask will, we'll let you work
[21:47] on that.
[21:49] >> No, go ahead. Please. Please
[21:51] ask them so that we can we can
[21:52] be expeditious as this is not a
[21:54] work session if you want us to
[21:56] be able to ask questions. So
[21:56] please go ahead.
[21:58] >> Well, we didn't have a work
[21:59] session, so that's why I'm
[22:03] asking these questions now.
[22:04] >> Do you have a question to
[22:05] ask?
[22:05] >> I do.
[22:07] >> So please ask it.
[22:08] >> Well, I want to let MISS
[22:09] Eisenberg finish.
[22:10] >> Does any other colleagues
[22:12] have any questions?
[22:13] >> I'm trying to share my
[22:14] screen. It's not coming up.
[22:16] >> We see it in the WebEx. Can
[22:18] we get charity?
[22:19] >> There you go.
[22:20] >> There we go.
[22:22] >> So these are the feasible
[22:25] locations of potential
[22:27] properties that could. I'm
[22:28] trying to zoom in to Columbia.
[22:32] It's not the best resolution,
[22:34] but based on sites that were
[22:36] 200 zero square feet up to ten
[22:39] acres and that had limited
[22:42] development on them and had
[22:45] potential to at this point have
[22:48] cottage cluster as it's written
[22:50] currently and proposed. So it's
[22:52] not the be all and end all.
[22:53] There could be other
[22:54] opportunities, but we wanted to
[22:56] look and see what types of
[22:57] properties would have some
[22:58] potential for this type of
[23:00] development type.
[23:02] >> MISS MISS Rigby.
[23:03] >> And just to clarify that
[23:05] every parcel marked in red,
[23:07] they MAY have additional
[23:08] challenges that would prevent
[23:10] their development, such as
[23:12] streams, setbacks, steep slopes,
[23:13] those types of things.
[23:14] >> To some extent. Yes, we did
[23:16] take some of that into
[23:17] consideration when we did the
[23:18] analysis.
[23:19] >> These are the more feasible
[23:20] ones. Correct.
[23:21] >> Thank you. So it did look
[23:24] like there were maybe 50
[23:27] parcels that you identified in
[23:28] Newtown. Is that right?
[23:29] >> I don't have an exact number.
[23:31] I'd have to get that for you.
[23:33] >> I'm just trying to eyeball
[23:36] it right now.
[23:38] >> We kept this very general.
[23:40] Just to give an idea of the
[23:41] order of impact. And this is
[23:43] only allowed in the planned
[23:45] service area as well.
[23:46] >> Okay. Can you help me
[23:48] reconcile the the map of
[23:49] impacted parcels that was
[23:50] included in the technical staff
[23:52] report that basically showed
[23:55] the entirety of district one in
[23:57] red. I'm happy to show it up
[23:59] next to my face for the camera,
[24:01] but.
[24:01] >> Like.
[24:03] >> I believe those are just the
[24:04] zoned parcels. I don't know, I
[24:06] have to.
[24:07] >> Write. The information we
[24:08] got previously through the
[24:09] technical staff report was that
[24:13] there were 55,651 impacted
[24:14] parcels, with an approximate
[24:18] acreage of 32,723 acres. This
[24:20] that you have up on the screen.
[24:21] Now, this is the old one.
[24:23] >> Yeah. So that goes based on
[24:24] the impact of parcels that meet
[24:26] the zoning criteria. What we
[24:28] were doing with the impact of
[24:29] parcels beyond that. So that's
[24:30] part of what the zoning staff
[24:32] report is supposed to require.
[24:34] What we have done here is that
[24:35] we looked at properties
[24:36] specifically within the planned
[24:38] service area that had to have a
[24:43] minimum lot size of 20,000ft!S.
[24:45] So that was just the basic
[24:46] criteria within the technical
[24:48] staff report that just looks at
[24:49] properties that have the zoning
[24:53] that could hold this type of
[24:55] optional design project project.
[24:56] >> Okay, so the difference
[24:58] between that technical staff
[25:00] report map and this that you
[25:01] put up on the screen that's
[25:03] available on the Department of
[25:06] Planning website. Can you
[25:07] articulate that again for me
[25:07] please?
[25:09] >> So this is so the one that I
[25:11] just had posted had to do with
[25:12] areas that were specifically in
[25:14] those zoning districts that are
[25:15] allowed to have cottage cluster,
[25:19] but also having minimum lot
[25:22] size of 200 zero square feet
[25:24] and no more than because it
[25:25] follows the criteria of no more
[25:27] than ten acres as well, was one
[25:31] of the limitations we put. And
[25:32] that would be within the zoning
[25:34] districts that have been put
[25:35] forward for this amendment. So
[25:37] as opposed to the technical
[25:38] staff report that basically
[25:40] looks at any parcel that hits
[25:42] the potential zoning.
[25:43] >> Okay. So one regard zoning
[25:45] and the other has zoning plus
[25:46] lot size.
[25:47] >> Correct, more feasible. What
[25:49] the feasibility based on what
[25:52] the code would state.
[25:54] >> Okay. Thank you.
[25:55] >> Would you about to say
[25:57] something, MR. Yungmann? Okay,
[26:00] MR. Rigby. Okay. MISS Walsh.
[26:01] >> I do have some more
[26:04] questions. Can you tell me how
[26:07] this amendment will impact the
[26:09] apartment maximum percentage,
[26:13] which is capped at 13%. Cottage
[26:16] clusters are rentals. Will they
[26:18] be classified as apartments?
[26:20] >> No. So they could be for
[26:21] rent or for purchase, depending
[26:23] on what the property owner
[26:26] chooses to do. They are not
[26:28] considered apartments. So when
[26:30] you look at the new town land
[26:31] use designations, that has to
[26:32] do more with the association of
[26:34] density.
[26:40] >> So this won't impact the
[26:41] apartment maximum percentage,
[26:45] which is capped at 13%. Okay.
[26:48] And how does the amendment
[26:51] impact the overall? No. I just
[26:59] already ask you that. So the I
[27:00] just want to make sure it
[27:02] appears that new town's
[27:05] existing density per acre
[27:07] remains the same for a cottage
[27:09] cluster.
[27:10] >> If you're talking about the
[27:12] overall density, then yes, that
[27:13] would be calculated at the time
[27:15] of the proposal being submitted.
[27:17] And if you know densities need
[27:18] to change, that would be up to
[27:20] the applicant to make a
[27:23] proposal to a pdp amendment.
[27:27] >> Okay.
[27:29] >> Great, MISS Walsh.
[27:30] >> All right. Thank you. So
[27:34] just so I'm clear, if I own
[27:37] a parcel within New Town
[27:39] that is between 20,000ft!S
[27:41] and ten acres, and it's in one
[27:42] of those three land use
[27:43] categories that you identified
[27:45] in amendment one that we did
[27:47] not identify an amendment for.
[27:49] If I have just a singular home
[27:51] there right now, I could once
[27:53] this this legislation passes,
[27:55] raise that House and build up
[27:57] to whatever the. The new
[28:00] density set forth is in the
[28:01] form of these cottage clusters,
[28:02] right.
[28:03] >> Potentially with the
[28:05] optional design project.
[28:07] >> Okay. I mean, I think that's
[28:09] the concern is that we're we're
[28:10] we're putting we're putting
[28:12] that risk on any, any size lot
[28:13] anywhere in the county that's
[28:15] not outside the public service
[28:17] area to, to remove existing
[28:19] housing and replace it with
[28:19] tenfold.
[28:21] >> I mean, that can happen now
[28:22] with any zoning district. You
[28:25] could have something zoned, you
[28:28] know, apartment and have a
[28:29] single family home on that and
[28:30] certainly raise that home and,
[28:32] and build an apartment or Todd
[28:34] or any of our other zoning
[28:35] categories on that.
[28:37] >> Well, but the density
[28:38] contemplated here is much
[28:39] higher, right? You could have a
[28:41] home in our 20, and you could
[28:44] have two, two units per acre
[28:45] under our 20, right?
[28:46] >> Correct.
[28:47] >> And under this cottage
[28:48] cluster, in that same zoning
[28:49] district, you could have how
[28:50] many?
[28:51] >> It depends on the acreage,
[28:52] but they would fall under the
[28:53] same density requirements if
[28:56] they're outside of New Town as
[28:57] the.
[28:59] >> The answer is nine. You
[29:00] could have nine units where you
[29:02] can have two. Now in our 20.
[29:04] >> And that's how rh currently
[29:05] works as well. The age
[29:06] restriction. So this is no
[29:07] different than age restricted
[29:08] adult housing that we currently
[29:09] have this conditional use
[29:10] within those districts.
[29:12] >> Then why do we need this
[29:12] legislation.
[29:14] >> Because we don't allow this
[29:15] development style, this cottage
[29:18] cluster style with no lot lines,
[29:20] essentially, and with a uniform
[29:21] universal design. And so that
[29:24] was the intent of this.
[29:26] >> So the density in in this
[29:27] bill is no different than
[29:29] what's already allowed under rh.
[29:30] >> That was what we mimicked it
[29:32] after. Correct.
[29:33] >> That mimicked or the same.
[29:35] >> The same.
[29:37] >> Okay. Thank you.
[29:42] >> Okay. Any last questions?
[29:45] >> Well, one last question. I
[29:51] guess if we vote yes on the
[29:53] county executive's amendment,
[29:56] does that then make MISS
[29:58] Walsh's amendment moot?
[30:00] >> I'm not moving it. I mean,
[30:00] it sounds like.
[30:02] >> You're not going to.
[30:03] >> Move it right. The right
[30:07] version of it.
[30:08] >> Okay. Thank you. Colleagues.
[30:09] MISS Harris, could you please
[30:11] call the vote on amendment one
[30:13] to cb 25?
[30:14] >> Chair Jones.
[30:15] >> Yes.
[30:16] >> MISS Young.
[30:17] >> Yes.
[30:19] >> MISS Rigby yes. MISS Walsh
[30:21] yes. MR. Yungmann.
[30:22] >> Yes.
[30:23] >> The motion to approve
[30:26] amendment one to cb 25 passes.
[30:27] I move to approve amendment two
[30:33] to cb 25. Second amendment to
[30:34] the cb 25 has been moved and
[30:36] seconded. Any discussion, MISS
[30:38] Sager? Oh, wait. Sorry, MISS
[30:38] Sager.
[30:40] >> Sure. Amendment to just
[30:42] changes the maximum height for
[30:44] principal structures from 20ft
[30:44] to 22ft.
[30:45] >> Okay. Any discussion?
[30:48] Colleagues?
[30:49] >> Yes. Yes. Yes.
[30:51] >> MR. Yungmann, MISS Jung.
[30:53] >> And that's to make sure you
[30:54] can accommodate a second level.
[30:56] >> More comfortably. Yes. So
[30:58] even with the 20 foot that we
[31:00] had originally proposed, there
[31:02] was some concern that variances
[31:05] would be coming in to raise it
[31:07] so we can do an administrative
[31:10] adjustment up to 20%. So the
[31:11] concern from the community was
[31:13] that it MAY not comfortably fit
[31:15] a second story. So typically
[31:16] how we measure the second story
[31:18] is by the main roof line. So
[31:21] you could have a two story unit.
[31:22] But then I think there was
[31:24] concern that if they had a
[31:25] creative roof line, so to speak,
[31:27] that that might be eaten up in
[31:29] the roof line as opposed to
[31:31] having a true second story
[31:32] being added.
[31:34] >> I ask that because, I mean,
[31:37] when we talked the other day,
[31:38] you know, to make it clear, I
[31:40] mean, 900 square foot footprint
[31:43] plus a 900 square foot upper
[31:46] level plus basement is just an
[31:47] 1800 square foot single family
[31:50] home, which in a lot of areas
[31:52] of Howard County is gonna be
[31:53] $800,000.
[31:54] >> Yeah.
[31:56] >> So once you, once you double
[31:58] that square footage and
[32:00] potentially add a third bedroom,
[32:04] you're now creating a market
[32:05] situation. The whole point of
[32:08] this is to, instead of through
[32:10] regulation, creating
[32:11] affordability and through
[32:12] subsidy, creating affordability
[32:16] is just to, to limit sizes. So
[32:17] affordability just sort of
[32:19] happens as a market driver, but
[32:21] it that's going to be a big
[32:23] house. I mean, you basically.
[32:24] >> It's a very big house. It's
[32:25] a regular.
[32:27] >> Single family detached house.
[32:28] >> I don't get this whole thing.
[32:31] This isn't a cottage any longer.
[32:33] This is a regular size
[32:35] townhouse. In fact, it's bigger
[32:36] than the townhouses of the
[32:38] people that I know that live in
[32:41] it. I. Where does the
[32:42] affordability come in at this
[32:46] point? Nobody's. What now? The
[32:49] deal is, I guess you get a
[32:54] single family detached townhome
[32:57] under the cottage cluster that
[32:59] doesn't, but does have. It has
[33:02] a zero lot line, I guess. Kind
[33:05] of like Maple Lawn.
[33:07] >> I'd say like Owen Brown,
[33:08] Hopewell.
[33:10] >> Well, I see it like Maple
[33:13] Run because it's going to be,
[33:15] I'm sure, as expensive as Maple
[33:17] Lawn as opposed to Owen Brown.
[33:18] Well, yeah. So because these
[33:20] are brand new. Yeah, these are
[33:21] brand new. These are going to
[33:23] be brand new houses. A cottage
[33:26] is is a single story.
[33:27] >> It looks like.
[33:28] >> Sorry, can I just one
[33:30] clarifying question. So this
[33:32] could with the additional roof
[33:33] height, would that mean that
[33:35] you could have a second unit
[33:36] and sort of do instead of two
[33:39] over two, like a one over one.
[33:41] >> With an elevator?
[33:42] >> Ideally, yeah.
[33:45] >> Now we're looking at at 740
[33:47] 000 over 55 senior house.
[33:48] >> That's their seniors.
[33:49] >> It's ridiculous.
[33:50] >> Obviously. Okay, I would
[33:52] just like to finish my comments.
[33:56] So a few things. One, right now
[34:00] we have the base outline of
[34:02] 900ft!S, correct? Correct.
[34:03] >> For yeah, for the building
[34:05] footprint. And that was based
[34:08] on the state was suggesting 800.
[34:09] We want a little bit bigger
[34:11] with 900, but we base this off
[34:12] the silver and starter home
[34:14] state legislation that was
[34:16] moving forward, but
[34:17] subsequently did not pass the
[34:19] Maryland General Assembly. So
[34:20] that's what we look to for our
[34:21] guidance and where we came up
[34:23] with the 900ft!S, thinking that
[34:25] seemed a little small in some
[34:27] ways for some of our
[34:29] constituents who felt like 900
[34:30] was more appropriate.
[34:32] >> And then with the optional
[34:34] design process, if a project
[34:36] were to sort of begin and it
[34:37] came in and it looked just like
[34:40] every other massive villa, a
[34:42] rah, how does that process go?
[34:44] Because there's more back and
[34:46] forth with the design process
[34:47] than there is your sort of by
[34:48] right zoning.
[34:50] >> Correct. So, absolutely. So
[34:53] the design process would be put
[34:55] forward similar to how we do
[34:56] our site development plans with
[34:58] the requirements of what would
[35:01] be be put forward by the
[35:02] applicants. But the back and
[35:04] forth would come from the
[35:05] design advisory panel to make
[35:07] sure that good design is
[35:10] adhered to, keeping into the
[35:12] character of the community as
[35:13] well as them back and forth
[35:15] with the Planning Board. So
[35:16] this MAY be not this. These MAY
[35:18] not be settled in one night,
[35:19] especially the Planning Board
[35:21] understanding within their
[35:22] criteria that these are to be
[35:24] age restricted, affordable,
[35:26] naturally affordable housing.
[35:29] So they very much could deny
[35:31] having large units being put on
[35:32] these particular sites, knowing
[35:33] that that's not the intent of
[35:35] the legislation, and that would
[35:36] be within their power through
[35:38] this actual design process. The
[35:40] idea was to give flexibility so
[35:42] we could utilize creative
[35:44] design to have these particular
[35:46] units be built in Howard County.
[35:47] >> I mean, because every time
[35:49] I've looked at trying to do
[35:51] cottage clusters legislation,
[35:53] we get hit by the infill
[35:54] requirements. And it basically
[35:56] you can build one unit and it's
[35:58] impossible. So I thought it was
[36:00] really wise to go the optional
[36:02] design route, because then
[36:04] there's a lot more back and
[36:05] forth and it's much more sort
[36:07] of site specific. And also you
[36:09] can make sure that they're
[36:10] adhering to the spirit, not
[36:11] just the letter of the law.
[36:14] Correct. Thank you.
[36:16] >> All right, MR. Jung.
[36:18] >> I, I, I jumped ahead a
[36:22] little bit and it looks like
[36:23] what we're going to talk about
[36:25] in a couple of minutes might be
[36:28] moving the 900 up to 1200. But
[36:30] in one story that feels more
[36:33] like a cottage, it feels more
[36:35] like, okay, you know, maybe if
[36:37] 900 is tight, I'm not sure if
[36:39] I'm even comfortable with 1200,
[36:40] but whatever that number is,
[36:45] that's more than 900. You know,
[36:46] as flat. I mean, that is going
[36:48] to be kind of affordable. I
[36:50] mean, your, your two bedroom,
[36:53] two bath, 1600 square foot
[36:55] condos that are all over Howard
[36:57] County age restricted in the
[37:00] four over four buildings, you
[37:03] know, or 350 to 4 and a quarter,
[37:06] let's say, but with big condo
[37:08] fees because they have a lot of
[37:10] amenities. Whereas if you've
[37:14] got 1000 1102 bedrooms.
[37:15] >> Not requiring a million
[37:16] amenities.
[37:18] >> One level, not a lot of
[37:18] amenities, you know, maybe
[37:20] these things can come in in the
[37:23] low 300 seconds without
[37:25] exorbitant condo fees.
[37:28] >> So I guess my question is
[37:33] the 1200 foot amendment, MISS
[37:37] Walsh, that you did, was that
[37:38] anticipating a single story?
[37:41] >> Then I did an amendment to
[37:43] an amendment to clarify the
[37:46] single story piece because I.
[37:47] >> So, so really fast before
[37:49] his amendment two. I know, I.
[37:50] >> Know, but these are all kind
[37:51] of related.
[37:53] >> Yes, but we we haven't. I
[37:55] just don't want to get too far
[37:56] into discussions on amendments.
[37:57] We haven't moved yet because
[37:59] before us is amendment two. But
[38:01] go ahead. Please continue.
[38:05] >> I mean, I just I am at a
[38:07] loss here to understand how
[38:09] this bill brings affordable
[38:12] senior housing to Howard County,
[38:15] when it could be an 1800 well,
[38:18] more than 1800. If it has a
[38:21] basement, it could be 2400
[38:23] square foot home, which is
[38:24] exactly what is being built
[38:27] right now. Can you please tell
[38:30] me how this bill, the way it is
[38:33] being amended, amended will
[38:36] help seniors live in more
[38:37] affordable, smaller homes.
[38:39] >> So which amendment are you
[38:40] referring to? The height. The
[38:41] height. The height.
[38:43] >> Gives us 22ft, which makes
[38:45] it easy to add on a second
[38:48] story, 900 foot, 900 square
[38:51] foot footprint. That's 900. And
[38:52] then you put something on top
[38:55] that's 1800ft!S. You have a
[38:56] basement. There's not there's
[38:59] no basement prohibited in here.
[39:02] That's a not another 900ft!S.
[39:04] That's 2700ft!S. That's about
[39:06] the average size, probably of
[39:10] most of these over 55
[39:13] retirement villas. And those
[39:15] are those are really expensive,
[39:17] that they're an average. Now I
[39:20] think of about 740 000 people
[39:22] were looking for these for the
[39:25] cottages. This is not a cottage.
[39:29] This is a 2700 square foot
[39:29] townhome.
[39:31] >> Well, so first of all, I
[39:32] think a couple things to keep
[39:34] in to take into account is that
[39:35] one of the things that MR.
[39:37] Rigby said, that this would be
[39:38] an optional design under the
[39:39] Planning board's discretion. So
[39:40] this is not but.
[39:41] >> It's discretionary. And and
[39:43] then it might not be. So it
[39:45] might or it might not be. And
[39:48] and if you're a builder, why
[39:50] wouldn't you want to build the
[39:51] thing you're going to get the
[39:53] most money out of? That's what
[39:54] you're going to do. And you'll
[39:56] get the most money out of the
[39:58] 2700 square foot apartment or
[40:01] I'm sorry, townhome, as opposed
[40:03] to a little cottage, which is
[40:05] the affordable thing that I
[40:06] thought we were trying to
[40:08] create.
[40:10] >> So again, I believe, you
[40:11] know, the Planning Board has a
[40:15] lot of discretion to adhere to
[40:19] the intent of the law to make a
[40:21] naturally affordable single
[40:23] family cottage cluster home.
[40:25] I'm sorry, age restricted
[40:27] cottage cluster, smaller units.
[40:29] The second story, you know, the
[40:30] idea was to have these
[40:31] universal design and that's put
[40:33] into the law. Universal design
[40:36] has to have all of the
[40:38] amenities on the first floor
[40:39] for someone. So they have to
[40:40] have a bedroom on the first
[40:43] floor and eating space and a
[40:44] living space for them. So
[40:45] everything can be accommodated
[40:47] for on the first floor under
[40:48] the universal design becomes
[40:50] more challenging to meet the
[40:51] universal design requirements
[40:52] with multi story unless they
[40:54] put in some type of elevator.
[40:55] >> That's what all these
[40:56] retirement places have right
[40:58] now, MISS Eisenberg, all of
[40:58] them.
[41:00] >> And that is what our rh
[41:02] allows. But the idea again is
[41:04] because these are clusters, not
[41:05] condo units, you're not getting
[41:08] as many on the particular site.
[41:11] So you're having smaller units
[41:14] potentially. Potentially with
[41:16] no no, no lots, no maintenance,
[41:17] no amenities. So there's
[41:18] another choice because that's
[41:20] one of the things we also wrote
[41:23] into this is to put a guardrail
[41:27] to demonetize these spaces to
[41:28] actually penalize, to make
[41:31] these two, two attractive from
[41:33] the amenitized area. So no
[41:34] pickleball. No. Right. I get.
[41:36] >> That and I think that's good.
[41:39] Actually, I, I think these hoa
[41:40] fees for these retirement
[41:43] places have gotten out of
[41:45] control. And most of the, a lot
[41:46] of the seniors I've talked to
[41:48] have said they want to move out
[41:50] of their retirement or they're
[41:53] over 55 homes because of the
[41:55] hoa fees, which they're being
[41:57] charged for because of the
[42:00] amenities. So I think that's a
[42:03] really good aspect of this bill.
[42:06] But the the size and the height,
[42:08] I just think take it out of the
[42:10] affordable range. When people
[42:12] are looking to downsize,
[42:15] they've got a 2400 square foot
[42:16] home. Now. They want something
[42:18] that's half that size. And now
[42:21] we're saying to developers, oh,
[42:22] here you can make something
[42:25] just as big and don't put any
[42:27] amenities in there, and you can
[42:30] sell the house for just as much.
[42:31] >> So I would say, you know,
[42:33] it's under this body's purview.
[42:34] If you want to lower the size
[42:36] and make an amendment to not
[42:37] allow second story or basement,
[42:38] I mean, that's certainly under
[42:40] your jurisdiction to make those
[42:42] changes. If you feel that these
[42:43] are too big of units to make
[42:45] them affordable. We were basing
[42:48] it on best practices and the
[42:49] state law and legislation that
[42:51] was being put forward.
[42:52] >> Okay. Any other comments? Go
[42:53] ahead. MR. Yungmann.
[42:56] >> Back to back to amendment
[43:02] two. You know, I. Can you can
[43:04] you get a second story on at
[43:07] 20ft?
[43:08] >> We've heard it's very, very
[43:09] challenging to do.
[43:11] >> Because it's going to end up
[43:11] being flat roof.
[43:13] >> Correct. And that will
[43:13] really.
[43:16] >> Really ugly in, in these
[43:18] neighborhoods, you know, having
[43:21] these flat roof. So I almost
[43:25] feel like I almost feel like we
[43:28] need to, if we're going to do
[43:30] these in order, we have to
[43:32] agree to the 22ft and then
[43:34] reopen the discussion about one
[43:35] level, because we really don't
[43:37] want to get stuck with two
[43:41] levels at 20ft, because then
[43:43] you're going to end up with
[43:44] things that look like seven
[43:44] elevens.
[43:46] >> So yeah, we have several
[43:47] amendments coming up. The order
[43:50] MAY be not to everyone's liking
[43:51] in terms of how it's going to
[43:52] happen, but there's others that
[43:54] are coming up. If we could if
[43:56] we could vote on amendment two.
[43:58] And as we see, we have a couple
[44:00] of others coming, but I'll give
[44:01] a last chance for any other
[44:04] last comments or questions on
[44:05] amendment two so that we can
[44:08] move on. MISS Walsh, please.
[44:10] >> Thank you. I went back and
[44:11] pulled a public testimony and
[44:14] this request to change from 20
[44:16] foot height to 22 height came
[44:18] from Barry Mayeda, who's a
[44:19] developer at least predominant
[44:21] in Elkridge area. And he
[44:22] explained that the 20 foot max
[44:23] height to the middle of a roof
[44:25] line stated in the bill is a
[44:27] bit too tight for a two story
[44:28] home. It would force an
[44:29] architect to use a cheaper
[44:31] looking, flatter roof of a four
[44:34] inch 12 pitch. So.
[44:36] >> I was channeling my inner
[44:38] barometer. I guess I don't
[44:40] remember him saying that. Yeah.
[44:40] Okay.
[44:44] >> All right. So okay. All
[44:45] right. So let's let's wrap up
[44:46] amendment two. Then we have
[44:48] amendment three just ahead in a
[44:52] few seconds. MISS Harry, could
[44:53] you please call the vote on
[44:54] amendment two?
[44:54] >> Chair Jones.
[44:56] >> I'm going to vote yes. I'm
[44:57] looking forward to amendment
[44:58] the discussion on amendment
[44:59] three, but my vote is yes.
[45:01] >> MISS Jung.
[45:02] >> No.
[45:05] >> MISS Rigby.
[45:06] >> Yes.
[45:12] >> MISS Walsh? No. MR. Yungmann.
[45:13] >> Yes.
[45:14] >> The motion to approve
[45:21] amendment two passes. Okay.
[45:26] >> Yeah, but I don't want to
[45:27] move this. If the net effect is
[45:31] now going to be a two story,
[45:32] 3600 square foot home.
[45:33] >> Well, do you want.
[45:35] >> To move it so we can talk
[45:35] about.
[45:37] >> And then maybe we can amend
[45:39] it from the dais.
[45:39] >> Anyone can move it.
[45:41] >> Okay, okay. I move amendment
[45:42] number three to Council Bill
[45:44] number 25, 2020 second. And
[45:46] this bill was in response to
[45:47] public testimony by Fran
[45:50] Lopresti, who did an informal
[45:51] survey of the size of two
[45:54] bedroom units in in the county
[45:55] and noted that there were
[45:58] somewhere between 9 and 1200ft!S.
[45:59] So thinking that these were
[46:00] cottages and cottages are
[46:02] generally not two stories or
[46:05] even have basements, that that
[46:07] was that was where we were
[46:10] proceeding. Now we've moved and
[46:11] approved. At least the majority
[46:13] has this notion of as many as
[46:15] three inhabitable floors in one
[46:17] of these so-called cottages.
[46:19] And so I agree with the earlier
[46:20] discussion. We're moving
[46:22] further and further afield from
[46:24] something that's even remotely
[46:25] affordable.
[46:27] >> Okay. You want to move yours?
[46:29] >> Yes. I move amendment one to
[46:30] amendment three.
[46:32] >> Second.
[46:34] >> So what this amendment does
[46:39] is it essentially, I know I was
[46:40] concerned about the cumulative
[46:42] total even prior to amendment
[46:43] two, thinking, okay, if we go
[46:46] up to 1200, then you could have
[46:48] 1200 square foot basement, 1200
[46:49] square foot first floor, and
[46:51] then you can do a 1200 square
[46:53] foot second floor. It would
[46:55] just be with an ugly roof.
[46:57] That's really the decision. So
[46:58] I was concerned about that
[47:00] cumulative total. And so I put
[47:04] in this amendment to allow for
[47:06] or 1200ft!S only when the
[47:08] cottage cluster dwelling unit
[47:09] is a single story dwelling and
[47:11] does not include a basement. So
[47:13] that's just some language to
[47:14] begin working off of. But again,
[47:15] it was the cumulative total
[47:16] that I had concerns about.
[47:18] >> All right, MR. Yungmann.
[47:20] >> What's what's the what's the
[47:21] threshold when you lose your
[47:25] second floor? You know.
[47:26] >> 1200.
[47:27] >> Sorry, 1200 the.
[47:30] >> Max 900ft!S and do a full
[47:33] second floor, or you have
[47:34] 1200ft!S, but only a first floor.
[47:38] >> What about 901?
[47:40] >> No, apparently, the way this
[47:41] is written, you can have
[47:44] nothing between 900 or 1200ft!S.
[47:47] >> Well, is that the intention?
[47:49] >> I would say I'm I'm open to
[47:51] some flexibility, but I was
[47:53] working off amending MISS
[47:54] Walsh's amendment, which
[47:57] strikes the 900. So I restored
[47:59] it. But I'm certainly open to
[48:01] friendly amendments.
[48:03] >> Yeah, I mean, I, I, I think
[48:07] that I think you, I mean, based
[48:10] on the site, if the footprints
[48:13] of things can only be 600ft!S,
[48:14] then sure, let them do a second
[48:17] level and it's 1200 total and
[48:19] that's great. And if you want
[48:23] to do 1200 all in one story or
[48:24] 1100 all in one story, that's
[48:26] great. We just have to figure
[48:29] out, are we going to target a
[48:31] total floor space versus a
[48:33] building footprint, or are we
[48:36] going to have some threshold at
[48:37] which you lose your second
[48:39] level? I mean, I would just go
[48:41] total floor space because
[48:42] that's what's going to drive
[48:43] cost.
[48:44] >> So what would you suggest
[48:50] that MR. Yungmann. For total
[48:52] floor space.
[48:53] >> I would.
[48:54] >> Well, what's the term of art
[48:58] that is preferential for dpc?
[49:03] If it is floor space.
[49:05] >> I mean, what if he did 1200
[49:07] total floor space?
[49:08] >> Because I mean, these are
[49:10] senior houses. We're trying to
[49:11] get them out of stairs. We
[49:12] don't want.
[49:14] >> But but a lot of them are
[49:15] saying they want the bedroom
[49:16] for their grandkids or whatever,
[49:20] which you can absolutely do at
[49:21] 1000ft!S on one level. I mean,
[49:27] that's kind of the size of my.
[49:29] >> The heart of amendment 1 to
[49:30] 3 is really I was concerned
[49:31] about the cumulative total. And
[49:33] then by saying, you know, if
[49:34] you ban the basement and then
[49:36] say it must be on the single
[49:39] story, then I hoped we were
[49:40] getting closer to the the
[49:44] cottage clusters.
[49:45] >> Okay.
[49:46] >> I mean, my preference would
[49:50] be 1200ft!S, period. And, and
[49:53] nothing, no second floor. That
[49:56] that seems to me to be if we're
[49:58] really, truly putting this in
[50:01] place to create affordable
[50:04] senior housing, a cottage is
[50:07] one story and it's going to be
[50:11] a lot less expensive if it is
[50:14] only one story than if it's two
[50:16] stories. It just.
[50:19] >> I'm regretting moving my, my,
[50:20] my amendment.
[50:21] >> You could vote.
[50:22] >> It down.
[50:23] >> All right. So before us is
[50:25] amendment one to amendment
[50:27] three. It sounds like there MAY
[50:31] be an appetite for a friendly
[50:33] discussion about maybe having a
[50:35] 1200 or less or at most 1200 to
[50:38] handle the 900 or 1200
[50:40] situation. But I'll leave it up
[50:40] to.
[50:41] >> Well.
[50:41] >> I mean.
[50:43] >> I don't I don't remember the
[50:45] count. It wasn't me, but some
[50:46] majority of you determined that
[50:48] it was okay with you to call a
[50:52] cottage a two story building.
[50:55] Right? So, so how does this.
[50:55] >> How does.
[50:56] >> This anyway, it.
[50:58] >> Would have done it anyway.
[51:00] This would have a flat roof. I
[51:02] voted for the 22. Just so.
[51:03] >> You have a picture.
[51:04] >> It would be.
[51:05] >> That is an interesting
[51:06] argument. Okay.
[51:07] >> I mean, because you're
[51:08] putting this you're squeezing
[51:10] this in between like two
[51:12] colonials probably. So it'd be
[51:14] nice if it at least looked like
[51:17] those.
[51:18] >> Okay, any more discussion on
[51:20] amendment one to amendment
[51:23] three to cb 25.
[51:24] >> Amendment one to amendment
[51:27] three. Correct. I, I, I don't
[51:29] know, I think we still should
[51:34] be. What about making it
[51:36] 1200ft!S? And you can have a
[51:40] basement. So that way if
[51:43] somebody needs to have 1200ft!S,
[51:45] single story and you can have a
[51:46] basement, that way if somebody
[51:50] wants their grandkid to sleep
[51:52] downstairs or they need some
[51:53] extra space or whatever, then
[51:54] they can have it down there.
[51:59] But the 1200ft!S is, is the
[51:59] that's the space.
[52:01] >> That's not going to be more
[52:01] affordable.
[52:03] >> To go up than to go down.
[52:05] >> Do you? Don't you, would you
[52:05] say.
[52:07] >> More affordable to build?
[52:07] But not.
[52:08] >> That's what.
[52:10] >> I mean, not more valuable as
[52:11] far as the price you're going
[52:13] to pay. It would be you're
[52:14] going to pay more for a second
[52:16] floor with windows than you're
[52:16] going to pay.
[52:17] >> For basement. Right.
[52:19] >> I think we don't know what
[52:20] we're talking about.
[52:21] >> I would.
[52:22] >> I mean, look at any like
[52:23] structured parking. The costs
[52:25] are there when you have to go
[52:26] down and build a foundation.
[52:28] >> Know what I'm saying?
[52:29] >> So for construction.
[52:30] >> We've had conjecture on flat
[52:32] roof and the willingness of the
[52:33] private sector to build a flat
[52:35] roof at 20ft versus 22. And,
[52:37] and, and I mean, the, the law
[52:38] is pretty strict in terms of
[52:40] who is downstairs in the
[52:42] basement. It's limited. Like
[52:44] we're going to build a whole
[52:45] second story for someone to
[52:49] visit us. Three days. I just.
[52:51] >> I don't mind the concept of
[52:53] a second story if it's a second
[52:54] unit, but I don't know that we
[52:56] have those types of
[52:57] prescriptive guardrails written
[52:57] into this.
[52:59] >> I mean, I invite you to
[53:00] drive through any older
[53:01] neighborhood, like, for example,
[53:04] done Logan or Valley Mead and
[53:05] see the ramps that are into
[53:07] those homes just to get up the
[53:08] one step. Like if we're going
[53:10] to just start saying things,
[53:13] you know, Conjecturally falling
[53:16] is the number one. We can't.
[53:17] The whole notion of this, I
[53:19] thought, was to eliminate the
[53:20] step that we are rolling into
[53:22] our home, if need be, and
[53:24] rolling around it, not rolling
[53:26] down the stairs or up the
[53:29] stairs like this. We like.
[53:31] >> I thought the concept was to
[53:34] make it affordable, affordable,
[53:37] and safe, but I thought, yeah,
[53:37] affordable.
[53:38] >> Can I try to?
[53:40] >> Okay, go ahead, MR. Yungmann.
[53:46] >> So just where I am. I, I
[53:49] could live with 1200ft!S if it
[53:51] doesn't have a second story.
[53:53] And that's like the, the total
[53:54] square footage or whatever,
[53:56] which means we would have to
[53:57] rework this amendment to
[53:59] amendment three. So it's not
[54:01] like you can only have 900 or
[54:07] 1200. You can't have 950. Or
[54:10] you could just move amendment
[54:11] three and we make the whole
[54:11] thing.
[54:13] >> What's the procedure? How do
[54:15] I move it? What do I need? An
[54:16] unmoving of two motions. Now.
[54:17] >> Just to clarify that.
[54:19] >> Yeah. Before us amendment
[54:19] was Cristiano's amendment.
[54:21] >> Did I misread yours?
[54:23] >> Well, I just want. So if we
[54:24] undo this and say we don't want
[54:26] to take action, then we're
[54:27] saying we want them to be multi
[54:29] story. We don't want to put a
[54:30] restriction for 1200ft!S for a
[54:32] single story without a basement.
[54:33] >> Well, we wouldn't we
[54:34] wouldn't be at 1200. We'd be
[54:35] back to nine.
[54:37] >> We'd be at nine. But you can
[54:38] still go up.
[54:39] >> Yeah. You'd still be at
[54:40] 1800ft!S.
[54:41] >> And from a land use policy
[54:43] that's better in terms of
[54:44] impervious surface. But as soon
[54:45] as you're in a second story,
[54:47] we're not talking about age
[54:48] restricted and universal design.
[54:48] >> No.
[54:50] >> What if you. But we are
[54:51] talking about age restriction.
[54:52] >> Or affordability.
[54:52] >> Not realistically.
[54:54] >> What if you did total total
[54:55] footprint and total finished
[54:58] square foot. So you could do
[55:00] you know, your total footprint
[55:03] could be up to 900ft!S, but not
[55:05] 900 plus 900. You had a cap of
[55:09] like 1300ft!S in the total
[55:12] building. So then you could
[55:16] build like seven and 7 or 6 and
[55:18] 6 or 1200 and zero, but you
[55:20] couldn't build 900 plus 900.
[55:22] >> And just to be clear, we're
[55:24] talking 55 plus. So that covers
[55:26] an entire range of mobility.
[55:27] >> Oh yeah. I mean, 55.
[55:29] >> So, you know, we want.
[55:30] >> To be working and.
[55:32] >> Stuff, but this is where
[55:33] they're eating a place where we
[55:35] don't want them to move into a
[55:36] second like 75 plus, right?
[55:38] That this is where we're having
[55:38] them downsize.
[55:39] >> Well, they. MAY sometimes
[55:41] when you're 75, you don't,
[55:42] there MAY be medical things
[55:44] that happen that you don't get
[55:46] to choose independent living.
[55:47] You have a stroke, you have
[55:49] other situations. So it's, it's
[55:50] really old, older and oldest.
[55:52] Ideally, you would be able to
[55:54] live there until you don't. But
[55:56] I think it would be unwise of
[55:58] us to think that this is the
[55:59] final destination for every
[56:01] single person, and just not how
[56:02] they're really used.
[56:03] >> Office of law can't unwind
[56:05] this until we vote on the
[56:06] amendment to my amendment. I
[56:08] mean, I can't unwind it unless
[56:09] I have votes to unwind it, but
[56:11] I can't even try that
[56:11] procedural.
[56:13] >> You know, tactic. Go ahead.
[56:15] >> So right now, the, the I'd.
[56:16] >> Actually like the last 20
[56:18] minutes of my life back. Is
[56:18] that possible?
[56:22] >> No. Right. But amendment 1
[56:23] to 3 is pending. Okay. It's
[56:25] been moved and seconded. So the
[56:26] the person who moved and the
[56:28] person would have to be, you
[56:29] know, agreeable and then you
[56:31] could unwind.
[56:31] >> We can.
[56:33] >> Yes. That's fine. I will
[56:35] withdraw mine if everybody
[56:37] wants to be able to up and does
[56:37] not want to.
[56:39] >> I was the second for
[56:40] amendment one to amendment
[56:41] three. I withdraw that as well.
[56:43] Okay, so now we're back to.
[56:43] >> I.
[56:46] >> Move I withdraw my motion to
[56:47] advance amendment three.
[56:48] >> Okay. MISS Jung was the
[56:50] second, if I remember correctly.
[56:52] >> And I withdraw the second.
[56:52] >> Okay, perfect.
[56:54] >> My apologies from the proxy.
[56:54] Okay.
[56:56] >> All right. Great discussion
[56:56] everyone.
[57:01] >> So so where we ended up are
[57:03] just so we don't want to
[57:04] contemplate any other
[57:05] amendments as we go.
[57:07] >> We are we're back at two 900,
[57:08] right.
[57:09] >> We ended up back at.
[57:11] >> a townhouse, an expensive
[57:13] 900.
[57:17] >> You know, up, up to 1800ft!S
[57:18] above grade, plus a 900 square
[57:19] foot basement.
[57:20] >> We've also closed.
[57:22] >> Out the opportunities for us
[57:25] to make those changes.
[57:27] >> What do you mean?
[57:28] >> We have no vehicle? We
[57:29] withdrew the vehicle. We have
[57:30] no vehicle.
[57:31] >> We can do it.
[57:33] >> She can remove her amendment.
[57:34] >> Okay.
[57:36] >> Are we going to amend one of
[57:37] the other amendments? I'm just
[57:39] again, I'm not trying to be
[57:40] difficult, but I think the
[57:41] sites are going to be different
[57:43] where some sites you're going
[57:46] to want to build 1100ft!S all in
[57:49] one level, like
[57:50] >> What we kind of pictured
[57:52] some sites you say I can get a
[57:54] nice living room, kitchen and
[57:57] bedroom on one level, but I'm
[57:59] going to build a half of a
[58:00] upstairs so the building looks
[58:02] cool and doesn't look like a
[58:03] box. And they have a second
[58:07] bedroom upstairs and it's 800
[58:09] downstairs and hundred upstairs
[58:10] or something like that.
[58:13] >> So do you want to make move
[58:16] an amendment to the. So we were
[58:18] on amendment two. You could
[58:20] move amendment.
[58:21] >> Amendment two is already.
[58:22] >> Passed, right. I know we
[58:25] finished amendment two and the
[58:26] original amendment three was
[58:28] withdrawn. You could make a new
[58:31] amendment three from the dais
[58:35] here for your idea to.
[58:36] >> We would need four for that,
[58:37] right? I mean.
[58:38] >> Yeah.
[58:39] >> For a new amendment we would
[58:41] need four. But we could amend
[58:42] an amendment that's already
[58:44] here and try to put it on one
[58:45] of these others. But we
[58:46] couldn't we couldn't.
[58:48] >> Or you guys could withdraw.
[58:49] Withdraw passage of amendment
[58:50] two.
[58:51] >> Yeah. Because I think the
[58:53] problem with pulling amendment
[58:55] two is that they'll still
[58:57] figure out a way to build
[58:58] 1800ft!S with a flat roof.
[59:00] >> Look at amendment number
[59:02] five saying a style guide or a
[59:03] pattern book that would that
[59:05] would address that kind of
[59:05] thing.
[59:08] >> But I don't think a style
[59:09] guide or a pattern book is the
[59:11] right answer here. I think it's
[59:12] preapproved build plans, and I
[59:14] don't think that the developer.
[59:15] I wouldn't want a developer to
[59:17] suggest preapproved build plans.
[59:18] >> And I don't trust the
[59:20] planning board or you, I, I
[59:22] mean, even if you had stuff
[59:23] available to the community,
[59:25] they don't have any like
[59:27] authority to make sure it
[59:28] doesn't pass. They're going to
[59:29] have opinion.
[59:31] >> So do you want is it time
[59:32] for me to move amendment five?
[59:33] >> No.
[59:33] >> Okay.
[59:35] >> Well, sure. I mean, any, any
[59:37] amendment that is on the agenda
[59:40] can be moved if you want to
[59:41] jump to five. Sure. We'll be
[59:42] skipping four. But if that's
[59:44] what you wish to do, we can.
[59:45] There's nothing wrong with that.
[59:47] Is that true or you have to go
[59:48] in order.
[59:50] >> Well, I'm not going to move
[59:51] forward because one okay. One.
[59:53] >> Oh, gotcha. Okay. So there
[59:54] you go. Go ahead.
[59:56] >> And we have removed we have
[59:58] withdrawn collectively three
[59:59] three and its amendment.
[1:00:01] >> Okay. Go ahead, MR. Cook.
[1:00:06] >> So. If you land somewhere in
[1:00:10] terms of what you want to do,
[1:00:15] you could move again. Three and
[1:00:18] then start amending. Three
[1:00:21] differently from how I guess
[1:00:24] one proposed to amend three. So
[1:00:26] amendment 2 to 3.
[1:00:28] >> That's what I've been.
[1:00:29] >> Saying, right?
[1:00:31] >> Yeah. The vehicle.
[1:00:32] >> Of like, there's a lot of
[1:00:34] different ways you could do it.
[1:00:34] Okay.
[1:00:36] >> All right. That makes sense.
[1:00:38] >> So do you want to move it
[1:00:38] again?
[1:00:40] >> I don't know, I don't I mean,
[1:00:41] someone else can, but I don't
[1:00:43] hear the solution. Right? That
[1:00:44] was that 20 minutes. I don't
[1:00:46] hear like I don't hear the
[1:00:47] solution. And so all we have is
[1:00:48] the lowest common denominator,
[1:00:50] which is you're right. The
[1:00:51] first project that comes in is
[1:00:53] going to be a two story,
[1:00:54] whatever that square footage is
[1:00:56] with a flat roof. If that's the
[1:00:58] only way that you can actually
[1:00:59] shelter that kind of
[1:01:01] construction. But no, I'm not,
[1:01:05] I am not, as I said, when, when
[1:01:06] we were discussing it in that
[1:01:08] 20 or so minutes, I'm not
[1:01:10] interested in building or in
[1:01:13] any way enabling multi-story
[1:01:14] housing in this so-called
[1:01:16] cottage cluster legislation.
[1:01:18] That was never my intent.
[1:01:19] >> Why are we all opposed.
[1:01:22] >> To doing single story with a
[1:01:23] square footage limit and
[1:01:25] banning the basements? Why is
[1:01:26] there opposition to this?
[1:01:28] >> So you could go back to her
[1:01:32] exhibit three of 1200. Only we
[1:01:34] could we could amend this
[1:01:36] exhibit three and say it's 1200,
[1:01:38] but only on one level.
[1:01:38] >> Okay.
[1:01:40] >> But that's what amendment
[1:01:41] one to amendment three was.
[1:01:43] >> But but no, it didn't tell
[1:01:45] you what happened between 900
[1:01:46] and 1200.
[1:01:47] >> All you have to.
[1:01:48] >> Do is change what's in.
[1:01:50] >> Yeah, that's what I was
[1:01:51] saying. I was saying that we
[1:01:53] could do a 1200 or less or, or
[1:01:54] something like that.
[1:01:55] >> Or if we're.
[1:01:57] >> Committed to 1200, go ahead.
[1:01:57] No. Go ahead.
[1:01:59] >> No, I'm popping off.
[1:02:00] >> No go ahead.
[1:02:01] >> But it's just if we.
[1:02:03] >> If we want them to all be
[1:02:04] single stories, then it doesn't
[1:02:06] really matter. And we say
[1:02:07] single story and ban the
[1:02:08] basement and move forward.
[1:02:09] >> You can.
[1:02:10] >> Do that. I'm for that.
[1:02:11] >> Okay. Yes.
[1:02:12] >> Perfect. All right. So we
[1:02:15] can we can do that in amendment
[1:02:17] three is on the agenda. We can
[1:02:18] move. We could do it there or
[1:02:20] we could do it in a future
[1:02:21] amendment.
[1:02:23] >> Okay. But I'm sorry, did we
[1:02:25] did somebody move MISS Walsh's
[1:02:26] amendment or are we still
[1:02:28] waiting on that to be moved? So
[1:02:29] we have a vehicle.
[1:02:30] >> Well, that was already
[1:02:31] withdrawn amendment. So we
[1:02:32] passed amendment one. We passed
[1:02:33] amendment two. Now we can
[1:02:35] either move on to amendment
[1:02:36] five, or we could start right
[1:02:37] with amendment three, and then
[1:02:39] start that all over again. And
[1:02:40] MISS Walsh will have another 20
[1:02:41] minutes to no.
[1:02:43] >> Or if we have a consensus,
[1:02:45] four of us can just move a new
[1:02:46] amendment as a late file.
[1:02:48] >> Well, I'm gonna say if.
[1:02:49] >> You take amendment one to.
[1:02:52] We'll just. Yes. Okay. I move
[1:02:55] amendment.
[1:02:57] >> Nine nine.
[1:02:58] >> And amendment nine.
[1:03:01] >> Do we do we have to move to
[1:03:02] allow for the late file first?
[1:03:03] >> Yeah. That's okay. We could
[1:03:05] do that. So so this this is the
[1:03:07] process. Everyone we want to we
[1:03:10] we have four. It seems we have
[1:03:11] four. For a brand new amendment.
[1:03:13] We first have to if my
[1:03:15] recollection is correct, move
[1:03:18] to allow for the late filing of
[1:03:19] ignoring a rule or something
[1:03:22] like that. 1.05 b three I'm
[1:03:23] making up numbers, but
[1:03:24] something like that.
[1:03:27] >> You four members can allow
[1:03:29] for a late filed amendment. So
[1:03:31] this would be amendment nine.
[1:03:33] The motion be moved to allow
[1:03:35] the late filing of amendment
[1:03:36] nine. Go ahead and then you'll
[1:03:37] have to figure out what
[1:03:38] amendment nine actually.
[1:03:40] >> It's okay. I've got I've got
[1:03:40] amendment nine.
[1:03:41] >> So okay.
[1:03:43] >> Go for it. I move to approve
[1:03:44] the late file of amendment nine.
[1:03:49] >> Second, MISS Amendment. The
[1:03:51] motion to allow the late filing
[1:03:52] of amendment nine has been
[1:03:54] moved and seconded. Is there
[1:03:57] discussion on that or. Yeah.
[1:03:59] Any discussion? I can't
[1:04:00] remember if we just go straight
[1:04:02] to the vote. I say we just go
[1:04:03] straight to the vote. But any
[1:04:05] discussion? I have to allow it.
[1:04:06] MISS Harry, could you please
[1:04:07] call the vote chair? Jones yes.
[1:04:08] >> MISS Young.
[1:04:09] >> Yes.
[1:04:10] >> MISS Rigby,
[1:04:10] >> Yes.
[1:04:13] >> MISS Walsh, yes. MR.
[1:04:14] Yungmann. Yes.
[1:04:16] >> Okay. The motion to approve
[1:04:18] the late file of amendment nine
[1:04:19] passes. Now let's figure out
[1:04:20] what amendment nine is. MISS
[1:04:21] Rigby.
[1:04:24] >> Thank you. I move amendment
[1:04:27] that on page two in line two
[1:04:30] immediately after feet, insert
[1:04:34] an Em dash so that it reads 900
[1:04:38] dash 1200ft!S only when the
[1:04:39] cottage cluster dwelling is a
[1:04:41] single story dwelling and does
[1:04:43] not include a basement.
[1:04:46] >> Second.
[1:04:48] >> Colleagues, does that get us
[1:04:49] there? And what language do we
[1:04:50] need?
[1:04:51] >> Okay. Can you can you.
[1:04:52] >> Go over?
[1:04:53] >> So basically the wording was
[1:04:55] look, just like the wording
[1:04:56] looked just like amendment one
[1:04:57] to amendment three from before.
[1:04:59] It is now amendment nine. And
[1:05:02] there's an Em dash between 900
[1:05:03] and 1200.
[1:05:03] >> Okay.
[1:05:05] >> I think actually.
[1:05:06] >> I think all the other words
[1:05:07] are pretty much.
[1:05:08] >> Then if you were at like
[1:05:10] eight, nine, nine, you could
[1:05:11] still you'd still you're still
[1:05:13] getting 1800ft!S. I thought we
[1:05:14] were going down the road of
[1:05:16] they just have to be single
[1:05:17] story, that is. Oh, okay.
[1:05:18] >> Got it. So but.
[1:05:20] >> And also we also have to
[1:05:22] strike less right before I
[1:05:25] believe. But I would ask for an
[1:05:27] assist from MISS Mitchell and
[1:05:29] MR. Cook.
[1:05:34] >> And drafters and everybody.
[1:05:36] >> That grouping at least.
[1:05:39] >> Yes. So let's go ahead and
[1:05:42] take it is 811. Let's come back
[1:05:46] at 820 something. No, no, no
[1:05:49] later than like 825 and figure
[1:05:50] this out before us is amendment
[1:05:52] right. I'm ready when you are.
[1:05:55] >> Yeah.
[1:06:01] >> Yay.
[1:06:04] >> Okay. We are back in session.
[1:06:08] And before us is amendment nine
[1:06:10] which has been moved and
[1:06:14] seconded. We got the wording.
[1:06:15] So for everyone we'll read it
[1:06:17] now. Let's make sure.
[1:06:20] >> So this really goes to
[1:06:21] redefining the definition and
[1:06:23] makes it quite clear that it is
[1:06:25] a grouping, including a common
[1:06:27] courtyard of at least four
[1:06:29] single storey detached dwelling
[1:06:30] units that have a footprint of
[1:06:33] no more than 1200ft!S and does
[1:06:36] not include a basement.
[1:06:38] >> Awesome. Any final
[1:06:40] discussion or. Well, it's a new
[1:06:41] amendment. So any discussion?
[1:06:45] >> Yes. I just want to say that
[1:06:46] I think the five of us did a
[1:06:49] great job of pulling this
[1:06:51] together and coming up with
[1:06:52] something that we all agree on.
[1:06:55] So thank you, colleagues, for
[1:06:57] your good work and your
[1:06:59] thoughtful comments.
[1:07:00] >> All right.
[1:07:02] >> Is it true that there's an
[1:07:03] amendment to this amendment or
[1:07:05] that was for something? Okay,
[1:07:06] okay. Gotcha, gotcha. Okay. All
[1:07:08] right. MISS Harry, could you
[1:07:09] please call the vote on
[1:07:11] amendment nine to cb 25?
[1:07:11] >> Chair Jones.
[1:07:12] >> Yes.
[1:07:14] >> MISS Young.
[1:07:14] >> Yes.
[1:07:16] >> MISS Rigby yes, MISS Walsh.
[1:07:18] >> Well done. Yes.
[1:07:19] >> MR. Yungmann yes.
[1:07:21] >> All right. The motion to
[1:07:25] approve amendment nine to cb
[1:07:27] 2543 minutes later passes.
[1:07:28] >> Yes.
[1:07:29] >> That's how it works. That's
[1:07:30] how the process works.
[1:07:32] >> I move to approve amendment
[1:07:33] number five to Council. Bill
[1:07:43] number 25, 2026.
[1:07:45] >> Is there a second to the
[1:07:46] motion to approve amendment
[1:07:52] five? Amendment five to cb 25
[1:07:54] fails due to the lack of a
[1:07:54] second.
[1:07:55] >> Okay, I'm going to skip
[1:07:57] amendment number six and move
[1:07:58] right to amendment seven. All
[1:07:59] of these amendments forwarded
[1:08:03] by office were the the result
[1:08:05] of public hearing testimony,
[1:08:06] largely, and or emails that
[1:08:09] succeeded that. But I move
[1:08:10] amendment seven to Council bill
[1:08:13] number 25 2026.
[1:08:14] >> Second.
[1:08:15] >> This amendment requires
[1:08:17] cottage cluster age restricted
[1:08:19] adult housing to utilize or
[1:08:20] that are utilizing the optional
[1:08:21] design project to incorporate
[1:08:22] the most recent universal
[1:08:24] design features from the
[1:08:25] Department of Planning and
[1:08:27] Zoning. And so that's the most
[1:08:28] recent, is the phrasing that
[1:08:31] we've added by virtue of
[1:08:33] amendment number seven.
[1:08:35] >> Okay. Amendment seven to cb
[1:08:36] 25 has been moved and seconded.
[1:08:38] Any discussion? Can I ask a
[1:08:40] question? Go ahead.
[1:08:46] >> What if, what if. What if
[1:08:48] the code changes while the
[1:08:51] process is. While the the
[1:08:53] project's already in process?
[1:08:55] >> I mean, I think that happens
[1:08:57] all the time with with dps and
[1:08:59] they make some. Yeah, I would
[1:08:59] need.
[1:09:01] >> I mean, would. It would you
[1:09:02] still have that regular
[1:09:03] grandfathering in? Like they
[1:09:05] didn't have to go and redesign
[1:09:07] their project again?
[1:09:08] >> So, you know, how we
[1:09:09] currently interpret is we have
[1:09:10] grandfathering provisions
[1:09:11] depending on what phase of the
[1:09:14] plan that it's in. So that
[1:09:16] would be based on, on that.
[1:09:18] >> So as long as, as, as when
[1:09:19] it comes in, it's using the
[1:09:21] most recent or before it gets
[1:09:22] to that threshold.
[1:09:24] >> Correct? Yeah. They would
[1:09:25] have to be grandfathered under
[1:09:26] our grandfathering provisions,
[1:09:27] just similar to what we did
[1:09:28] with the landscape manual that
[1:09:29] was just updated.
[1:09:30] >> Okay.
[1:09:33] >> Thank you.
[1:09:36] >> Okay.
[1:09:37] >> Yeah.
[1:09:40] >> Okay. Amendment seven.
[1:09:43] >> Okay.
[1:09:44] >> What are we doing?
[1:09:45] >> Yes, yes. Amendment seven is
[1:09:46] before us.
[1:09:47] >> Let's vote it, baby.
[1:09:48] >> Okay. Any other discussion
[1:09:53] on amendment seven to cb 25?
[1:09:57] And just to just to clarify,
[1:10:00] you are saying the most recent
[1:10:03] is the on two places. I do
[1:10:05] apologize for some reason my
[1:10:06] book is missing page ten and 11.
[1:10:09] And it wasn't earlier that
[1:10:10] break did someone take my. Page
[1:10:12] 1011. I had it earlier.
[1:10:13] >> I took it just.
[1:10:15] >> You took it just a minute.
[1:10:15] Okay. I don't.
[1:10:17] >> See it, I really didn't.
[1:10:19] >> Yeah, I'll give me a second.
[1:10:23] >> Yeah. Okay. And do we have.
[1:10:23] >> I didn't.
[1:10:26] >> Want to. I didn't confuse.
[1:10:28] >> So I figured I figured I'd
[1:10:31] hold it.
[1:10:34] >> Somebody use it.
[1:10:35] >> I'm going to give you.
[1:10:37] >> Ten or Isaiah.
[1:10:39] >> I give you an extra one.
[1:10:48] >> Yeah. 1119 and 24. Would be
[1:10:50] the most recent.
[1:10:51] >> Okay. All right. Sorry about
[1:10:53] that. Okay. Amendment seven is
[1:10:55] before us to cb 25, please call
[1:10:59] the vote chair. Jones yes,
[1:11:00] >> MISS Young.
[1:11:01] >> Yes.
[1:11:04] >> MISS Rigby yes. MISS Walsh
[1:11:06] yes. MR. Yungmann.
[1:11:06] >> Yes.
[1:11:08] >> Okay. The motion to approve
[1:11:10] amendment seven to cb 25 passes.
[1:11:12] >> Okay. I move to approve
[1:11:14] amendment number eight to
[1:11:17] Council. Bill number 25, 2026.
[1:11:19] And then I'm passing down an
[1:11:22] amendment to that amendment,
[1:11:23] and I'll describe it.
[1:11:24] >> Picture that we need a
[1:11:25] second.
[1:11:26] >> Oh, before I even describe
[1:11:28] it. Okay.
[1:11:29] >> Is there a second for
[1:11:36] amendment eight to cb 25? Is
[1:11:39] there a second? Okay. Amendment
[1:11:42] eight fails for the lack of a
[1:11:44] second. All right. Amendment
[1:11:48] nine is done. No new amendments.
[1:11:50] We are back to the main motion
[1:11:54] of cb 25, as amended. Any final
[1:11:58] discussion? Okay. MISS Harris,
[1:12:01] could you please call the vote
[1:12:03] chair? Jones yes,
[1:12:04] >> MISS Young.
[1:12:05] >> Yes.
[1:12:07] >> MISS Rigby yes, MISS Walsh.
[1:12:08] >> I'm sorry. What are we
[1:12:09] voting on?
[1:12:09] >> cb 25.
[1:12:11] >> Okay. Right. Okay. So that
[1:12:12] last amendment that I couldn't
[1:12:15] get a second on related to the
[1:12:16] affordability requirement, and
[1:12:18] as is this new cottage cluster
[1:12:21] development has none. And it
[1:12:22] requires it so long as you
[1:12:24] provide a whole host of
[1:12:26] additional public amenities.
[1:12:31] That is noted by one of our our
[1:12:33] notable followers includes all
[1:12:34] kinds of things that do not
[1:12:36] denote affordability, like
[1:12:37] pools and pool houses. And it's
[1:12:39] not an exhaustive list, but
[1:12:41] rather a demonstrative list. So
[1:12:43] the point of amendment number
[1:12:44] eight was to actually just
[1:12:46] require affordability here in a
[1:12:48] place where we're increasing
[1:12:49] dramatically affordability. I
[1:12:51] think we have done good by some
[1:12:53] of the earlier amendments to
[1:12:55] actually build in affordability,
[1:12:56] but this would have been that
[1:12:59] second last step. I am
[1:13:01] encouraged by the map that we
[1:13:03] saw tonight versus the one that
[1:13:04] was presented in the technical
[1:13:06] staff report that made it look
[1:13:07] like all of district one and a
[1:13:09] lot of other places that are
[1:13:11] already suffering from infill
[1:13:12] development done bad, and the
[1:13:13] lack of actual planning and or
[1:13:14] zoning that makes sense for
[1:13:16] people who live here or want to
[1:13:20] live here. So I think this is a
[1:13:22] good place to start. I think we
[1:13:23] could have done better by
[1:13:24] actually requiring
[1:13:26] affordability. But but we can
[1:13:28] see what happens as this builds
[1:13:30] in. So my vote is. Yes.
[1:13:32] >> MR. Yungmann.
[1:13:33] >> Yes.
[1:13:35] >> Okay. The motion to approve
[1:13:39] cb 25, as amended, passes.
[1:13:42] >> Council Bill 31, 2026,
[1:13:44] introduced by Christiana Rigby,
[1:13:47] smart strategic Moratorium for
[1:13:48] assessing Responsible
[1:13:55] Technology Siting Act.
[1:13:57] >> I move amendment one to cb
[1:13:58] to move the bill. I mean, I
[1:14:02] move the bill, I move cb 31
[1:14:02] 2026.
[1:14:03] >> To approve it. Yes, to
[1:14:05] approve it I second.
[1:14:06] >> Okay, I also move
[1:14:10] amendment one second. So
[1:14:12] what amendment does this
[1:14:13] was addressed by I think,
[1:14:15] MISS Lopresti, but it
[1:14:16] addresses the issue of red
[1:14:18] lines for previously
[1:14:20] approved plans. So that way if
[1:14:21] someone needed to make changes
[1:14:24] to their existing building,
[1:14:26] that they would be able to. So
[1:14:28] this is more to allow for those
[1:14:32] changes for existing and still
[1:14:34] prohibit the new.
[1:14:37] >> Okay. Amendment one to cb 31
[1:14:39] has been moved and seconded.
[1:14:43] Any discussion, MISS Welsh?
[1:14:45] >> We have now moved on to the
[1:14:47] data center. Pause. Right. Yes.
[1:14:49] And this amendment number one,
[1:14:50] that the sponsor of that data
[1:14:53] center pause has has put
[1:14:55] forward says that to the extent
[1:14:59] there are ongoing projects in.
[1:15:00] >> Or like.
[1:15:01] >> It's previously approved. So
[1:15:03] if you have a previously
[1:15:04] approved development plan, so
[1:15:06] like you exist now you've been
[1:15:08] operating, you want to upgrade
[1:15:10] your, I think she said chiller
[1:15:12] that this would allow you to do
[1:15:13] that.
[1:15:14] >> That existing data
[1:15:16] processing processing centers.
[1:15:17] >> Yeah, we have some that are
[1:15:20] like that are not like ai
[1:15:21] sprawling ones, but are more
[1:15:24] under the sort of 90s concept,
[1:15:25] like within an office building
[1:15:27] that are a stack.
[1:15:29] >> Where like, how many, what
[1:15:30] are we talking about?
[1:15:32] >> I couldn't tell you how many,
[1:15:36] but I'm positive that apl has
[1:15:38] like this smaller scale type is
[1:15:41] in use by apl, probably cpss
[1:15:43] potentially hospital. Howard
[1:15:44] County government would have
[1:15:47] some that would be similar. And
[1:15:50] then I know that there's at
[1:15:52] least 1 or 2 off of the Gilford
[1:15:53] Industrial Park, but they're
[1:15:55] more like like ones next to a
[1:15:56] church. It's just it looks like
[1:15:57] an office building. But if you
[1:16:00] were to upgrade like some of
[1:16:03] your equipment, then that would
[1:16:04] require like if you were to do
[1:16:06] a rooftop change, then that
[1:16:09] would require a red line.
[1:16:10] >> Okay, well, I still think
[1:16:11] it's a mistake to go forward
[1:16:12] with something like this if
[1:16:14] it's serious enough to put a
[1:16:16] pause on new construction. And
[1:16:17] the period that we're asking
[1:16:19] for that pause to extend is
[1:16:21] relatively de minimis, I don't
[1:16:25] I don't really see or hear
[1:16:25] >> Now.
[1:16:27] >> Although I still have no
[1:16:29] sense of the scope, you know,
[1:16:30] any compelling reason to veer
[1:16:31] from the spirit of that
[1:16:34] original bill as submitted?
[1:16:38] Putting that pause as to all
[1:16:40] data centers proposed, existing,
[1:16:43] expanded or new.
[1:16:45] >> To be clear, the bill
[1:16:49] specifically addresses new.
[1:16:50] >> Any other discussion on
[1:16:54] amendment one to cb 31? Please
[1:16:55] call the vote.
[1:16:55] >> Chair.
[1:16:57] >> Jones. Yes, MISS.
[1:16:59] >> Jung yes, MISS.
[1:17:01] >> Rigby yes.
[1:17:04] >> MISS. Walsh no. MR. Yungmann.
[1:17:06] Yes.
[1:17:07] >> Motion to approve amendment
[1:17:10] one to cb 31 passes.
[1:17:11] >> I move to approve amendment
[1:17:13] two to cb 31.
[1:17:14] >> Second.
[1:17:17] >> This amendment expand sort
[1:17:19] of specifies the constellation
[1:17:21] of expertise, utilities,
[1:17:23] infrastructure, water resource
[1:17:24] management, climate resilience
[1:17:26] and environmental science,
[1:17:28] acoustic mitigation, economic
[1:17:29] development, data center
[1:17:31] development, data center
[1:17:32] operation, and two members from
[1:17:34] the building trades. And then
[1:17:37] it also requires the county
[1:17:38] executive to establish, by a
[1:17:39] separate executive order, the
[1:17:41] members of the task force, and
[1:17:43] then it requires a public
[1:17:45] process to solicit the names,
[1:17:47] and then also requires a public
[1:17:49] hearing to receive public
[1:17:50] comment.
[1:17:51] >> Okay. Do you have an
[1:17:52] amendment one to amendment two?
[1:17:55] >> Why yes, I do. I move
[1:17:56] amendment one to amendment two
[1:18:00] second. So this adds additional
[1:18:02] instruction instead of consider.
[1:18:05] It requires recommendations.
[1:18:07] And then it also asks asks the
[1:18:09] group to assess the impact of
[1:18:10] data centers on the Howard
[1:18:12] County climate forward Climate
[1:18:15] Action and Resiliency plan.
[1:18:16] >> Okay.
[1:18:17] >> I'll give colleagues a
[1:18:19] moment to read it, including
[1:18:24] myself. Okay. Before us is.
[1:18:25] >> Well.
[1:18:26] >> I guess we just do one
[1:18:27] amendment to.
[1:18:30] >> Yep, yep. That's okay.
[1:18:31] Amendment one to amendment two
[1:18:33] to cb 31 has been moved and
[1:18:39] seconded. Any discussion? Okay.
[1:18:40] MISS, could you please call the
[1:18:41] vote?
[1:18:42] >> Chair Jones.
[1:18:43] >> Yes, MISS.
[1:18:45] >> Young yes, MISS Rigby yes.
[1:18:50] MISS Walsh no. MR. Yungmann.
[1:18:51] >> Yes.
[1:18:52] >> Okay. Amendment one to
[1:18:57] amendment two to cb 31 pass.
[1:19:00] >> I move amendment two. Where
[1:19:02] is my. I meant I move amendment
[1:19:04] two to amendment two to Council
[1:19:07] bill number 31, 2026.
[1:19:08] >> Second.
[1:19:10] >> This amendment to amendment
[1:19:11] strikes this notion of
[1:19:13] including persons involved in
[1:19:14] data center development and
[1:19:16] data center operation from the
[1:19:17] experience requirements from
[1:19:20] the task force and adds
[1:19:21] requirement that each Council
[1:19:22] Member district shall be
[1:19:24] entitled to nominate one member
[1:19:28] each to the Task force.
[1:19:30] >> Okay, okay.
[1:19:31] >> Amendment two to amendment
[1:19:33] to the cb 31 has been moved and
[1:19:34] seconded. Any discussion?
[1:19:43] >> MISS Walsh would the.
[1:19:45] Substantial experience in the
[1:19:47] following areas of expertise,
[1:19:51] from MISS Rigby's amendment to
[1:19:54] still apply for the Council
[1:19:56] member selections?
[1:19:58] >> Yeah, that was the intent of
[1:20:00] this amendment that it would be.
[1:20:02] >> So we're just I, I see
[1:20:04] we're taking out 12 lines
[1:20:06] 12 and 13 and putting in
[1:20:08] the council member and the
[1:20:10] county executive. That
[1:20:15] makes sense.
[1:20:16] >> So I think we should
[1:20:18] have industry experts on
[1:20:20] this task force. But I like
[1:20:22] the second part of the
[1:20:23] amendment, where the County
[1:20:24] Council gets to appoint
[1:20:25] some people to the task
[1:20:25] force.
[1:20:30] >> I do too, so. Do we have
[1:20:31] we do have.
[1:20:32] >> To pursue that.
[1:20:33] >> You did.
[1:20:35] >> Your amendment right,
[1:20:38] MISS Walsh. I don't have it. So
[1:20:39] I'm I'm just.
[1:20:40] >> Going to do.
[1:20:41] >> I passed him down.
[1:20:42] >> No, no.
[1:20:43] >> I don't have one.
[1:20:43] >> It's.
[1:20:45] >> Yeah it's probably under
[1:20:46] some other ones. Got it.
[1:20:47] >> I got it.
[1:20:49] >> I mean my amendment two is
[1:20:51] two part one part strikes this
[1:20:53] notion of data center and
[1:20:54] development and data center
[1:20:56] operation being part of the
[1:20:58] required expertise or
[1:21:00] experience. And then the second
[1:21:03] part says that we, the five
[1:21:04] council members or our
[1:21:06] successors will nominate one
[1:21:09] member each to the task force
[1:21:11] and that there will be
[1:21:12] additionally appointed by
[1:21:13] individual council resolutions.
[1:21:15] >> Sorry. So to clarify, it
[1:21:17] says that it now sets the total
[1:21:18] number for the task force as
[1:21:20] well. So it's setting a number
[1:21:24] of seven. Or is it setting
[1:21:25] seven additional?
[1:21:26] >> No. Seven total.
[1:21:30] >> Seven total to get utilities,
[1:21:32] infrastructure, water resource
[1:21:32] management, climate resilience
[1:21:34] and environmental science,
[1:21:36] acoustic mitigation, economic
[1:21:37] development. And then two
[1:21:38] members from the building
[1:21:40] trades within that.
[1:21:45] >> Seven. Yes.
[1:21:48] >> MISS Rigby, what were you
[1:21:50] anticipating? Did you have
[1:21:54] numbers in mind for the list of
[1:21:56] expertise that you were that
[1:21:58] you have listed in your.
[1:22:00] >> I did not, because ideally
[1:22:02] through the public process, you
[1:22:04] know, I didn't want to close
[1:22:06] out. If you had two really
[1:22:07] great acoustic mitigation
[1:22:08] experts that had different
[1:22:10] areas of expertise, maybe one
[1:22:13] is on the generator side and,
[1:22:15] you know, on the actual
[1:22:16] technical pieces, and the other
[1:22:19] is in a different area that
[1:22:20] that would prohibit them. So I
[1:22:22] didn't want to limit the number,
[1:22:24] and I really wanted it to be
[1:22:27] more technically focused to, to
[1:22:28] provide the technical
[1:22:30] recommendations.
[1:22:33] >> Okay. So MISS Walsh's
[1:22:34] amendment would still include
[1:22:36] this list.
[1:22:37] >> But limits it to only.
[1:22:38] >> Seven, but limit it to only
[1:22:39] seven.
[1:22:40] >> We all have to pick a person.
[1:22:42] >> Well, again, the way this
[1:22:45] this amendment is drafted to is
[1:22:46] not written like many of our
[1:22:48] others that say to serve on a.
[1:22:50] I don't even want to use an
[1:22:51] example because we don't have
[1:22:53] one for Board of Appeals, but I
[1:22:54] think human rights. I know
[1:22:55] Historic Preservation
[1:22:57] Commission has like a list of
[1:22:58] qualifying things, not a
[1:23:00] required entity representing
[1:23:02] each of these in. In my view,
[1:23:05] this was a way to stack a
[1:23:06] commission with a certain
[1:23:08] number of viewpoints before
[1:23:10] they open their mouth. And so I
[1:23:12] am less concerned about meeting
[1:23:14] all of those now listed. Eight
[1:23:16] is your proposed amendment
[1:23:18] number two, but rather having a
[1:23:20] good cross-section of people
[1:23:21] who actually live here and will
[1:23:23] deal with the consequences of
[1:23:24] all of those things that you've
[1:23:26] listed in one through eight and
[1:23:28] maybe more. But I would suggest
[1:23:31] that the that the better
[1:23:32] improvement to amendment two
[1:23:34] would be to word it like every
[1:23:36] other commission is empaneled
[1:23:37] and not create this one that
[1:23:39] does this one that does that,
[1:23:41] one that does this. And I'm not
[1:23:43] even sure that's what you
[1:23:44] intended, but that is how I
[1:23:46] read it. I think it, it reads.
[1:23:47] >> I don't, I don't.
[1:23:49] >> Yeah, I don't read it like
[1:23:49] that.
[1:23:51] >> And I'm disappointed because
[1:23:52] I did send out emails
[1:23:53] requesting feedback and got
[1:23:53] nothing.
[1:23:55] >> So I, I read it, as you know,
[1:23:57] one person could have all eight
[1:24:00] of these in their expertise.
[1:24:02] One person could have 2 or 3. I
[1:24:05] didn't see it as one person per
[1:24:06] area of expertise.
[1:24:08] >> Okay. The, the number of, of
[1:24:10] appointees doesn't then yeah,
[1:24:12] I'm back to seven. I don't I
[1:24:14] don't think 14 or 9 or I think
[1:24:16] seven again, is, is
[1:24:17] commensurate with some of the
[1:24:19] other commissions that we put
[1:24:21] in place and I think is, again,
[1:24:22] representative of the
[1:24:24] cross-section of, of the county
[1:24:26] as a whole.
[1:24:29] >> I like the task task forces
[1:24:31] that are a little bit bigger,
[1:24:34] because you can break down into
[1:24:37] sub sections or even
[1:24:38] subsections, just as long as
[1:24:40] you have an odd number, maybe
[1:24:42] the chairs chosen by the
[1:24:43] council, the county executive
[1:24:46] or something. But having 15 or
[1:24:48] 13 or, you know, 17, you could
[1:24:51] have three or maybe even four
[1:24:53] beefy committees to do their
[1:24:56] work, come back, meet. So I
[1:24:57] like the bigger numbers. Having
[1:24:59] the County Council members pick
[1:25:00] one I don't think is a bad
[1:25:01] thing, but I definitely
[1:25:03] wouldn't want to limit it at
[1:25:04] seven. I think something like
[1:25:06] this, you know, looks better at
[1:25:08] like 15 or 13 with committees,
[1:25:16] which we've seen before as well.
[1:25:19] I think the way the bill is
[1:25:22] written, MISS Rigby, would the
[1:25:23] county executive determine like.
[1:25:27] So let's. Yeah, yeah. And past
[1:25:29] past practice has been in the
[1:25:32] low teens or mid teens. And
[1:25:33] we've seen committees form from
[1:25:35] them. All right. Good
[1:25:36] discussion. Any other
[1:25:38] discussion on amendment two to
[1:25:40] amendment two. Okay. Yeah go
[1:25:41] ahead.
[1:25:43] >> So what what task force are
[1:25:45] you thinking of Doctor Jones
[1:25:47] I'm trying to this this one
[1:25:51] seems like the ones that the
[1:25:57] only one I can think of is Apfo.
[1:26:00] 1450. Oh of course I remember.
[1:26:01] >> It was grueling.
[1:26:02] >> It was grueling.
[1:26:03] >> We endured that.
[1:26:05] >> Yes we did. It was a. Yeah,
[1:26:07] we won't go there.
[1:26:08] >> Yeah.
[1:26:10] >> Maybe 17. But yeah, actually,
[1:26:13] I think it made that task force
[1:26:13] unworkable.
[1:26:14] >> Well.
[1:26:18] >> That's we yeah. It was. So
[1:26:21] that's I guess I'm thinking if
[1:26:23] we wanted to expand it, maybe
[1:26:27] nine or even 11. But that would
[1:26:29] be I think that would be the
[1:26:31] maximum number. I think the
[1:26:33] larger you get, the more
[1:26:34] unwieldy you get, the harder it
[1:26:37] gets to come to a resolution,
[1:26:42] even make recommendations.
[1:26:44] >> Okay.
[1:26:45] >> But you don't have any
[1:26:47] number at all. And Liz has the
[1:26:48] number seven.
[1:26:48] >> Yes.
[1:26:50] >> Well, I.
[1:26:50] >> I think.
[1:26:50] >> I.
[1:26:52] >> Assumed we're not going to
[1:26:54] be it was not going to end up
[1:26:55] being unreasonable.
[1:26:56] >> Right? Not like 70, 72,000.
[1:26:58] >> Is required to staff and you
[1:27:01] know, right. They're not going
[1:27:03] to make it more painful than it
[1:27:06] has to be. But I didn't want to
[1:27:08] be so prescriptive on the set
[1:27:08] number.
[1:27:10] >> But very prescriptive in
[1:27:11] terms of the expertise.
[1:27:13] >> Well, I was really going for
[1:27:15] a constellation and asked for
[1:27:16] feedback because I wanted it to
[1:27:18] be a constellation of expertise
[1:27:19] so we could consider a variety
[1:27:21] of elements and variables in
[1:27:22] this.
[1:27:23] >> Did this, does this, does
[1:27:24] this have legal sufficiency
[1:27:26] without specifying the size of
[1:27:27] this task force? It could be
[1:27:31] anywhere from 1 to 37,000. Like
[1:27:36] what?
[1:27:38] >> If you're asking if it's
[1:27:42] sufficient, it it is the the
[1:27:43] bill doesn't have to set a
[1:27:45] number. So the effect of your
[1:27:47] amendment would. To actually
[1:27:49] cap it at, I guess, seven,
[1:27:51] right? Two for the executive
[1:27:53] and then one for each council
[1:27:59] member. That's basically the
[1:28:02] way it reads. Now, there is no
[1:28:05] limit. There's no set number.
[1:28:06] Amendment two would just sort
[1:28:09] of set expertise. Areas that
[1:28:10] appointees, whoever they end up
[1:28:11] being, should have.
[1:28:13] >> Okay. So in that example,
[1:28:14] what would prevent the county
[1:28:16] executive from appointing
[1:28:19] exclusively 15 task force
[1:28:23] members who comport with the
[1:28:25] data, the two that were that
[1:28:28] I'm proposing we strike data
[1:28:30] collection and data development
[1:28:32] or something.
[1:28:34] >> Because they have to have.
[1:28:35] The other. Ones as well.
[1:28:37] >> The compilation, I'm
[1:28:38] assuming the compilation of all
[1:28:40] the people comprised of this
[1:28:43] task force would hit at some
[1:28:45] point. All of these, maybe some
[1:28:47] more than others, but all of
[1:28:49] these eight would be covered by
[1:28:52] x number, hopefully an odd
[1:28:54] number, but x number of task
[1:28:55] force members. Go ahead, MR.
[1:28:56] Yungmann.
[1:28:57] >> Why don't you just put a cap
[1:28:59] on it? That's more than seven,
[1:29:01] but less than 37,000.
[1:29:02] >> I mean, like I said.
[1:29:03] >> I.
[1:29:03] >> Mean.
[1:29:05] >> I would just make it 15.
[1:29:07] >> I mean, this is why I was.
[1:29:09] >> Going to let them make that
[1:29:09] decision.
[1:29:10] >> Yeah. Who's them.
[1:29:12] >> Who's who is them.
[1:29:12] >> The administration.
[1:29:15] >> Lines 12 and 13. The county
[1:29:17] executive shall establish the
[1:29:18] members of the task force who
[1:29:19] shall be chosen from a
[1:29:20] selection of names solicited
[1:29:21] through a public process.
[1:29:25] >> Yeah. But they could do
[1:29:27] 37,000. I'm just saying, like,
[1:29:29] if we want to cap it then just
[1:29:30] put a cap on it.
[1:29:31] >> But yeah, I'm okay.
[1:29:33] >> I mean, that is typical of
[1:29:34] boards. When you look at board
[1:29:36] bylaws, it says a minimum of
[1:29:38] seven, a maximum of 15. That's
[1:29:39] not unusual.
[1:29:40] >> Yeah.
[1:29:41] >> This was always a big
[1:29:45] omission in the original bill.
[1:29:48] Yes it was. Our question. Was
[1:29:51] how is this how is this body
[1:29:54] comprised and and initially
[1:29:58] established.
[1:30:00] >> I'm under the impression I'm
[1:30:02] under the impression by reading
[1:30:04] this bill and with the
[1:30:06] experience that we have seen,
[1:30:07] with the examples we have seen
[1:30:11] with other task forces, other
[1:30:15] task forces that the county
[1:30:18] executive would comprise a body
[1:30:20] with a sizable number, whether
[1:30:25] that's 9 or 11, you know, 13.
[1:30:27] To hit all of these points, I
[1:30:31] don't I would hope that a
[1:30:33] county executive elected by the
[1:30:37] people wouldn't pick 51 data
[1:30:39] center experts. And then, I
[1:30:40] don't know, that's just, you
[1:30:42] know, again, you'd have to
[1:30:43] staff it where they're going to
[1:30:44] meet and that that would just
[1:30:47] be a bit unreasonable. But I do
[1:30:49] understand the concern. So if
[1:30:52] there's an appetite for an
[1:30:53] amendment to amendment two that
[1:30:56] just deals with minimums and
[1:30:57] maximums, I'm cool with that.
[1:31:00] Or a minimum and a maximum, but
[1:31:02] other than that, I'm ready to
[1:31:03] vote if there's no more
[1:31:03] discussion.
[1:31:05] >> Okay, you want to vote on
[1:31:06] amendment number two. And
[1:31:07] depending on where that goes,
[1:31:08] I'll I'll move amendment number
[1:31:12] three that just proposes lines
[1:31:14] eight through 11 of amendment
[1:31:15] two.
[1:31:17] >> Yeah, I'm I'm happy with a
[1:31:19] minimum and a maximum. Other
[1:31:21] than that, I like the way the
[1:31:22] bill. The bill reads. So is
[1:31:23] there any more discussion on
[1:31:27] amendment two to amendment two?
[1:31:28] Oh, actually I do have one more
[1:31:30] question. MISS Walsh. You said
[1:31:31] to strike the phrase in
[1:31:32] accordance with section 902 of
[1:31:34] the of the County charter. Was
[1:31:42] that for a specific reason?
[1:31:43] Because I didn't want to.
[1:31:44] >> Yeah.
[1:31:44] >> Yeah. Sorry.
[1:31:59] >> I'm looking.
[1:32:02] >> On page three in line.
[1:32:03] >> MISS Walsh, would you like
[1:32:05] me to answer that, please?
[1:32:07] >> Yes.
[1:32:07] >> Yes, please.
[1:32:09] >> I can't find.
[1:32:11] >> So that was added more as a
[1:32:13] technical suggestion at our
[1:32:15] request, because the way that
[1:32:16] the bill is structured, it's
[1:32:18] really a section, a charter,
[1:32:21] section 902 board, which the
[1:32:23] executive can appoint his board.
[1:32:24] And the council also has the
[1:32:25] authority to appoint their
[1:32:27] board. But the way that
[1:32:29] amendment two to amendment two
[1:32:31] was structured, it kind of it
[1:32:34] made it a joint task force. And
[1:32:38] so it was no longer. 902 board.
[1:32:39] >> Thank you. Thank you, MISS
[1:32:41] Mayo. I know I asked it on the
[1:32:43] front side, but I can't
[1:32:46] remember. Okay.
[1:32:46] >> Okay.
[1:32:48] >> So we would need to I'll get
[1:32:49] there when we get.
[1:32:51] >> So if there's, if there's an
[1:32:52] appetite for a minimum and a
[1:32:54] maximum for a future amendment
[1:32:55] to amendment two, in this case,
[1:32:56] amendment three to amendment
[1:32:58] two, then we could deal with
[1:32:59] that. Section 902 situation you
[1:33:00] just mentioned. But let's go
[1:33:01] ahead and vote. Amendment to
[1:33:03] the amendment two, and then we
[1:33:05] can take up another one if we
[1:33:06] need. MISS Harris, could you
[1:33:07] please call the vote Chair?
[1:33:08] >> Jones.
[1:33:08] >> No.
[1:33:09] >> MISS Young.
[1:33:11] >> Yes.
[1:33:13] >> MISS Rigby no.
[1:33:16] >> MISS Walsh. Yes. MR.
[1:33:17] Yungmann no.
[1:33:20] >> Okay. The motion to approve
[1:33:21] amendment two to amendment two
[1:33:24] to cb 31 fails.
[1:33:25] >> Okay. I move amendment
[1:33:27] number three to amendment two
[1:33:33] to Council bill number 31, 2026.
[1:33:35] >> Do you have to say what it
[1:33:36] would say before you get.
[1:33:38] >> I thought I couldn't do that
[1:33:39] until I got a Second. Amendment
[1:33:41] number. I know this is the one
[1:33:42] we just discussed that is going
[1:33:45] to do a top no more then or no
[1:33:45] less than okay.
[1:33:46] >> Second.
[1:33:48] >> I do apologize. I, I haven't
[1:33:51] had dinner and it has been a
[1:33:53] long day. What did we do with
[1:33:54] amendment one to amendment two
[1:33:57] to cb 31? I swear I don't
[1:33:58] remember. We just talked about
[1:34:00] it. One did we not? Did we.
[1:34:01] >> Skip amendment to. No.
[1:34:02] >> We owe it passed.
[1:34:03] >> Passed it passed.
[1:34:05] >> Okay I see oh right right
[1:34:07] right right right. Okay. Got it,
[1:34:09] got it, got it. Okay. I think
[1:34:10] it's because I just finally saw
[1:34:12] the paper. So I just remember,
[1:34:13] okay, I found the paper and was
[1:34:15] like, we didn't talk about this,
[1:34:16] so sorry. Okay. Amendment three
[1:34:18] to amendment two to cb 31.
[1:34:20] >> Okay. Would read the same as
[1:34:21] amendment number two to
[1:34:24] amendment two, except that it
[1:34:29] would strike. Lines four and
[1:34:32] lines six, she says slowly,
[1:34:35] looking over it. Office of law
[1:34:37] on amendment number two. So we
[1:34:39] would be we would not be
[1:34:42] striking the data operations,
[1:34:43] data center development and
[1:34:45] data center operation in lines
[1:34:47] eight through nine of amendment
[1:34:50] two. And I wouldn't need an
[1:34:52] extra end in line seven. So we
[1:34:54] would be striking four and five
[1:34:55] from amendment two. But keeping
[1:34:58] intact this notion of a council
[1:35:00] member will appoint one, the
[1:35:01] county executive will appoint
[1:35:04] two. And if if this body wants
[1:35:06] to create a floor and a ceiling,
[1:35:07] then I would say the county
[1:35:09] executive shall nominate no
[1:35:11] more than four members to the
[1:35:12] task force, which would be a
[1:35:18] total of nine. Does that
[1:35:20] suffice for you guys?
[1:35:23] >> Okay. I, I like I like to be
[1:35:25] in the teens, but I hear what
[1:35:26] you're saying. With the county
[1:35:28] executive appointing more than
[1:35:30] each council member
[1:35:34] collectively, I like 1315 just
[1:35:35] because you can get committees
[1:35:37] out of that and you do some,
[1:35:42] you can do so much more work.
[1:35:44] But that's just me. Okay.
[1:35:47] That's your amendment. Is there
[1:35:49] a second for amendment three to
[1:35:50] amendment two?
[1:35:52] >> We had Deb, I thought
[1:35:52] seconded.
[1:35:53] >> Oh you did. Seconded. Okay.
[1:35:55] Can we repeat the wording of it?
[1:35:57] >> Can you can you live with. A
[1:36:00] with a little higher number?
[1:36:02] Like if there's five council
[1:36:03] members, the administration can
[1:36:11] do. Six. That gets you to 11.
[1:36:14] >> Okay.
[1:36:15] >> I'm happy with that.
[1:36:16] >> Okay.
[1:36:18] >> So do since it was moved and
[1:36:19] seconded, do we have to
[1:36:21] withdraw and then move it.
[1:36:22] >> The the.
[1:36:22] >> Okay.
[1:36:23] >> So basically.
[1:36:24] >> The last sentence of or the
[1:36:26] last two sentence is of
[1:36:27] amendment number three to
[1:36:29] amendment two would read. The
[1:36:30] county executive shall nominate
[1:36:32] no more than six members to. I
[1:36:33] don't know why I'm not touching
[1:36:36] my mic to the task force. Task
[1:36:37] force members will be appointed
[1:36:39] by individual Council
[1:36:39] resolutions.
[1:36:42] >> Okay, so amendment three to
[1:36:45] amendment two would would
[1:36:46] strike in accordance with 902
[1:36:49] of the County charter, then
[1:36:50] jump a.
[1:36:51] >> We gotta keep that one.
[1:36:52] >> Because we're having a
[1:36:54] council. We're having a
[1:36:55] commission nominated by both
[1:36:57] the executive and the
[1:36:59] legislative branch.
[1:36:59] >> Okay.
[1:37:00] >> That was your question,
[1:37:01] right.
[1:37:02] >> I thought that was the
[1:37:03] reason for striking in
[1:37:04] accordance with.
[1:37:06] >> Right. So we gotta keep we
[1:37:07] gotta keep striking it so that.
[1:37:08] >> That's what.
[1:37:09] >> I'm saying.
[1:37:10] >> Yes. Yeah. Strike it.
[1:37:11] >> Oh, GOD. Okay.
[1:37:13] >> Right. Not strike line two.
[1:37:14] Continue to strike. I got it.
[1:37:15] Okay. We're saying the same
[1:37:17] thing. All right. Perfect. And
[1:37:18] then the last three lines says
[1:37:19] each council member shall
[1:37:20] nominate one member each of the
[1:37:22] task force. The county
[1:37:23] executive shall nominate no
[1:37:24] more than six members of the
[1:37:27] task force. And then task force
[1:37:28] members shall be appointed by
[1:37:29] individual council resolutions.
[1:37:31] Is that cool? Roger that. Okay.
[1:37:33] Is that okay? Do you still
[1:37:34] second MISS, MISS? MISS Young?
[1:37:36] >> Yes, that sounds good.
[1:37:37] >> All right. Amendment three
[1:37:39] to amendment two has been moved
[1:37:42] and seconded. Any discussion,
[1:37:45] MISS Harry? Call the vote.
[1:37:46] >> Chair. Jones.
[1:37:47] >> Yes,
[1:37:48] >> MISS Jones.
[1:37:49] >> Yes.
[1:37:51] >> MISS Rigby. Yes, MISS Walsh.
[1:37:52] >> Yes.
[1:37:53] >> MR. Yungmann.
[1:37:53] >> Yes.
[1:37:55] >> Okay. Amendment three to
[1:37:57] amendment two to cb 31 passes.
[1:38:00] Chair Jones. Yes.
[1:38:01] >> I am going to move an
[1:38:03] amendment four. Okay. To
[1:38:04] amendment two.
[1:38:05] >> Okay.
[1:38:06] >> And no.
[1:38:07] >> No, it's happening. Right.
[1:38:08] >> It's happening.
[1:38:09] >> It's happening right now. Go
[1:38:12] for it. And it's a very, very
[1:38:14] simple change to change the 18
[1:38:18] months to 12. I think that the
[1:38:19] administration, no matter who
[1:38:20] that administration might be,
[1:38:21] it's human nature, it's
[1:38:22] government nature. They're
[1:38:24] going to take every minute that
[1:38:27] they need. There's really no
[1:38:29] reason why the task force can't
[1:38:33] wrap up by early winter and
[1:38:36] allow the the next council to
[1:38:40] get it done by, you know, once
[1:38:42] it gets going. So.
[1:38:44] >> Okay, is there a second for
[1:38:47] this motion to amend amendment
[1:38:49] four to amendment two?
[1:38:51] >> I will second, mainly so I
[1:38:52] could a moment to do math.
[1:38:53] Second.
[1:38:55] >> Okay, amendment four to
[1:38:58] amendment two to cb 31 has been
[1:38:59] moved and seconded and
[1:39:01] essentially is changing the 18
[1:39:04] month clause to 12 months. Any
[1:39:05] discussion?
[1:39:07] >> So is it a late filed
[1:39:08] amendment that needs the four.
[1:39:09] >> Know because it's an
[1:39:10] amendment to an amendment.
[1:39:11] >> Oh, GOD. Okay.
[1:39:13] >> So on amendment two, there'd
[1:39:16] be a line, I guess 18 unless
[1:39:18] the lines have changed based on
[1:39:20] these other two amendments that
[1:39:22] would just revise line six on
[1:39:25] page five of the bill from 18
[1:39:27] months to 12 months.
[1:39:29] >> MISS Rigby, can I ask you a
[1:39:30] question? Yeah, because I know
[1:39:36] you dig deep. So. In your in
[1:39:39] the course of preparing this
[1:39:41] bill, what did you find was the
[1:39:44] average number of months that a
[1:39:45] task force like this took in
[1:39:49] order to study these issues? I
[1:39:52] I'm sure you didn't pick 18 out
[1:39:53] of the air.
[1:39:55] >> No, but I did pick 18 more
[1:39:58] based on what we know to be
[1:39:59] coming before the Council. So I
[1:40:00] wanted to make sure that they
[1:40:01] would they wouldn't necessarily
[1:40:03] be forced to do it prior to
[1:40:05] budget or forced to do it
[1:40:06] during budget. And then the
[1:40:09] only concern I have with the 12
[1:40:11] is that that takes you to
[1:40:16] AUGUST of 27. So 13 would be
[1:40:18] would get you to SEPTEMBER.
[1:40:19] >> I could do.
[1:40:20] >> That because if you end
[1:40:23] during the recess and there's
[1:40:25] not really a chance to, to
[1:40:25] change it.
[1:40:28] >> Yeah. I mostly want the task
[1:40:30] force to get stood up, meet and
[1:40:32] get their recommendations done,
[1:40:34] because then the xray is going
[1:40:35] to have to get drafted. It's
[1:40:37] going to have to go through
[1:40:38] Planning Board and all those
[1:40:41] other steps. And these are
[1:40:43] significant business
[1:40:44] development opportunities that
[1:40:46] are going to be on the table.
[1:40:48] And I know we have to do this.
[1:40:50] Like I know we have to do this,
[1:40:52] but I just there's no need for
[1:40:54] it to take a year and a half,
[1:40:56] that's all. So you will make it
[1:40:58] 13. That's totally cool.
[1:41:00] >> Well, what if we so you
[1:41:04] wanted to make it. 12 and.
[1:41:05] >> Actually no, because this is
[1:41:08] a bill. So this won't go into
[1:41:09] effect until.
[1:41:10] >> 61 day.
[1:41:12] >> Oh, you did okay.
[1:41:14] >> Already on it.
[1:41:15] >> I'm just thinking OCTOBER
[1:41:17] would be even better because
[1:41:20] then we would be in the perfect
[1:41:22] place to get the legislation
[1:41:23] done, and.
[1:41:24] >> You'd actually have time to,
[1:41:25] like, file a bill.
[1:41:27] >> And you would have. Right.
[1:41:28] >> Well, actually, I think 11
[1:41:29] would be better.
[1:41:29] >> Okay.
[1:41:32] >> But, you know, I just I mean,
[1:41:34] how long does it take to, to,
[1:41:37] to if the task force gets its
[1:41:39] recommendations done by
[1:41:40] DECEMBER, JANUARY?
[1:41:42] >> What if they got it done
[1:41:43] beforehand? I mean, there's no
[1:41:44] reason why they might.
[1:41:45] >> Well.
[1:41:46] >> It's government, okay, but
[1:41:47] it's just nature.
[1:41:48] >> Let's let's.
[1:41:50] >> Work it backwards. Okay, so
[1:41:54] we have a proposal for
[1:41:56] SEPTEMBER 27th and AUGUST.
[1:41:58] SEPTEMBER is 13 months. OCTOBER
[1:41:59] would be 14 months. I'm writing
[1:42:03] this down so I don't forget. So
[1:42:05] it's still it would have to be
[1:42:06] a zra (Zoning Regulation
[1:42:07] Amendment). So it would still
[1:42:09] have to be working its way
[1:42:10] through that process. Right.
[1:42:11] And that would, it would still
[1:42:13] have to like go before the
[1:42:14] Planning Board do be the public
[1:42:15] hearing, have a technical staff
[1:42:17] report and then come to the
[1:42:18] council. So in trying to plan
[1:42:20] out the time, I wanted to make
[1:42:21] sure I thought, okay, well,
[1:42:23] they could still all that could
[1:42:24] still happen. While council is
[1:42:26] doing budget and everything
[1:42:28] else, but they're going to need
[1:42:30] time to finish that process
[1:42:31] before the council gets it.
[1:42:32] >> And it's probably not
[1:42:33] something you want to do during
[1:42:36] JULY, even though they're not
[1:42:40] on recess. But it's somewhat
[1:42:44] like recess. So get us to
[1:42:47] SEPTEMBER. That's okay.
[1:42:48] >> Well, I, I would just like
[1:42:50] some clarity, I think, from the
[1:42:51] Office of Law on this about
[1:42:57] when if we say 13 months, does
[1:42:59] that end? That would end on the
[1:43:01] around the first Monday,
[1:43:03] because then we're ending
[1:43:05] without an opportunity to pass
[1:43:12] something. Is that am I mapping?
[1:43:15] Is my math mapping.
[1:43:17] >> So what's your what's what's
[1:43:20] your what's your day 61 for the
[1:43:23] effective date, where are you
[1:43:23] roughly?
[1:43:28] >> I'll do it.
[1:43:29] >> Today.
[1:43:44] >> Since first. Six seven.
[1:43:59] >> Did you did you build it?
[1:44:01] >> I mean, you figure if the
[1:44:03] task force can get wrapped up
[1:44:06] by JANUARY, FEBRUARY dp's give
[1:44:08] them two months to draft. The
[1:44:10] bill gets pre filed in APRIL
[1:44:13] not not pre filed but gets gets
[1:44:14] to the Planning board technical
[1:44:16] staff by APRIL. They go through
[1:44:20] APRIL MAY maybe it even gets
[1:44:23] pre filed in JUNE or JULY. But
[1:44:24] the council doesn't have to
[1:44:25] take action on it until
[1:44:27] SEPTEMBER. AUGUST. Like that's
[1:44:30] that's fine.
[1:44:31] >> Okay. Wait.
[1:44:32] >> Or or instead of doing 18
[1:44:34] months, we could just pick the
[1:44:36] month. Yes, we.
[1:44:36] >> Could just.
[1:44:40] >> Say OCTOBER. We could say
[1:44:42] OCTOBER 31st, 2027 or SEPTEMBER.
[1:44:43] >> Yeah, yeah, that's.
[1:44:44] >> That's fair. OCTOBER,
[1:44:45] whatever that first Monday is,
[1:44:47] we could set it for right after
[1:44:47] that first Monday.
[1:44:49] >> Sounds good to me.
[1:44:49] >> Okay.
[1:44:51] >> So is that so.
[1:44:52] >> Would you redo your
[1:44:54] amendment for to amendment two.
[1:44:55] >> Instead of instead.
[1:44:57] >> Of 18 months, it'll say.
[1:44:58] >> Instead of subbing in 12
[1:45:00] months for 18 months, just take
[1:45:01] out where it references number
[1:45:04] of months and say that not
[1:45:08] expires, you know, on or before
[1:45:11] would we say OCTOBER 30th 1st.
[1:45:12] >> Or NOVEMBER 1st?
[1:45:13] >> OCTOBER 31st, I think is
[1:45:14] great because that gives you a
[1:45:17] good window. But that is a
[1:45:19] Sunday, maybe NOVEMBER 2nd.
[1:45:20] NOVEMBER 2nd. That covers you
[1:45:21] on the Monday.
[1:45:22] >> Okay, there we go.
[1:45:24] >> And drops you right on the
[1:45:25] Tuesday is the second.
[1:45:27] >> So is that cool? NOVEMBER
[1:45:28] 2nd, 2027. Okay. Is there a
[1:45:28] second.
[1:45:29] >> Second, second.
[1:45:31] >> Okay. It has been moved and
[1:45:34] seconded to approve amendment
[1:45:37] four to amendment two, which
[1:45:40] takes out on page five. Line
[1:45:44] six. No, not no later than 18
[1:45:48] months. And places in there no
[1:45:51] later than NOVEMBER 2nd, 2027.
[1:45:54] Any discussion? MISS Harriet,
[1:45:57] could you please call the vote?
[1:46:00] >> I just want to. You had MR.
[1:46:02] Allman, you have 2027, correct?
[1:46:05] Yes. Okay. Chair Jones.
[1:46:07] >> Oh, yes.
[1:46:08] >> MISS Young.
[1:46:09] >> Yes.
[1:46:10] >> MISS Rigby.
[1:46:11] >> Yes.
[1:46:13] >> MISS Walsh no. MR. Yungmann.
[1:46:15] Yes.
[1:46:17] >> Okay. The motion to approve
[1:46:19] amendment four to amendment two
[1:46:22] to cb 31 passes. All right. We
[1:46:25] are back to amendment two, as
[1:46:28] amended to cb 31. Any further
[1:46:30] discussion on amendment two?
[1:46:30] MISS Eric.
[1:46:33] >> Can we just. Okay, so now
[1:46:37] amendment two includes the
[1:46:38] council members nominate a
[1:46:42] member. There are. How many
[1:46:44] there are. There are 11 people
[1:46:45] on the task force.
[1:46:47] >> Correct?
[1:46:50] >> Four appointed by the county
[1:46:53] executive. Six six. Up to six
[1:46:55] six. No more than okay. And
[1:46:57] five are appointed by the
[1:46:58] County Council members.
[1:46:59] >> Correct.
[1:47:05] >> And then. And then the the
[1:47:09] task force will end on NOVEMBER
[1:47:11] 2nd,
[1:47:12] >> 2027, 2027.
[1:47:13] >> The moratorium.
[1:47:16] >> Would the moratorium, the
[1:47:19] moratorium. Right. The
[1:47:19] moratorium. Okay.
[1:47:20] >> All right. So that's
[1:47:23] amendment two. Any further
[1:47:25] discussion, MISS Harris, please
[1:47:26] call the vote.
[1:47:27] >> Chair. Jones.
[1:47:27] >> Yes.
[1:47:28] >> MISS Young.
[1:47:28] >> Yes.
[1:47:29] >> MISS Rigby.
[1:47:30] >> Yes.
[1:47:32] >> MISS Walsh.
[1:47:34] >> I presume the bill sponsor
[1:47:35] knows that a lot of the
[1:47:37] advocates who asked for this
[1:47:38] bill in the first place are
[1:47:40] unhappy with this amendment.
[1:47:41] When it was first introduced,
[1:47:43] pre filed and put forth in
[1:47:46] public hearing, it was
[1:47:50] presented as as a way to to
[1:47:51] take a reasonable pause on
[1:47:53] something that was viewed as as
[1:47:56] potentially calamitous to
[1:47:58] environment, electric usage and
[1:48:01] all sorts of other downstream
[1:48:03] consequences. This amendment
[1:48:07] that was filed only Thursday
[1:48:09] seems to throw a giant wrench
[1:48:10] in that. And those same
[1:48:11] advocates have asked, at least
[1:48:13] some of us not even to sponsor
[1:48:15] or to to vote in support of
[1:48:16] this bill. Overall, I've seen
[1:48:19] this council delete my bills or
[1:48:21] dilute my bills over and over
[1:48:22] again by amendment. But this
[1:48:24] notion of diluting one's own
[1:48:27] bill by your own amendment was
[1:48:31] a new a new spin on things. I.
[1:48:34] I cannot vote in support of
[1:48:37] this amendment to.
[1:48:40] >> MR. Yungmann.
[1:48:40] >> Yes.
[1:48:42] >> Okay. The motion to approve
[1:48:44] amendment two to cb 31 passes.
[1:48:46] We are now back to the main
[1:48:49] motion to approve cb 31, as
[1:48:52] amended. Any further discussion?
[1:48:53] MISS Heritage, please call the
[1:48:54] vote.
[1:48:54] >> Chair.
[1:48:55] >> Jones yes.
[1:48:57] >> MISS Young.
[1:48:57] >> Yes.
[1:48:58] >> MISS Rigby.
[1:49:00] >> I'm gonna take a little bit
[1:49:01] more of a minute because it's
[1:49:03] not just a pause, it's a pause
[1:49:06] with purpose. So we really need
[1:49:09] to update our outdated
[1:49:11] regulations that were last
[1:49:13] really put in around 1993. So
[1:49:16] this is not just a pause to say
[1:49:19] hold on calamity. It's actually
[1:49:21] a pause to make meaningful
[1:49:22] recommendations and create
[1:49:25] meaningful change. And we've
[1:49:26] just discussed the timeline to
[1:49:29] do that. And it doesn't. It's
[1:49:30] important to take into
[1:49:33] consideration the real world
[1:49:34] responsibilities that the next
[1:49:36] group is going to have to deal
[1:49:37] with. So that's why the
[1:49:39] timeline matters. Our community
[1:49:41] already has many smaller data
[1:49:43] centers that are responsible
[1:49:46] for securing state, local and
[1:49:48] federal information. But as we
[1:49:50] continue to grow, we know that
[1:49:52] in this modern world that data
[1:49:53] centers will grow. But we have
[1:49:55] to ensure that any of that
[1:49:57] growth is occurring in a way
[1:49:59] that is thoughtful and
[1:50:00] respectful to our residents and
[1:50:02] businesses that are here, and
[1:50:03] to the planet that we all
[1:50:05] inhabit. A moratorium and a
[1:50:07] task force provide the county
[1:50:09] with the appropriate time to
[1:50:10] study the impacts of data
[1:50:12] centers, engage with residents
[1:50:14] and stakeholders, and develop
[1:50:16] appropriate policies, zoning
[1:50:17] regulations and performance
[1:50:18] standard recommendations. My
[1:50:21] vote is yes, and I appreciate
[1:50:23] my colleagues. Thank you.
[1:50:25] >> MISS Walsh.
[1:50:27] >> a lot of Tory, a lot of Tory
[1:50:30] and and fanfare rhetoric that
[1:50:31] accompanied the introduction of
[1:50:33] this bill does not match up
[1:50:37] with where it has landed. And
[1:50:38] notwithstanding, various
[1:50:41] advocates ask that I vote no.
[1:50:44] Nonetheless, I do support a ban
[1:50:47] or a pause of any sort so that
[1:50:50] at least some pretense of
[1:50:52] independent analysis can
[1:50:54] proceed. Whether that actually
[1:50:56] happens. And certainly I feel
[1:50:57] like that's less likely to
[1:50:59] happen, given these amendments
[1:51:01] that have passed this evening,
[1:51:03] which remains to be seen. But
[1:51:05] for now, my vote is yes.
[1:51:06] >> MR. Yungmann.
[1:51:09] >> I certainly understand the
[1:51:13] the pushback by some for us to
[1:51:14] for us to do this. But the
[1:51:16] reality is, is we're not alone
[1:51:18] doing this. Just pretty much
[1:51:20] everybody around, all the
[1:51:21] counties around us are doing
[1:51:24] this. And while I don't want to
[1:51:25] put the brakes on business
[1:51:27] development, existing
[1:51:29] businesses need to pay electric
[1:51:31] bills and just have their water
[1:51:34] bills go up. And we've got to
[1:51:37] figure out the impact of these
[1:51:41] things on those somewhat scarce
[1:51:42] and expensive resources right
[1:51:45] now. I appreciate shortening
[1:51:49] the time up a little bit. This
[1:51:51] just seems like a balanced
[1:51:53] approach to, to just biting the
[1:51:55] bullet and knowing that we have
[1:51:56] to rewrite some code. And I
[1:51:58] appreciate you for putting it
[1:52:01] out there. So I vote yes.
[1:52:04] >> All right. The motion to
[1:52:06] approve cb 31, as amended
[1:52:10] passes.
[1:52:11] >> It's a tabled. We have.
[1:52:12] >> To.
[1:52:13] >> Oh, okay. Oh, okay.
[1:52:14] >> Cool.
[1:52:16] >> Give me a second. Give me a
[1:52:19] second. I move to remove kr six
[1:52:20] 2026 from the table.
[1:52:21] >> Second.
[1:52:23] >> The motion to remove kr six
[1:52:24] from the table has been moved
[1:52:25] and seconded. Sir, could you
[1:52:27] please call the vote chair?
[1:52:28] Jones yes.
[1:52:29] >> MISS Young.
[1:52:29] >> Yes.
[1:52:31] >> MISS Rigby yes, MISS Walsh,
[1:52:33] yes. MR. Youngman.
[1:52:34] >> Yes.
[1:52:37] >> The motion to remove kr six
[1:52:39] 2026 from the table passes.
[1:52:41] >> Council Resolution six, 2026
[1:52:43] appointment of James r Bartlett
[1:52:44] to the Historic Preservation
[1:52:46] Commission.
[1:52:48] >> I move to approve kr six,
[1:52:51] 2026.
[1:52:51] >> Second.
[1:52:53] >> I move to approve amendment
[1:52:55] one to kr six.
[1:52:55] >> Second.
[1:52:56] >> MISS Sager.
[1:52:57] >> Sure. Amendment one changes
[1:52:58] the expiration of the
[1:53:00] appointment since he was filed
[1:53:02] almost six months ago, so not
[1:53:04] so as to not cut his term short
[1:53:04] by.
[1:53:05] >> Okay, okay.
[1:53:07] >> Thank you. Amendment one to
[1:53:09] kr six has been moved and
[1:53:12] seconded. Any discussion? MISS,
[1:53:13] could you please call the vote
[1:53:14] chair? Jones yes.
[1:53:15] >> MISS Young.
[1:53:15] >> Yes.
[1:53:18] >> MISS Rigby yes. MISS Walsh
[1:53:19] yes. MR. Yungmann.
[1:53:20] >> Yes.
[1:53:22] >> The motion to approve
[1:53:23] amendment one. The kr six
[1:53:25] passes. We're now back to the
[1:53:28] main motion of approving kr six.
[1:53:30] Any further discussion? MISS
[1:53:31] Harry, could you please call
[1:53:32] the vote.
[1:53:33] >> Chair Jones.
[1:53:33] >> Yes.
[1:53:34] >> MISS Young.
[1:53:34] >> Yes.
[1:53:35] >> MISS Rigby.
[1:53:36] >> Yes.
[1:53:38] >> MISS Walsh yes. MR. Yungmann.
[1:53:39] >> Yes.
[1:53:40] >> The motion to approve kr six,
[1:53:43] as amended, passes. This
[1:53:45] concludes our JUNE legislative
[1:53:47] session. We are adjourned.
[1:53:49] Thank you. Have a wonderful