[0:05] Okay, we're ready to go.
[0:08] The Village of Martins's Additions
[0:10] Council will will meet in meeting.
[0:15] That's not quite the group. Will'll
[0:16] convene in meeting tonight. Come to
[0:19] order.
[0:20] >> Come to order. Thank you. July 16th.
[0:24] Uh first thing I want to note, I want to
[0:27] thank my colleagues that uh for
[0:29] selecting me as council chair for the
[0:31] coming year. I'm both honored and
[0:33] pleased to uh to accept. Uh second, I
[0:36] have to ask the question that I've been
[0:37] asking the last several meetings. Why is
[0:40] tonight different from all other nights?
[0:43] >> Then there's two reasons. One, it's the
[0:45] first meeting of the fiscal year of the
[0:48] village council. Second, we are going to
[0:51] implement a procedure that has been
[0:53] forced on me by my village, my council
[0:56] colleagues to limit the amount of time
[0:58] that residents have in speaking. Uh this
[1:01] has come up over and over again in uh
[1:04] surveys, in comments uh by council
[1:08] colleagues that uh we kind of lost
[1:11] control of of comments. Uh I last year I
[1:14] was trying to enforce the Gettysburg
[1:16] address rule. Abraham Lincoln you uh uh
[1:20] delivered thee his address in under
[1:22] three minutes. My rule is if you have
[1:24] something more momentous to say or more
[1:26] eloquent you can do more than three
[1:28] minutes. Otherwise there will be a clock
[1:32] uh a three-minute clock at the end of
[1:33] that three minutes you will
[1:35] automatically be muted and the clock
[1:38] should appear uh somewhere on your
[1:40] screen depending on your what device
[1:43] you're using. So with that, we will turn
[1:46] first to resident comments.
[1:48] >> Do you want to announce the positions of
[1:50] the rest of Okay,
[1:50] >> that's right. I mean, you're you're a
[1:52] big deal, Mr. Chairman. We we have
[1:54] positions, too.
[1:54] >> As said, every you'll [laughter] have to
[1:57] remind me of what you on my left.
[2:00] >> That's right.
[2:00] >> Your right is Edra Cers.
[2:02] >> Mr. Secretary,
[2:03] >> who is Secretary?
[2:04] >> From now on, please
[2:05] >> to my right, remind me. We have Madame
[2:09] Vice Chair.
[2:10] >> Yes. and find it. I'm at large,
[2:13] >> Mr. Atlarge. And to my vacant council
[2:17] member here who will be appearing online
[2:19] and perhaps physically soon. He is
[2:22] continues to be the treasurer. Um,
[2:25] anything else I'm forgetting? No. Okay.
[2:28] With that, we will turn to any resident
[2:30] comments. Three minute limits. Uh, and
[2:33] we will gavvel you off at that point.
[2:35] >> Weather report.
[2:37] >> No comments.
[2:38] >> Did you want to do weather report?
[2:39] >> You want to do weather report? Well,
[2:40] think of what you're going to ask. Oh,
[2:42] there's one.
[2:43] >> Well, Keith, why don't you start with
[2:45] the weather? That's
[2:45] >> Keith. Do the weather and then let them
[2:48] think about what they're going to say. I
[2:49] see Marty's hand is up.
[2:50] >> You're not on the clock. I'm not on the
[2:52] clock.
[2:52] >> You're not on the clock. Listen, this
[2:54] will be This will be under three
[2:55] minutes.
[2:57] >> What's very important is what I've got
[2:58] on here.
[2:59] >> Yeah.
[3:00] >> The reason I wear it is because so
[3:02] nobody can tell how old I am. [laughter]
[3:04] That's the real reason. But the truth of
[3:06] the matter is tomorrow [clears throat]
[3:08] is a cold red and could turn into a cold
[3:11] purple air quality alert,
[3:15] >> which means very poor and unhealthy air
[3:18] quality for everybody, not just for the
[3:21] elderly, for people with asthma, for
[3:23] people with lung disease, heart
[3:26] conditions, for everybody across the
[3:28] board. So that's the emphasis today on
[3:31] the weather.
[3:33] The fact that we've got this smoke
[3:36] that's coming out of Canada from western
[3:38] Ontario, the Canadian wildfires that's
[3:41] kept the temperatures down. Hasn't done
[3:43] anything for the due point to the
[3:45] humidity. That's been tough. But um you'll get
[3:51] some relief here over the weekend uh by
[3:54] way of thunderstorms which could be
[3:57] severe. There could be a lot of power
[4:00] outages, down trees, flooding, etc. But
[4:03] usually that's what we get when we have
[4:05] to break the big heat wave and then next
[4:07] week things are looking very nice.
[4:10] >> Oh, good.
[4:11] >> Low humidity, below normal temperatures.
[4:14] Yes, Andrew.
[4:14] >> Can can you [clears throat] uh predict
[4:16] the the the smoke, the haze? Is that
[4:18] going to dissipate or because the fires
[4:20] are ongoing, it's just going to
[4:21] continue?
[4:21] >> It's going to get worse here tomorrow.
[4:23] >> But just in general, like is this a a
[4:25] two-day event, three-day event, or is it
[4:27] something that it'll be out of here. The
[4:28] rain will have a lot to do with it. So
[4:30] that's why I know the weather's going to
[4:32] be severe, but we need the rain and we
[4:34] need that to disperse the, you know, the
[4:38] smoke.
[4:39] >> So, you know, my time is up. I thank you
[4:42] for yours as always, but if maybe
[4:45] somebody has some questions here in the
[4:46] audience.
[4:47] >> Okay. But uh one of the things I forgot
[4:49] to do was introduce our new council
[4:51] member, John Zachary, who is attending
[4:53] officially his very first meeting as
[4:57] member.
[4:58] >> There he is.
[5:00] >> And there's Jean back because what you
[5:03] did is you caught the fact that I'm
[5:04] supposed to be up before the res.
[5:07] [laughter]
[5:08] >> He's got your back.
[5:09] >> I didn't have the
[5:10] >> Thank you, sir.
[5:10] >> agenda straight in front of me.
[5:11] >> He's still very eager here. [laughter]
[5:15] >> We'll take care of that. I'll disappear.
[5:17] >> I saw Marty. [laughter]
[5:19] >> Mart, what happened to Marty? Her hand
[5:21] was up.
[5:22] >> I think we just can't see everyone. The
[5:24] timer.
[5:24] >> The timer's in the way. Marty, there you
[5:26] go. Uh, unmute. And you have three grand
[5:30] minutes.
[5:32] >> Okay. Let me start by welcoming John
[5:34] Zachary and uh [snorts] uh thanking
[5:36] again the members of the election
[5:38] committee for their hard work. Can
[5:39] everybody hear me? Okay.
[5:41] >> Yes.
[5:41] >> Yeah. Good.
[5:42] >> Okay. Um, I wish to make a couple of
[5:45] points. First, that three minutes, does
[5:47] that include different topics? Because I
[5:50] have three minutes worth of questions on
[5:52] the ordinance, the ADU ordinance. I have
[5:55] minutes of questions on the stormwater
[5:57] mission statement.
[5:58] >> Sum summarize them.
[6:00] >> Okay. To summarize them now is very
[6:02] disjointed. I would like to know first
[6:04] off, uh, will there be an opportunity of
[6:07] public hearing for public comments
[6:08] separately on the ordinance on the ADUs?
[6:11] Is that going to be separate later
[6:12] tonight? We'll be able to speak then.
[6:14] >> Yes.
[6:14] there will be.
[6:15] >> Okay. So, for now, I just need to say
[6:17] two things. Number one, I object to the
[6:19] three minutes. I think that we only have
[6:20] one opportunity a month and residents
[6:22] may have more complex things to say than
[6:25] can be said in three minutes. I object
[6:26] to that as an infringement on voter and
[6:29] residents ability to participate. Um,
[6:33] and I would like the minutes to reflect
[6:34] that that principled objection on the
[6:37] stormwater commission committee
[6:39] statement. I think the state mission
[6:40] statement needs to be updated in a lot
[6:41] of ways. The stormwater committee
[6:43] members can be more specific about that.
[6:46] Uh for one thing, the mission statement
[6:47] still calls it a task force when it's
[6:49] now a committee. So I think that needs
[6:50] some work. Um and I don't have time to
[6:53] go into all the pieces of it. Um on the
[6:57] uh new survey questions, I think that
[6:59] deserves a fuller community discussion.
[7:02] it would be useful to ask more broadly
[7:05] what residents think should be in the
[7:06] survey, not just give us a sample of
[7:09] questions. Um, and I think that again a
[7:12] threeminut opportunity is not enough.
[7:14] Often I am bringing various comments
[7:17] from various neighbors who aren't at the
[7:19] meeting but have asked me to ask about
[7:21] parking. For example, another issue that
[7:23] came up this for this meeting is a
[7:25] question from several neighbors about
[7:27] the tree inventory that the stormwater
[7:31] committee recommended. What is the
[7:33] process for doing a tree inventory? Can
[7:35] Davey, our new tree contractor, do that
[7:38] or is that a separate contract? And
[7:40] Michael, you probably have the answer to
[7:42] that. So, here's a list of questions. It
[7:44] comes out gobbledygook, just all jumbled
[7:46] together because I'm now out of my three
[7:48] minutes. And I reserve three minutes to
[7:50] talk about the ADU ordinance because a
[7:52] lot of neighbors also had questions
[7:54] about that.
[7:56] >> You did that and you still have 30
[7:58] seconds to spare. Uh, Elizabeth
[8:00] Goldberg,
[8:06] [gasps]
[8:09] » hello everybody. Good evening and uh
[8:12] welcome John to you. Uh it's nice to see
[8:14] a new face around the table. Um so I had
[8:18] I guess we have to make the comment on
[8:20] the the proposed village investment in
[8:23] multi-use municipal property. This would
[8:25] be the moment to do that. It was one
[8:28] observation. I I think it wouldn't hurt
[8:30] to get other people's the the public's
[8:33] input on what should be on the
[8:35] questionnaire, but one thing I noticed
[8:37] was was missing was something more
[8:39] explicit on accessibility ADA compliant
[8:42] in particular as being uh an important
[8:46] you know use of of the of the facility.
[8:49] And the other question I had was what
[8:51] about the office space? was this not
[8:52] going to be also the new the location of
[8:54] the new office in order to sort of save
[8:57] costs down the road from paying for two
[9:00] locations. So those were the two
[9:01] comments on that. The other one uh on
[9:04] the storm water task force I just wanted
[9:07] to call to your attention that Yasmina
[9:09] had sent in a a uh comment for adding an
[9:13] additional statement. This was sent to
[9:16] Michael and Art and I think the rest of
[9:18] the this afternoon. But uh to we we we and I agree that it needs to be more
[9:26] linked into the existing action plan. So
[9:29] that that that's sort of the the guide
[9:31] the guideline for work to be carried
[9:33] out. And it's um it isn't quite clear
[9:37] that that the the uh terms of reference
[9:41] for the stormwater committee are
[9:43] actually carrying out what's in the
[9:44] action plan. So she she proposes
[9:47] language to link those two a little
[9:49] might be one other sentence in your
[9:51] header up top to clarify that the other
[9:55] thing about the storm water I wanted to
[9:58] mention was we did send comments back on
[10:01] the 16th on the this version um and I I
[10:06] didn't get any feedback on on one having
[10:09] to do with proposed additional bullet on
[10:12] communications
[10:13] >> uh another one would be has uh
[10:18] the we also submitted a a a second piece
[10:22] of text on um knowledges, skills,
[10:25] experience that would be very useful to
[10:27] have when you go out for your call for
[10:29] volunteers. There was a list of those
[10:31] that I didn't hear whether that was
[10:32] going to be considered or added to your
[10:34] call. And then finally, I wanted to say
[10:36] that the council made it very clear in
[10:38] the last meeting that with regard to the
[10:41] two key action items on on uh gray
[10:44] infrastructure impro improvements and uh
[10:48] ordinance um ordinances to support storm
[10:52] water management that the council would
[10:54] be taking the lead in that. And um
[10:57] there's language in this that sort of
[10:59] says that the committee would you know
[11:01] as needed be consulted. Um we we we
[11:07] submit that we're ready and willing to
[11:09] be a little bit more than as needed. But
[11:11] we also wanted to know what are your
[11:14] specifically what are your plans for
[11:16] implementing those two areas? What's the
[11:18] process going to be? Can we know since
[11:21] we were so involved in the proposal and
[11:23] all of that? We'd like
[11:24] >> Okay. Thank you. Welcome. Uh
[11:27] >> let me respond to that quickly. Um the
[11:31] uh we do say in the very first paragraph
[11:33] that uh uh among its recommendations was
[11:38] an action plan which included form uh to
[11:41] implement the action. So we're we're
[11:43] acknowledging the action plan. Um and uh
[11:49] we said that the
[11:52] uh uh will be called upon as needed to
[11:55] do these other things. I would it's my
[11:58] personal view and as I've talked to
[12:00] several of my colleagues here uh their
[12:03] view as well that we have to educate
[12:05] ourselves. We cannot just take the
[12:08] recommendations as given. We have to
[12:10] educate ourselves to the various
[12:13] possible uh regulatory means that other
[12:17] communities have used, what their
[12:19] experiences have been, what have been
[12:21] the benefits and the disadvantages of
[12:23] them, but how how have they been in
[12:26] implementation? And we have to hear that
[12:29] ourselves uh because we're not sure
[12:33] uh that the plan recommended by you is
[12:37] the best plan. We have to get it into
[12:38] our guts before doing that. Yours is at
[12:42] the top of the list that was in the
[12:44] recommendations. But I think we have to
[12:46] educate ourselves and feel comfortable
[12:49] that we are going to be when and if we
[12:51] do impose really great restrictions on
[12:54] the community that we're comfortable
[12:57] that we have heard the range of views
[12:59] and opinions and benefits and costs and
[13:02] advantages and disadvantages of the
[13:04] various means of doing it. So we will be
[13:06] going out and educating ourselves on
[13:08] these issues. Uh so that's my brief
[13:11] reply on that. Any other comments from
[13:14] anyone? Okay,
[13:18] >> Marty has a new hand.
[13:19] >> Uh Marty, you have a new hand up that
[13:22] >> Yes, a quick question. Uh will residents
[13:25] have an opportunity to provide input as
[13:27] the council educates itself on the
[13:30] recommendations because the bailand
[13:32] recommendations and the council and the task force report are quite thorough
[13:37] >> and they did talk to many all the other
[13:39] towns basically.
[13:41] >> Will will the VMA residents have an
[13:42] opportunity open forum on this? Martin,
[13:46] this is going this is going to involve
[13:48] code changes and code changes that will
[13:51] affect every resident in practically
[13:53] every property. Uh this is going to have
[13:56] to go through a full vetting uh of
[13:59] residents, experts, uh community. So
[14:02] yes, the answer is yes.
[14:04] >> Not just three minutes at a council
[14:05] meeting, but an actual forum where this
[14:07] is discussed, please. Yes.
[14:09] >> Yes. At least that. Yes.
[14:11] >> Thank you.
[14:12] >> Okay. Um
[14:15] Jean,
[14:19] unmute, Jean.
[14:20] >> Hi. I I I did unmute.
[14:22] >> Good. You're on.
[14:23] >> Hi, guys. It's nice to see you all. I
[14:26] have no idea what you just said, Arthur.
[14:30] How in goodness name.
[14:33] You must have some ideas to be able to
[14:34] say what you just said about how you
[14:37] might gather the opinion, share the
[14:39] information, and gather it and then
[14:42] reshare it. What are you thinking about?
[14:44] I have no idea what you're talking
[14:45] about.
[14:45] >> Okay. What I'm thinking about is
[14:47] >> God, knock it off.
[14:49] >> Talking to council members in other
[14:52] jurisdictions, managers, uh the uh
[14:55] building code administrators
[14:58] uh to find out what their what the uh
[15:01] what they have done and what their
[15:03] experience has been. It's it's that
[15:06] simple.
[15:08] >> Okay.
[15:09] >> Uh wait, can I can you still hear me?
[15:12] Yes, you're you're still
[15:13] >> okay. Good. Good. There's nothing nicer
[15:15] than listening to my voice, huh? Um,
[15:18] it's that simple. Well, what are the
[15:20] questions you're going to ask them?
[15:23] >> And how does the how
[15:25] >> what is the code? What have what's been
[15:27] your experience administering it? What's
[15:29] been your experience and results? Uh
[15:32] what have been the difficulties, the
[15:34] challenges, the benefits, the great
[15:35] things that have come?
[15:36] >> Okay. So this becomes the responsibility
[15:38] of the village manager to put together
[15:41] this. How do you how do you see this
[15:43] happening?
[15:45] >> Uh using telephone calling up somebody
[15:48] uh the village manager of Somerset, the
[15:50] former mayor of Somerset. Uh
[15:52] >> there are there are some rules m doc Mr.
[15:55] Bolt I was going to say do Dr. Bolt uh
[15:59] public information open blah blah. We
[16:04] don't worry about that. Okay. Right.
[16:07] I mean I don't know
[16:09] >> to inform ourselves as to how other
[16:11] jurisdictions have dealt with this issue
[16:14] and this challenge do is that's the
[16:16] question Jean
[16:18] >> whether that
[16:19] >> Yeah.
[16:21] I guess
[16:23] >> I mean I I defer to our council uh SEO
[16:27] um as to whether we are permitted to to
[16:32] uh canvas the area and and colleagues in
[16:34] other jurisdictions to ask them about
[16:36] their experiences. I don't I don't see
[16:38] that as a
[16:38] >> their experience with what
[16:41] >> addressing these infrastructure
[16:42] challenges
[16:43] >> storm water management management.
[16:46] >> Yeah, that's permissible. The Open
[16:48] Meetings Act would not apply unless a
[16:50] quorum was doing that at one time.
[16:53] >> And where do the questions come from?
[16:57] >> Well, the questions come from I mean I'm not sure there's there's there's It
[17:03] sounds like almost like a trick
[17:04] question, but we have reports, we have
[17:06] conversations, we're hearing from
[17:07] residents and their challenges in
[17:09] various homes. I mean, that that will
[17:11] create a list of questions that that we
[17:13] would want to address before moving
[17:16] forward. Yeah.
[17:17] >> on decisions and getting input from the
[17:19] community, getting input from our
[17:21] colleagues, from Ron's experience with
[17:23] his other clients.
[17:25] >> Um, I think all of the above, Jean,
[17:27] questions you might have that we would
[17:29] want to, you know, use as well, uh, and figure out.
[17:32] >> Well, I I I guess I look forward to
[17:34] that. I I I'm thoroughly confused about
[17:36] what you're talking about, but I look
[17:38] forward to having an opportunity to uh
[17:41] interact with your outcome with with your proposal. Okay. So, thanks,
[17:45] guys.
[17:45] >> Okay.
[17:47] Um, I can't see. Is there are there any
[17:50] more hands up?
[17:53] » Okay. I
[17:55] >> already have a third hand.
[17:57] >> You don't get three. You don't get
[17:59] three.
[17:59] >> Different different question entirely.
[18:02] >> Different question entirely. It seems to
[18:04] me that that what you're talking about,
[18:05] Arthur, is is uh duplicative because the
[18:08] task force did in fact survey the local
[18:12] jurisdictions and there's a lot of
[18:14] information in the reports about what they're doing and how it works.
[18:17] That's already there.
[18:17] >> You're right, Marty. That's correct. Uh
[18:20] I think we just cannot accept uh blindly
[18:22] what they said. We have to go out and in
[18:25] a way relearn for ourselves. Uh building
[18:28] on building on that foundation.
[18:32] >> Thank you. Any more questions? No.
[18:38] Okay. Uh w with that we will move to the
[18:42] next item on the agenda.
[18:45] Uh the storm water committee mission
[18:47] statement. Uh there were several places
[18:51] three places where we said uh task force
[18:53] rather than committee that will have to
[18:55] change. And the question is um is this
[18:59] broad enough to meet what the committee
[19:02] would like but also maintain that the uh council
[19:08] essentially the committee is working for
[19:10] the community for I think I say up here
[19:13] for the residents for the manager and
[19:16] for the council uh and uh
[19:21] there's an very open statement the
[19:24] committee's principal job will be to
[19:26] assist the council, village manager and
[19:29] residents in the following areas and
[19:32] other subjects that may arise. Um I
[19:36] don't know if we have to be more
[19:37] explicit about anything. Any comments
[19:39] from uh
[19:42] council colleagues on revisions?
[19:45] >> I think with with the changes uh the
[19:48] task force to committee I think it looks
[19:50] good.
[19:50] >> I I agree. Okay. Okay. Are we ready to
[19:54] adopt it then? Uh
[19:56] >> yeah.
[19:56] >> Okay.
[19:57] >> I'll move to adopt.
[19:58] >> Okay.
[19:59] >> Second.
[19:59] All in favor?
[20:01] >> I.
[20:02] >> Okay. Okay.
[20:03] >> Jeff has joined. So
[20:07] >> I
[20:08] >> Okay. Thank you, Jeff. Welcome.
[20:11] Where Jeff, are you physically in this
[20:13] country?
[20:15] >> I am. And uh if the meeting goes a bit
[20:17] longer, I'll physically be there. So
[20:20] I'll see you soon.
[20:21] >> We'll be looking for you. Thank you.
[20:23] >> Okay. Um, okay. Now we move to the uh
[20:27] consideration of the accessory dwelling
[20:30] unit uh ordinance. This is in the
[20:33] packet. Uh there's a lot of wherees
[20:38] and the uh the
[20:41] new language uh can be found if you're
[20:44] looking at your packet on page five with
[20:47] the deletions from former the current
[20:49] code and the underlined additions to the new edition. So Ron, could you
[20:55] walk us through that?
[20:57] >> Yeah, absolutely. So just to reiterate,
[21:01] we did introduce this ordinance at the
[21:04] May meeting and this is being proposed
[21:08] in order to comply with state law. So,
[21:12] as you all will recall, in the 2025
[21:16] regular legislative session, the state
[21:19] passed a law preempting local
[21:21] regulations that impose stricter
[21:25] setbacks from the rear and sidelot lines
[21:28] on accessory dwelling units that a
[21:31] jurisdiction may have that are greater
[21:34] than that for other accessory buildings
[21:37] like sheds and detached garages. The
[21:40] state law says you can't have different
[21:42] setbacks for a detached garage and an
[21:46] ADU. The ADU has to be afforded the same
[21:50] setback. So years ago, after the
[21:54] Montgomery County Council changed its
[21:57] zoning code to allow accessory dwelling
[22:00] units in residential zones, the Village
[22:03] of Martins's editions updated its code
[22:06] to provide that all dwellings should be
[22:09] subject to the same setbacks. So a main
[22:11] building and an accessory dwelling unit
[22:13] would have the same setbacks. But under
[22:16] this new state law, that cannot be
[22:19] maintained. we have to amend the code to
[22:23] eliminate the stricter setback for the
[22:25] ADU. So what is proposed here is to
[22:28] delete the language that was added a few
[22:30] years ago to say that ADUs are subject
[22:33] to the same setbacks as the main
[22:36] building and instead to incorporate a
[22:40] setback modifier that is currently used
[22:43] by McGomery County. And so the code
[22:46] would provide that the the basic default
[22:50] setback from the rear lot line and side
[22:54] lot line for any accessory building is 5
[22:58] ft. But once that accessory building is
[23:02] gets taller, taller than 12 feet or
[23:05] wider, wider than 24 feet, the setback
[23:08] increases by 1 and 1/2 ft for every foot
[23:13] over 12 ft of height or over 24 ft of
[23:17] length. And that modifier or additional
[23:21] setback is cumulative. So, if you're,
[23:23] you know, 13 feet tall and 20 feet 25
[23:28] feet wide, then you have to have an
[23:31] additional three feet of setback from
[23:33] both the rear and the side lot lines.
[23:36] Um, the state law also says that this
[23:39] preeemption applies for accessory
[23:43] dwelling units that are up to 75% of the
[23:47] size of the main building. So, we've
[23:49] also added a statement in here that that
[23:51] says ADUs can't be larger than 75% of
[23:55] the main building.
[23:57] And that is the the current approach.
[24:00] Um, also in the in the current draft,
[24:05] we're proposing, but this is up for
[24:07] discussion, to delete the requirement
[24:10] that an an accessory dwelling unit have
[24:12] two dedicated parking spaces on the lot.
[24:15] The state law says you can have special
[24:19] parking restrictions for AD use, but if
[24:21] you do, you have to have a parking study
[24:26] performed and that the parking study has
[24:28] to take certain things into
[24:29] consideration in order to to justify
[24:32] that statement. So, if that statement
[24:34] were to stay in, we'd have to commission
[24:36] that parking study. and the state law
[24:40] provides that we have to have the law on
[24:43] the books by October 1 of 2026.
[24:47] So that is why we are doing this now.
[24:52] The code of course can be further
[24:56] modified in the future with respect to
[25:00] parking requirements, but the state law
[25:02] does say you have to have your setbacks
[25:05] in place by October of 2025 because as
[25:08] the state law is written, it says in the
[25:10] future, you can't impose a a setback on
[25:14] an ADU that's larger than the setback
[25:17] that is established before this deadline
[25:20] for other types of excess. accessory
[25:22] buildings. So, that's my summary. Happy
[25:25] to answer any questions the council may
[25:27] have.
[25:28] >> Okay. Ron. Yeah. Um th this rule would
[25:31] apply to
[25:33] um garages, uh garden sheds, anything
[25:38] else. It's it's uh accessory dwelling
[25:41] units and other structures. Right.
[25:43] >> Correct. Correct.
[25:45] >> Okay. I also want to point out and then
[25:48] we I see a number of questions up there
[25:51] that the parking requirement that's in
[25:53] the code now is anomalous uh in our
[25:57] code. We have no other parking
[25:59] restrictions for any size house uh
[26:01] number of residents, number of cars
[26:04] owned or anything else. uh and uh Ron
[26:07] has provided a a summary of many of the
[26:11] other jurisdictions, many of which have
[26:13] removed the parking restrictions from
[26:16] the new code. So I see
[26:18] >> I just question and then we'll go to
[26:20] Jeff. Sorry, Jeff.
[26:22] >> Can you remind us uh have there been
[26:24] size limitations uh for these units in
[26:27] the past? Because 75% not greater than
[26:30] that sounds very generous but 75% of
[26:32] existing structures sounds like a huge structure.
[26:36] >> Yeah. And it's it's not just 75% of
[26:39] existing but if you were have the a tear
[26:41] down in in a new build you could have a
[26:43] new house and an ADU that's up to 75% of
[26:46] the
[26:48] >> of the main building. But but you know
[26:50] that size is going to be limited by the
[26:53] setbacks.
[26:55] >> Unless you have a huge property. Not
[26:56] only the setbacks, there's also the
[26:58] building lot coverage. And I did check
[27:00] with our building per administrator
[27:01] today. The accessory structures count at
[27:05] towards that total lot coverage of
[27:07] building lot coverage.
[27:09] >> Yes.
[27:10] >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. Jeff,
[27:14] » hello. Can you hear me? Okay.
[27:16] >> Yeah, you're on.
[27:17] >> Awesome. Um, this is just a process
[27:19] question and then I may have some
[27:21] content related uh later, but process
[27:24] question. So this is uh we need to have
[27:27] something on the books by October. Uh we
[27:31] are now uh July. We have recess in
[27:34] August. So I just want to point out the
[27:36] fact that really we need to have this
[27:39] adopted in the September meeting. And
[27:41] the reason why I'm mentioning it, it's
[27:43] not to try and punt this. It's there's a
[27:47] bunch of really important information
[27:49] that just filtered in hours before the
[27:52] meeting. I believe we are still looking
[27:55] to have more and further information
[27:57] come in regarding parking studies,
[27:59] things like that. And we also had some
[28:02] residents submit, I think, some very
[28:04] thoughtful questions and proposals. So,
[28:07] I want to just put out there that first
[28:09] I think we should discuss this tonight.
[28:12] Absolutely. Let's have that discussion
[28:13] now uh as as it's on the agenda. But I
[28:17] for one um I I I'm not ready to vote on
[28:21] this with all the information that's
[28:23] just come in today. And
[28:26] >> information
[28:28] >> I see no there's no pressure to because
[28:31] we need to have this adopted in
[28:34] September for the October meeting.
[28:36] >> What what information came in today?
[28:38] >> Oh, you would if you would like me to
[28:40] read it out to you, I would be
[28:42] delighted. Uh just if refer what what
[28:46] >> I'm No, you since you asked I will uh
[28:49] because I received several emails from
[28:51] our manager and residents this morning
[28:55] specific to uh information on this
[28:58] particular amendment with uh technical
[29:02] drawings or looking at scenarios and as
[29:05] you know Arthur very well we are still
[29:07] outstanding on information specific to
[29:10] parking study information And I see
[29:13] absolutely zero reason or pressure for
[29:15] us to have to go into a vote this
[29:18] evening since we're actually going to go
[29:20] into recess and then we'll have a
[29:22] meeting in September. Why don't we just
[29:24] do that? Take the time, have an uh
[29:26] ability to review this information. And
[29:29] personally, I'd like to have a
[29:31] discussion with our new uh technical
[29:35] engineer, which I had asked and haven't
[29:38] had yet to talk about this. So there you
[29:41] go. I'm one vote. I'm one council
[29:44] member. But again, I see no reason to
[29:46] need to rush this tonight. We have a
[29:49] September meeting and we can pass this
[29:51] in October. And that'll give plenty of
[29:53] time to review the additional
[29:55] information. Over.
[29:57] >> Well, you know, this has been on the
[29:58] agenda now for several months. Uh I
[30:01] think first April or May. So, uh, so
[30:04] it's
[30:04] >> Arthur, you haven't addressed the
[30:06] question, which I said is it may have
[30:08] been on the agenda, but there's a
[30:10] plethora of information that first came
[30:12] in hours before this meeting, and
[30:14] there's absolutely zero reason why we
[30:17] need to vote on it tonight. And I'd like
[30:19] to understand why you feel we need to
[30:21] vote on it tonight other than the fact
[30:23] it's been on the agenda since May. Over.
[30:25] Uh,
[30:26] >> can I just note that under your charter,
[30:29] an ordinance takes effect 20 days after
[30:32] adoption.
[30:33] >> So if you did adopt in September, it
[30:36] wouldn't take effect before the October
[30:38] one deadline.
[30:40] >> Yeah.
[30:41] >> But Ron, you said 20 days. Is that
[30:44] correct?
[30:45] >> Yes.
[30:46] >> So that means we would simply have to
[30:48] have the date of maybe September 8th or
[30:51] 9th for that meeting
[30:53] >> because we're in recess in August. So,
[30:55] we can have it. We would just need to
[30:57] shift the date earlier, which wouldn't
[30:59] be much of an issue simply because we
[31:01] didn't have a meeting in August. So, we
[31:03] could certainly have the September one a
[31:05] little bit earlier.
[31:06] >> Right.
[31:07] >> Marty, uh, you have your hand up.
[31:09] >> Yes. Thank you for the opportunity to
[31:11] comment specifically on this. I have one
[31:14] question and then a couple of comments.
[31:15] I'll try to keep it short. Under number
[31:18] five, where the accessory dwelling unit
[31:19] may not be greater than 75% of the size
[31:21] of the main building.
[31:23] >> Yeah. Um, is that square footage in
[31:26] terms of lot coverage or square footage
[31:28] in terms of the size of the what what's
[31:29] size of the main building? I mean, we
[31:31] have people who have houses that are
[31:32] 3,000 4,000 square ft total footage, but
[31:35] that's not the same as lot coverage.
[31:37] What does the word size mean there?
[31:39] >> Yeah, it's a great question, Marty. And
[31:42] this is exactly
[31:44] from the state law. And to be perfectly
[31:47] frank with you, I'm not quite sure what
[31:49] it means, but it gives us the
[31:51] flexibility for us to interpret and
[31:53] decide what 75% means, but for the, you
[31:57] know, this is the requirement of the
[31:59] state, 70 75% of the size. So, it's not
[32:03] clear whether that is height, mass,
[32:06] square footage, you know, foot
[32:08] footprint, you know, what have you. Um,
[32:10] we're going to have to interpret that
[32:12] when the time comes.
[32:14] >> Thank you, Ron. That's very helpful.
[32:15] Now, next question.
[32:17] >> Um, maximum lot coverage of permeable or
[32:20] non-permeable surfaces has been a
[32:22] continuing issue that the water task
[32:24] force of course has addressed in great
[32:26] detail and that other towns have
[32:27] addressed. And how does this affect is
[32:30] there is there a limit anywhere in terms
[32:33] of the total maximum lot coverage of
[32:35] imperial services? I'm including
[32:37] sidewalks and and driveways, you know,
[32:39] and any not just the building footprint
[32:41] itself. What's the maximum lot coverage?
[32:44] Yeah,
[32:44] >> this sounds to me have 90% of the lot
[32:46] covered.
[32:47] >> Sure. Another great question and the
[32:50] state law, you know, Mark from the storm
[32:54] water task force sent in an email with
[32:56] lots of suggestions and and I would say
[32:58] that yeah, a lot of those suggestions
[33:01] are great and and things to think about.
[33:03] The good news is the state law only
[33:05] preempts us with respect to setbacks in
[33:09] the future when we sit down to talk
[33:11] about our new storm water regulations if
[33:13] any and what we're going to do there.
[33:15] And if we impose lot coverage
[33:17] requirement, you know, permeable surface
[33:19] coverage requirement, we can do that in
[33:21] the future. We just have to have the
[33:23] setbacks in place before the October
[33:26] deadline. Currently in the Martins
[33:28] Editions code, we do have a
[33:30] non-vegetative surface limit for things
[33:33] in the front yard. We we currently don't
[33:35] have a limit or for non-imperous or I'm
[33:38] sorry, non-vegetative
[33:40] elsewhere in the other yards, but that's
[33:42] something that can be studied in
[33:44] connection with the the storm water
[33:45] work.
[33:47] >> That that's really helpful. Thank you,
[33:48] Ron. Next question. this new information
[33:51] that you're talking about, Jeff. Um, I
[33:54] think that would be really important to
[33:56] share with the community. People are
[33:57] really concerned about this from what
[33:59] I've heard. Um, it will affect basically
[34:02] almost every landowner here. And I think
[34:05] that that it's important to get that
[34:07] information out. And again, I'm looking
[34:08] at public forum or some kind of public
[34:11] information function here to really let
[34:13] people have an opportunity to see what
[34:15] you're talking about because I, for one,
[34:17] have not seen the new info. It sounds
[34:18] like it's very important. And so there
[34:21] are lots of questions here. One of them
[34:23] is what's the new info say? And what is
[34:26] the plan to in include community input
[34:30] on this? I understand, Ron, we got to do
[34:31] something before October 1st. But I
[34:34] think that that the whole question of
[34:36] the building code needs to be done in a
[34:38] very public way. And my question to the
[34:40] council is what is the plan for public
[34:43] process here?
[34:45] >> Well, can I just a public hearing right
[34:46] Can I just chime in? Just a couple of
[34:48] things, Marty. First of all, I'm not
[34:50] 100% sure what new information Jeff was
[34:52] referring to. I haven't been up to date
[34:53] on my emails, but number one, this is a
[34:56] public hearing, a public uh an
[34:58] opportunity for the public to speak. But
[35:00] number two, also, this is not something
[35:02] we're creating and and it's not like one
[35:04] of these things where the council came
[35:05] up with some some idea out of the blue
[35:08] to to create this this this ordinance,
[35:11] this code change, the rules, whatever.
[35:13] We have to abide by state law. So, I
[35:15] agree with with Jeff. There is no need
[35:18] to vote on it today. There really isn't.
[35:20] September 10th is a Thursday. We could
[35:22] meet on September 10th. Um if if if it
[35:25] works for other council members and the
[35:27] manager, um that gives us exactly 20
[35:29] days until October 30th. Um and uh and
[35:33] we can continue these conversations, but
[35:35] this is as you know as public and we
[35:37] we've done this before um uh where we put something on agendas and talk about um having having uh
[35:45] having a public discussion and and
[35:48] hearing uh before adopting a new
[35:50] ordinance. So this this is and we'll I
[35:52] guess if people agree we'll have another
[35:53] one in September.
[35:54] >> Uh so I I like well taken Andrew. I I
[35:58] think though what I will say is like the new information came in is like Mark
[36:02] Schaefer's thoughts on this like the
[36:04] there are multiple issues at play here
[36:07] and if I understand you correctly Ron
[36:10] like we don't need to make decisions on
[36:12] parking or permeability of surfaces or
[36:15] like what we do with anything. We just
[36:17] have to make a decision on setbacks
[36:19] which this would allow us to do. We can
[36:21] then
[36:23] decide later on oh maybe we do need to
[36:26] look at parking. let's do that. Oh,
[36:28] maybe we do need to address surface
[36:30] areas and things. We can do that. All of
[36:31] the things that came in today do not
[36:33] actually have to deal with setbacks.
[36:34] They deal with other things. So, I like
[36:36] I I if we need to vote in September,
[36:39] that's fine. But I I'm perfectly I am
[36:41] perfectly content to vote today on the
[36:44] issue at hand and then we can have
[36:46] discussions down the line around the
[36:47] other issues that came in because none
[36:49] of them are related to setbacks
[36:50] specifically and whether or not we have
[36:52] them. are about other issues that we
[36:55] could and need to address like may need
[36:58] to address but they are not about the
[37:00] setback rule specifically.
[37:02] >> Correct. And and and in response to that
[37:05] I would also say to add on to what you
[37:07] said. So Mark Schaefer submitted you
[37:11] know six or so recommendations to to
[37:14] address ADUs in other areas. If we were
[37:17] to adopt any of those, we would have to
[37:20] write a new ordinance and introduce a
[37:23] new ordinance and that, you know, that
[37:25] restarts the clock and then it's a
[37:26] three-month process all over again,
[37:29] >> right?
[37:29] >> So, we really don't have time to to get
[37:32] into all of these other ideas right now,
[37:34] frankly. But we have but we have the
[37:36] flexibility as a council once we comply
[37:39] with state law and pass this ordinance.
[37:42] We have the flexibility as a council to
[37:45] engage with residents for an additional
[37:47] public hearing or hearings to talk about
[37:50] those other issues that that are not
[37:52] necessary for us to vote on right this
[37:55] moment because there is a state law
[37:57] pending deadline that we have to
[37:59] address.
[38:00] >> Right. And and the critical issue is
[38:03] setbacks. And the the really critical
[38:07] issue is you have to establish the
[38:10] setbacks you want by October 1. You
[38:14] can't make the setbacks stricter
[38:17] for ADUs in the future.
[38:19] >> So it it's a poorly written state law,
[38:21] but you know it suggests in the future
[38:23] you can't even change the setbacks for
[38:25] ADUs. You can't make them stricter than
[38:27] those that were established as of
[38:29] October 1, 2026. So, you know, the key
[38:32] issue is what should the setback for
[38:35] accessory buildings be? Should it be 5
[38:37] ft with a modifier as what we've
[38:40] proposed? Should it be, you know, 20 ft
[38:44] from the rear for every building? You
[38:46] know, that's probably too restrictive.
[38:49] Um, but yeah, that that's that's the
[38:52] critical issue
[38:54] and you you can get into the other
[38:56] issues later.
[38:57] >> Okay. Uh Jeff, is that a new hand up?
[39:01] >> Yeah, it's new. I just want to make a
[39:03] clarification and uh welcome to our new
[39:05] council member. First meeting, first uh
[39:08] jumping direct directly into the fire. I
[39:11] just want to point out, and correct me
[39:13] if I am incorrect, but if I recall, I
[39:17] saw an email that came in this afternoon
[39:19] that had been forwarded from our manager
[39:22] with information from Ron that actually
[39:25] went into technical drawings.
[39:27] in addition to uh some of the resident
[39:30] comments and also we still have some
[39:33] outstanding information that we expect
[39:36] to have on the parking study data. So, I
[39:38] just want to be very clear. This is not
[39:41] simply the idea that we had gotten
[39:43] comments in from Mark, and I do
[39:45] appreciate his thoughtful comments, but
[39:47] this is that we had just gotten the
[39:48] technical drawings in.
[39:50] >> Jeff, that that the like the to the
[39:53] point the parking thing, we don't have
[39:55] to talk like that is not like we could
[39:58] go back and amend it later. So, we can
[40:00] take that out today and then we could
[40:02] next meeting be like, just kidding, that
[40:04] was a bad idea. Let's let's figure out
[40:06] parking and commissioner parking study.
[40:08] There's nothing preventing us from doing
[40:09] that. So like like I hear you, but we we
[40:12] can just
[40:14] >> discuss that later.
[40:15] >> And were those techical
[40:17] >> related to parking or what were the
[40:19] technical
[40:20] >> No, but okay, we can agree to disagree
[40:22] on that because I feel uh removing a
[40:25] parking requirement that we have is not
[40:28] in the best interests of our our
[40:29] residents. But with that said, the other
[40:31] point I was making, Ron, please correct
[40:34] me if I'm wrong, but I think the exhibit
[40:36] that you shared today was not solely
[40:39] based upon parking. Is that correct? You
[40:41] provided some uh technical drawings for
[40:43] us around uh various possibilities based
[40:46] upon criteria.
[40:50] >> So yeah, I I I prepared a drawing, Jeff,
[40:53] to satisfy your request. I hope it
[40:55] satisfies your request to to illustrate
[40:59] what the ordinance would do with respect
[41:02] to setbacks. So it I don't know if we
[41:05] can put the drawing on the screen for
[41:07] everybody. Let me see. Is that is the
[41:09] drawing in the packet, Michael?
[41:11] >> It's not, but I have it right here on
[41:13] screen.
[41:14] >> Yeah,
[41:15] >> saw Tuesday.
[41:16] >> There's the drawing.
[41:17] >> Yeah.
[41:18] Um Jeff, I showed you this on
[41:20] Tuesday.
[41:22] >> Yeah. So, so what my drawing shows,
[41:24] could you hold that up there, Michael,
[41:26] just so for the benefit of everybody
[41:28] else, I would I would do a screen share,
[41:31] but this is this is quicker. Okay. So,
[41:34] thank you,
[41:35] >> Ron. Ron, one one thing before you go,
[41:36] and thank you so much as I thanked you
[41:38] during our meeting, which was a closed
[41:40] administration meeting. Uh, this this drawing has not been included in
[41:45] the packet. Is that correct? So, any
[41:47] residents who are on this call right
[41:49] now, this is the first time they're
[41:50] seeing it.
[41:52] Yeah, this is what this is what the the ordinance in front of you says just
[41:56] drawn out. It's the exact same thing.
[41:59] >> Yes, but my question was was this in the
[42:01] packet or not today?
[42:02] >> No.
[42:03] >> Okay. Thank you.
[42:05] >> Yeah. If you only asked for this a
[42:07] couple days ago, so I mean that that's
[42:08] why it was prepared a couple days ago.
[42:11] >> I understand. And that's why you asked
[42:13] for it.
[42:13] >> Ron Ron, what I we're not in argument
[42:16] here. All I'm saying is I we received
[42:18] information this morning and this
[42:22] afternoon and we're having a meeting and
[42:23] I'm just giving options in terms of the
[42:25] idea of being able to process the
[42:27] information and sharing with residents
[42:29] before we take a vote. I'm not arguing.
[42:32] >> Is this enough time Jean Marty
[42:35] >> Steve Nick to to look at this or do you
[42:37] need more time Elizabeth?
[42:39] >> And we can we can definitely make a copy
[42:41] of this that was shared with uh with
[42:43] Jeff. I think thank you for asking,
[42:46] Andrew. This is Marty. I think it'd be
[42:48] helpful to include this and the notes
[42:50] that came in uh from Mark Schaefer as
[42:53] well because the residents haven't
[42:54] really seen any of that and I I for one
[42:57] would appreciate um having you share
[42:59] this information. I think this drawing
[43:01] is illustrative. Uh Ron, could you can
[43:03] you explain the drawing on the right? Um
[43:07] >> Sure. Sure. Would you hold that back up,
[43:09] Andrew?
[43:10] >> I'm holding it. You can see
[43:11] >> Oh, sorry. My the screen just changed
[43:13] because Marty was speaking. My my
[43:15] apologies. So on on the left
[43:17] >> on the left that shows a very small
[43:22] shed. Okay. It that shed can be up to 12
[43:27] feet tall and up to 24 feet wide. And
[43:31] with those dimensions, it would be
[43:33] allowed to be five feet from the rear
[43:35] and five feet from the side. That's
[43:37] what's shown there. And then on the
[43:40] right, that building gets bigger. That
[43:43] accessory building gets bigger. And now,
[43:46] just for, you know, example purposes,
[43:48] it's now 15 ft tall and 28 ft wide. So,
[43:52] because it got bigger, it needs to move
[43:54] inward from the rear and from the side.
[43:58] And as the math works, because it's um
[44:03] you're going to add an additional 4 and
[44:06] 1/2 ft based on its height, and you add
[44:09] an additional 6 ft of setback based on
[44:12] its width. So that building has an
[44:14] additional 10 and 1/2 ft setback from
[44:17] each lot line based on its increased
[44:19] dimensions.
[44:22] >> Thank you. That that's helpful what
[44:23] we're looking at here. Thank you.
[44:25] >> All right. Okay, Jean. Thank you, Jane.
[44:30] >> Thank you for your patience, Jean.
[44:34] [laughter]
[44:35] >> First of all, John, welcome. Thank you.
[44:38] I love your approach. What are we really
[44:40] trying to deal with right now? And can
[44:42] we just cut to the chase and do it?
[44:44] Okay, great. Hi, nice to meet you.
[44:47] Wow, that would solve a lot of problems.
[44:49] Just let's can we approve what we need
[44:51] to approve and go from there. But Ron
[44:54] just touched upon something that was my big problem with a lot of this is
[44:59] seeing what it looks like.
[45:03] It's very hard for residents to see, but
[45:06] that that the illustration that was just
[45:08] shown really helps see what would it do
[45:11] to the change of the the town. What how would we look differently? And isn't
[45:17] that really what it's all about? Can
[45:20] what can we handle as a town? What can
[45:23] we handle not just to look at but to
[45:27] enjoy to drive down to park to get back
[45:31] out of the street that we parked on? Um
[45:35] you know one of the best things so I I
[45:37] agree with you John to go ahead and just
[45:39] say okay look we got to do this and it's
[45:41] pretty simple that that it was very
[45:42] clear but now we have time let's think
[45:46] about what is it that we can have an
[45:50] influence on and let's see some
[45:53] illustrations what would the town look
[45:55] like and you go back to Christ Jacubak
[45:58] who did the most fabulous job of doing
[46:00] our original planning what would it look
[46:04] Like if everybody maximized the
[46:06] authority they would be given on the
[46:09] property. Okay. And and it regardless of
[46:13] whether we think it's horrifying,
[46:16] is there anything we could do about it?
[46:19] might be horrible, but Ron, this is a
[46:21] Ron Bolt answer. Ron, is there anything
[46:24] we could do to make it any different? So
[46:29] those are the kind of things I think we
[46:30] need to have conversations about. What
[46:33] would it look like? What will it look
[46:34] like? What kind of things could it be?
[46:36] But at least right now say what we know
[46:39] has to happen. Let's get it done and
[46:42] let's get to is there anything in the
[46:45] future we could control to make it be
[46:48] better parking blah blah. Okay, I'll
[46:50] stop talking. I'll lower my hand. Okay.
[46:52] >> Thank you, Jean. Okay.
[46:54] >> Okay. With that and seeing Wait, is
[46:57] there another No, that hand disappeared.
[46:59] Uh,
[47:00] >> that was my hand. Okay.
[47:03] Elizabeth Goldberg, is there
[47:05] >> Jeff?
[47:06] >> Oh, no. That was that was the cursor.
[47:07] >> It was Jeff raised hand.
[47:09] >> Uh Jeff, your hand is up again.
[47:12] >> Yeah. Thanks. I just wanted to comment
[47:14] because I wasn't sure if we were still
[47:17] planning on voting or if we're going to
[47:19] take a motion and see if we are going to
[47:21] give ourselves a little more time
[47:22] because I did have a technical question
[47:24] and but I'm happy to defer if we're
[47:28] going to give our ask your technical
[47:30] question.
[47:32] What is your technical?
[47:33] >> Well, no. I need to I want you to I I
[47:36] want you to answer my question.
[47:37] >> Okay. Oh, do we have a motion to
[47:40] introduce this ordinance?
[47:42] >> No, no. I I that wasn't my question,
[47:44] Arthur. I said, are we going
[47:46] >> Oh, what's your question?
[47:48] >> Are we still going to vote on this this
[47:50] evening or are we going to giving
[47:52] ourselves more time?
[47:53] >> That's what we That's what I'm asking
[47:55] right now. Do we have a motion to
[47:57] >> motion to adopt this?
[47:59] >> Motion to adopt. Yes.
[48:00] >> Yes, we have a motion.
[48:01] >> No, that wasn't my question. I I would
[48:03] say that we are asking whether or not we
[48:06] should delay the motion and re reschedu
[48:10] the motion to adopt.
[48:12] >> Do we have any suggestions? Any other
[48:14] suggestions to delay?
[48:16] >> So, so that's how Robert's rules work.
[48:18] If someone makes a motion, then the
[48:19] motion just happened. So, yes, the
[48:21] answer to your question, Jeff, is there
[48:23] is a vote happening right now?
[48:24] >> Yeah. Do
[48:26] >> you have a question before we take that
[48:27] vote?
[48:30] Yes. Uh I was making a motion actually
[48:34] to delay the vote until September. We
[48:37] had that discussion.
[48:38] >> Okay. You are you are moving to delay
[48:40] the vote. Do we have a second for that?
[48:42] >> I I I am I am proposing to move the vote
[48:46] to September. Yes.
[48:48] >> Okay. Do we have a second? We we don't
[48:51] have a second from me, but I just want
[48:52] to explain, Jeff, why I'm not going to
[48:54] second it since this is this is this is
[48:56] kind of the Jeff approach as well as
[48:58] sometimes when you when you abstain or vote no. Um the reason I'm not going
[49:03] to second this and
[49:06] >> can I not explain?
[49:07] >> Well, then let me ask Okay. what you
[49:09] finish your what you're going to say,
[49:11] Andrew, but then I have my technical
[49:13] question that I need to ask if if if
[49:16] that is the case because I have some
[49:19] significant concerns right now of what
[49:21] we have that is going to be adopted. So
[49:24] feel free to go ahead and then I will be
[49:27] happy to raise my technical question.
[49:30] >> Raise your technical question.
[49:31] >> Why don't you raise your technical
[49:32] questions before we proceed?
[49:34] >> Okay. Well, Jean, thanks for bringing up
[49:37] what you suggested and other residents
[49:40] who have also chimed in. So, my question
[49:44] is Ron, you had mentioned the minimum
[49:46] step back of the 5T
[49:50] and there's a drawing render that gives
[49:52] some exception where there would then be
[49:56] some sliding scale. Um, but refresh me,
[49:59] but I think you said 24 feet
[50:03] uh wide by 12 feet high. So that's the
[50:07] that is where we would start to anything
[50:10] over those in terms of height or width
[50:12] then you'd start to get a sliding scale.
[50:15] So basically
[50:17] at minimum you can have you know under a
[50:22] centimeter of height perhaps or of the
[50:26] width and you can have then a bunch of
[50:29] the dwellings that are 24 by 12 right
[50:32] that are going to be very close but the the real question is at what point
[50:38] in terms of this sliding scale because
[50:41] we had someone and I I I think it's
[50:43] worth merit um in in Mark's proposal
[50:46] around the idea of a minimum setback of 10 ft. So, just trying to get an
[50:51] understanding of this gray area between
[50:55] the 5T and the 10 ft. And are we opening
[50:59] up a real can of worms here where we
[51:01] could see some fairly significant sized
[51:05] uh ADUs that are going to be fairly
[51:07] close to the property line that we
[51:10] really didn't account for?
[51:12] >> They don't understand. What's the point?
[51:19] » You're muted now.
[51:20] >> Muted.
[51:22] >> There we go. Sorry about that. Yeah. So,
[51:28] » yeah, the answer is yes. So, back in in
[51:33] um December, I think I I I proposed
[51:36] three general options. You know, one is
[51:39] to increase the setback for all
[51:41] accessory buildings. So it could be 10
[51:43] ft, could be 20 ft, you know, whatever
[51:45] it is. But then you're in the situation
[51:47] where you've got to hear variance
[51:49] requests for modest structures like a
[51:52] shed, let's say, that you know, you
[51:53] really might not mind having at 5t and 5
[51:57] ft. So the another approach that that is
[52:01] in the ordinance now was the setback modifier to avoid situations
[52:05] where you're imposing a setback that's
[52:07] too large on modest buildings that you
[52:10] know you you really historically find
[52:13] close to the rear and side lot lines. Um
[52:16] but yeah, I mean yes, yes, there is a um
[52:20] a risk, but
[52:22] >> no, Ron and you Thank you. And you're actually making the point
[52:28] that I want to address um and I really
[52:31] appreciate your feedback is what we're
[52:34] doing with this particular proposal
[52:37] is
[52:39] it's sort of a reverse. So what I mean
[52:40] is is that I get the point of we don't
[52:44] want to have variances for
[52:49] um certain small sheds and things like
[52:52] that, right? Because you know we don't
[52:54] want to have say to to neighbors, oh you
[52:57] have to have a 10-ft setback for a shed.
[53:00] But I guess the question then becomes,
[53:03] are we then are you're saying is is that
[53:05] for that particular shed if we had a
[53:08] 10-foot setback that we would actually
[53:11] need to then have a formal variance
[53:14] hearing or could the manager or permit
[53:17] manager and the technical engineers
[53:19] saying, "Ah, we don't need this and it's
[53:21] a shed. Um, that's okay." Or could we
[53:25] assign
[53:26] >> that would violate the state?
[53:29] law.
[53:30] >> So you would have to have then a formal
[53:34] so so just correct. So if if the shed
[53:38] and we had a 10-ft setback for all
[53:41] dwellings because we're trying to
[53:43] protect ourselves around large
[53:44] structures, what we're saying is if it
[53:47] were a shed or some other small play
[53:49] thing that uh we would have to then have
[53:52] a formal variance hearing. There's no
[53:54] exception to that rule. So we we would have to schedule those hearings
[53:58] for every single thing that really was
[54:01] not a true ADU type dwelling.
[54:04] >> The applicant wanted to place it
[54:07] somewhere else. And if if they were
[54:09] happy with the 10-ft setback, then no
[54:11] variance is needed. But if they weren't
[54:14] happy with the 10-ft setback and wanted
[54:16] a 5-ft setback, then yes, they could
[54:18] request a variance.
[54:21] >> And would that then require a hearing?
[54:25] >> Yeah. Yes, variances require hearings.
[54:28] >> Yeah.
[54:29] >> Um
[54:30] >> Okay.
[54:30] >> I mean, you you you could you could
[54:34] draft the code to say,
[54:37] you know, modest
[54:39] variance requests, etc. don't require
[54:42] hearings and the like. But I think the
[54:44] state is going to say this is an, you
[54:46] know, an indirect attempt to to impose
[54:50] lesser setbacks on different types of
[54:51] buildings, which is exactly what the
[54:53] state law tells us. we can no longer do.
[54:57] >> Okay. Thank uh Marty, you have one last
[54:59] question.
[55:00] >> Thank you. Yes, it's an important
[55:02] question. Does anything in this
[55:03] ordinance limit people to only one ADU?
[55:08] I can imagine somebody building two ADU
[55:11] units in a long backyard. And I don't
[55:13] see anything in the ordinance here that
[55:14] would prevent that.
[55:16] >> You want to take that on?
[55:17] >> It's not with that's not within the
[55:18] village's jurisdiction to restrict. We don't have land use authority. We
[55:23] can't say how land can be used. The
[55:25] county can and the county says you can
[55:28] only have one one ADU currently. Uh
[55:31] there was a state law, a state bill
[55:34] proposed in the last session that did
[55:36] not pass as I recall where
[55:40] oh gosh, what was the name of that?
[55:44] » Starter starter and
[55:46] >> not not that one. This this was a this
[55:49] was a bill proposed by a slate of
[55:53] Republicans. It didn't make it out of
[55:55] committee, but it would it would have
[55:56] allowed two ADUs per per lot and it it
[55:59] didn't it didn't pass. But yeah, right
[56:02] now the county says one. We we as a m
[56:05] municipality in the regional district
[56:07] cannot say you're not allowed to have
[56:09] more than one. We can't say you're not
[56:11] allowed to have a fortune teller
[56:12] business, you know, etc.
[56:15] >> Okay. Thank you.
[56:17] Okay, I think we had a motion. Do you
[56:20] want to restate?
[56:20] >> Motion to adopt.
[56:21] Do we have a second?
[56:24] >> A second.
[56:24] >> Uh all in favor I and probably Jeff
[56:30] against or for
[56:33] >> I think
[56:34] >> uh I'm against uh because of as I
[56:37] mentioned the timing there's no need to
[56:40] have more
[56:41] >> I think this motion has passed four to
[56:43] one.
[56:46] Okay, moving on to the next item on the
[56:49] agenda. Approval of council meeting
[56:52] minutes from the last meeting. People
[56:54] have had a chance to go over it. I
[56:56] actually found two little thingies in it
[56:59] >> which I made
[57:00] >> which you made the change. So we can
[57:02] have a motion to adopt the meetings the
[57:05] minutes of the last meeting
[57:08] >> on
[57:10] a second.
[57:11] >> I move to adopt
[57:12] >> a second.
[57:13] >> Second. All in favor? Hi.
[57:19] » Okay.
[57:20] >> Did you want to vote on the minutes?
[57:26] » Okay. Uh moving on to the next question.
[57:29] Uh Alexa has been uh what's the word? Uh
[57:35] >> spearheading the idea of a new village
[57:38] hall. uh and to that effect has
[57:41] suggested some questions for the uh
[57:44] survey uh the annual survey and we will
[57:48] need to get uh resident comments and
[57:52] this is a good place to begin. It both
[57:54] by putting questions in the survey. It
[57:57] both alerts
[57:59] residents that this is a a live subject.
[58:03] gets their uh reaction and it's a way to
[58:06] more or less introduce the subject more
[58:08] generally. So, Alexa, do you want to uh
[58:11] over that?
[58:12] >> Yes, I would. First of all, I did make
[58:15] uh the last time that we spoke a little
[58:18] about this.
[58:20] Uh there were a couple of
[58:22] recommendations which I included in in
[58:26] the draft that I sent. So, I'm just
[58:28] going to pass it to you so you could see
[58:30] it.
[58:31] >> Okay.
[58:32] >> All right. And as you can see,
[58:34] >> thank you. Thank you.
[58:35] >> You all have it.
[58:37] >> Can you put this on?
[58:39] >> Yes.
[58:42] >> So again, uh I understand that that
[58:46] different councils throughout the years
[58:47] have entertained the idea of having of
[58:50] investing acquiring a uh a space uh that
[58:55] they could use as basically a village
[58:58] hall, a town hall, whatever you would
[59:00] like to call it. And so we thought we
[59:02] would bring it to the table. Again, I'm
[59:04] very interested in the idea of having a
[59:06] home um that is as um many of us have
[59:11] thought about over the years uh a safe
[59:14] home. A safe meaning it's ADA applied.
[59:18] It is um more accessible to all of the
[59:23] residents including those of us who have
[59:25] mobility issues. Um that is definitely a
[59:30] safer space than what this space is.
[59:32] This space has one exit only. Um that
[59:36] affords privacy that affords
[59:39] um [clears throat] a space for events
[59:42] that we cannot even imagine.
[59:46] uh and that allows us to perhaps
[59:50] have a lot a long-term investment that
[59:53] um will serve our purposes many years
[59:57] down the line. So
[1:00:00] um I am just opened opening up the idea
[1:00:04] that uh with the changes that I made to
[1:00:09] the first uh sentence which I will read.
[1:00:13] VMA is exploring acquiring via gift or
[1:00:17] investment a property to house
[1:00:20] administrative spaces for staff offices,
[1:00:23] council and committee meetings, etc. and
[1:00:26] provide indoor and outdoor space for
[1:00:28] community activities. Um,
[1:00:33] I don't know if this is the space to go
[1:00:35] through this.
[1:00:36] >> Uh, it's I think it's in the packet, but
[1:00:38] I think the questions are are are well
[1:00:41] thought out. The we the process in the
[1:00:43] survey is that we have a contractor in
[1:00:45] the and the University of Maryland uh
[1:00:48] who has done a very good job much
[1:00:52] better. I did it once and it was awful
[1:00:54] of putting together the survey. Uh, and
[1:00:57] this they would then take this and kind
[1:00:59] of put it into the format and the form
[1:01:01] and everything that it's used.
[1:01:03] >> Um, but I think it's useful to have
[1:01:05] these questions out there now so people
[1:01:08] can get it, take a look at them. Please
[1:01:10] look at your packet. Uh, and uh, there
[1:01:14] may be others that come up, additional
[1:01:17] questions, additional details that we
[1:01:19] might want to investigate. Uh,
[1:01:23] do you want to go through them or
[1:01:26] >> um to read them?
[1:01:28] >> I don't I mean I think
[1:01:29] >> I don't think they're in the packet.
[1:01:30] >> They're in the packet. Okay.
[1:01:32] >> Yeah.
[1:01:33] >> I do want to uh like uh propose one
[1:01:37] small tweak to the opening thing in line
[1:01:40] with Elizabeth your comment at the
[1:01:42] beginning asking about like ADA space
[1:01:44] like we have talked about that as like a
[1:01:46] like that is a what one of the big
[1:01:48] reasons to do this is to do that. But I
[1:01:50] think make that clear because I'm I'm
[1:01:52] like like like oh my gosh I I would not
[1:01:54] want anyone to think that that was
[1:01:56] something we had not thought about or
[1:01:57] considered. So I think just some
[1:02:00] clause something that is basically like
[1:02:02] as one of the purposes that we are
[1:02:04] outlining for this to have an accessible
[1:02:06] space
[1:02:06] >> and that will allow
[1:02:08] participation. Yes.
[1:02:10] >> Definitely.
[1:02:11] >> So that that would be my only uh nudge
[1:02:13] and I thank you for raising that
[1:02:14] Elizabeth.
[1:02:15] >> Yeah.
[1:02:15] Yeah. I kind of thought that well
[1:02:18] of course the ADA would have to be part
[1:02:20] of the of of the final decision.
[1:02:23] >> Yeah.
[1:02:23] >> Um but I I can easily see that including
[1:02:27] it in the opening statement is helpful.
[1:02:29] >> Right.
[1:02:30] >> ADA would not be a choice. It would have
[1:02:32] to be part of the decision.
[1:02:35] >> I can comment on this as well. Uh we
[1:02:37] have a contract uh back with um the same
[1:02:42] um person um and actually her private
[1:02:45] consulting firm that she launched out of
[1:02:47] this and other community surveys. Um and
[1:02:50] I will send these questions once the
[1:02:53] council's comfortable with them to her
[1:02:55] and she can incorporate them whether
[1:02:57] it's the like the support not support
[1:02:59] neither support or oppose
[1:03:01] >> versus some sort of leerard scale or
[1:03:03] something that fits with the rest of the
[1:03:05] template. um she would know best. She's
[1:03:07] the survey expert on that type of thing.
[1:03:09] But I think this is great. And um to
[1:03:11] answer Marty's question earlier, this is
[1:03:12] not a holistic view of the entire
[1:03:15] survey. That will happen in the fall.
[1:03:17] It's still summer, so we are hoping to
[1:03:20] draft those questions and get them in
[1:03:21] front of um the community prior to
[1:03:24] actually launching the survey um in
[1:03:26] October or November like we do every
[1:03:28] year. So
[1:03:29] >> Okay. Uh Jean, you have a quick comment
[1:03:32] on this. Quick quick comment. I got to
[1:03:35] be quick. Okay, I'll do do my best.
[1:03:39] >> Uh, let me Has anybody looked at the current
[1:03:44] situation and said, "What could we do to
[1:03:47] alter the current facility to make it
[1:03:51] easier for access?" I mean, what's the
[1:03:53] priority? Is priority
[1:03:55] accessibility?
[1:03:57] Okay, if it is, what about I always
[1:03:59] thought of this being that office, being
[1:04:01] the first village manager in that
[1:04:02] office. the very easy to run elevator up
[1:04:06] the back of the building. What would
[1:04:08] that cost us as a town? Because I
[1:04:11] thought we are so blessed. There's not
[1:04:13] any other municipality that I know of
[1:04:16] except maybe
[1:04:18] >> Chef Chase Village
[1:04:20] who has a a commercial lot in the middle
[1:04:24] of the because we weren't a part of we were independent. We weren't a part
[1:04:28] of the land use company the chase chase
[1:04:32] land. We are blessed. Has anybody
[1:04:35] thought about what what would it take to
[1:04:37] take the current place and make it able
[1:04:40] to easily accommodate a rear elevator to
[1:04:43] make it easy to get people in and out? I
[1:04:45] would start there before I look for a
[1:04:48] play. I don't know. I have no idea what
[1:04:51] you guys are talking about. Finding a
[1:04:54] house. You're talking about finding a a
[1:04:55] lot in Martin's Additions. Is that what
[1:04:57] you're talking about? I got no idea.
[1:04:59] >> And parking. What are you what are you
[1:05:01] going to do about zoning? Don't I won't
[1:05:03] even just have you What have you thought
[1:05:06] about what we have? How blessed we are
[1:05:09] to have it because no other
[1:05:11] municipalities have it. Well, the
[1:05:13] section three has even come and is
[1:05:15] renting space.
[1:05:18] >> Yeah.
[1:05:19] >> Okay. Okay. I'm done. I
[1:05:21] >> Thank you.
[1:05:22] >> Okay.
[1:05:23] >> Good point. Think about it. Always good
[1:05:24] point.
[1:05:25] >> I love my Let me know what you think.
[1:05:28] >> Okay. Thank you. Good points as always.
[1:05:30] Um,
[1:05:33] okay. Manager's report. Are we any other question or comments on these
[1:05:38] this issue? Okay. Manager's report.
[1:05:43] [clears throat]
[1:05:43] >> Okay. It is 8:36.
[1:05:46] My manager's report is on page 12 and I
[1:05:50] will keep it short.
[1:05:53] All council members have been sworn in.
[1:05:55] Thank you very much for being timely
[1:05:56] about that. and all uh village
[1:05:59] insuranceances have been renewed.
[1:06:01] Remember, we have three different levels
[1:06:03] of insurance. We have workers comp, we
[1:06:06] have uh performance bonds for the five
[1:06:09] of you and myself, and we have general
[1:06:12] liability insurance. Those have all been
[1:06:14] renewed.
[1:06:16] The FY 26 annual report is now out. It
[1:06:20] is um in the Martins's Edition's
[1:06:22] newsletter. A reminder there that the
[1:06:25] July and August newsletter is joined
[1:06:27] into one newsletter. So that's our one
[1:06:29] summer newsletter. We're taking a break
[1:06:31] in August. Um directly after my report
[1:06:35] in the council meeting packet, you will
[1:06:37] see the administrative calendar. The
[1:06:39] council has gone over this together um
[1:06:42] in administrative meeting, but I want
[1:06:44] the entire community to be aware of um
[1:06:46] everything that's happening. Put all the
[1:06:48] events on your calendars. Um, we're
[1:06:50] hoping to stick to this as closely as
[1:06:52] possible. [sighs]
[1:06:54] The Brookell sidewalk is almost almost uh we do have a little bit of a
[1:07:01] problem with the storm drains that I
[1:07:03] found out about today. Um, the tops for
[1:07:05] the storm drains that they have ordered
[1:07:07] are delayed. So, um, the storm drains
[1:07:10] are rebuilt. They're amazing looking.
[1:07:12] They're eight feet deep and now five
[1:07:14] feet wide to match the new sidewalk. Um,
[1:07:17] the
[1:07:19] One of the storm drain tops will be done
[1:07:21] from the person that's building it next
[1:07:23] Wednesday. So hopefully that part will
[1:07:25] be done and the second one I we don't
[1:07:27] know yet. Um we are waiting to find out
[1:07:29] when they can finish the other one. So
[1:07:30] of course uh right right when I'm like
[1:07:33] we're done, we're done.
[1:07:35] >> There's two on Brookville between
[1:07:36] Shephard and and Turner Land. Yeah.
[1:07:39] >> Um I'm a little scared, but this is a
[1:07:41] rhetorical question. You have to answer
[1:07:42] it is where it's being ordered from.
[1:07:46] >> Yeah. Our contractor has a subcontractor
[1:07:48] that's building it. So I I I don't know
[1:07:50] that.
[1:07:51] >> Is that coming from America?
[1:07:53] >> Is it America?
[1:07:54] >> Yeah. This is a local company. Yeah. I I
[1:07:56] didn't learn that, but
[1:07:57] >> who knows? Um
[1:07:59] >> yeah. Uh they are planning to finish
[1:08:02] everything else next week, including
[1:08:04] painting the lines, putting in the stop
[1:08:05] sign at Bradley Lane. So we have four
[1:08:07] way stop. So this is just kind of the
[1:08:09] last thing. And honestly, all they need
[1:08:11] to do is set them down with a crane as
[1:08:13] soon as they arrive. It's really not a big job. Um, so we're just hanging
[1:08:18] on for that. Stay tuned. I will get you
[1:08:20] more information when I when I have it.
[1:08:24] Um, there's also the building per uh
[1:08:27] permanent administrator report in the
[1:08:29] back of today's packet, so you can take
[1:08:31] a look at that.
[1:08:32] >> Let me I [clears throat] have a quick
[1:08:33] question on that. Seems to be relatively
[1:08:36] few pro ongoing projects.
[1:08:38] >> Yeah, I'm curious if that's the economy
[1:08:40] turning. Um, it doesn't seem like we
[1:08:41] have as many flips as when I first
[1:08:43] started here four years ago. We would
[1:08:45] have two or three going on at a time,
[1:08:47] right? We currently have zero flips,
[1:08:49] >> one a single page of project,
[1:08:51] >> couple decks, and a couple additions and
[1:08:53] projects that are taking a long time.
[1:08:55] Um,
[1:08:56] >> but no, no tear downs, rebuilds
[1:08:58] currently,
[1:08:59] >> um, at all. That's
[1:09:00] >> okay.
[1:09:00] >> Yep.
[1:09:01] >> Yeah.
[1:09:02] >> The call for volunteers, uh, now that we
[1:09:04] have the mission statement for the new,
[1:09:07] uh, storm water committee, um, I will go
[1:09:10] ahead and prepare that and issue that
[1:09:12] shortly.
[1:09:14] That's for all five committees and task
[1:09:17] force. [gasps]
[1:09:20] If you would like a native tree planted
[1:09:22] on your property this year, uh, go ahead
[1:09:24] and start sending those forms or even
[1:09:27] just an email to me. I am managing that
[1:09:29] process this year and building a list. I
[1:09:31] already have a list
[1:09:32] >> and we are getting the trees from whom?
[1:09:34] >> I have a nursery that we're going to try
[1:09:37] to directly source from. Um, I will get
[1:09:39] you the name of that nursery.
[1:09:40] >> Okay. But not going through the
[1:09:42] arborist. not going through the arirect.
[1:09:45] It'll be a direct purchase from a
[1:09:46] nursery and they will come and plant
[1:09:48] this.
[1:09:49] >> Will they give us a list of what's
[1:09:51] available?
[1:09:51] >> Yes. Yes, we will. We will have the
[1:09:54] list. I mean, hopefully it's the same
[1:09:55] list of native trees. So, it'll be the
[1:09:57] same list that we've we've already used.
[1:10:00] >> Okay.
[1:10:01] >> Yeah, we will source them and get those
[1:10:03] planted in the fall.
[1:10:08] » Uh the annual summer movie night is
[1:10:10] scheduled for September 6th. We will
[1:10:13] solicit movie recommendations. Um, we
[1:10:15] have experimented with different types
[1:10:17] of movies and it seems like PG-13 is the
[1:10:20] sweet spot where you can get some of the
[1:10:21] adults are into the movies and the kids
[1:10:23] come to eat the candy either way. So,
[1:10:26] make your recommendations accordingly.
[1:10:28] And then the last thing, just on a
[1:10:31] personal note, I have an eye surgery
[1:10:33] next week. So, I will be out next
[1:10:36] Friday. Um, and I'm also taking vacation
[1:10:38] in August, so we're expecting things to
[1:10:40] be very quiet around here. Um, it always
[1:10:42] is in August, but
[1:10:43] >> we're manifesting that it'll be quiet.
[1:10:46] >> Yes. Yes.
[1:10:46] >> Yeah. It would, in fact, uh, I was
[1:10:49] talking to Erin yesterday, the day, but
[1:10:51] she says we're getting you're getting it
[1:10:52] like maybe two people coming into the
[1:10:55] office on on an a July day now.
[1:10:58] >> Good.
[1:10:58] >> Yeah. Yeah.
[1:10:59] >> Okay.
[1:11:00] >> So, that concludes my report.
[1:11:02] >> Thank you. Any questions, comments?
[1:11:05] Okay. Okay. We now come back to uh
[1:11:09] opportunity to hear residents again. I
[1:11:12] see Marty's hand is up again.
[1:11:14] >> Thank Thank you. I appreciate it. Um we
[1:11:18] had talked in the stormwater task force
[1:11:20] recommendations about doing a tree
[1:11:23] inventory for Mars Editions and I'm
[1:11:26] wondering whether Davey, our new tree
[1:11:28] contractor, can do that. I know the
[1:11:30] District of Columbia has done a very
[1:11:32] extensive job on that and I'm wondering
[1:11:34] what's the status and how can we go
[1:11:36] ahead and get started on our tree
[1:11:37] inventory. Any thoughts on that?
[1:11:40] >> Are you referring to the public rightway
[1:11:42] trees or all trees?
[1:11:44] >> All all trees is what DC has done and
[1:11:46] all trees is what uh um the stormwater
[1:11:50] task force recommended.
[1:11:52] >> Yeah, that that would be a separate
[1:11:53] contract. it wouldn't be through Davey
[1:11:55] and I'm not even sure exactly how we
[1:11:57] would do that to gain access to
[1:11:59] everyone's property or do satellite
[1:12:00] imagery or what um how that would work.
[1:12:03] >> Yeah. And we have not discussed that.
[1:12:04] >> We do have a survey of all the public
[1:12:07] right of way trees and now that's a
[1:12:09] number of years old but um on my big map
[1:12:12] here in the office wall there is every
[1:12:14] single tree in the village public
[1:12:16] rightways is marked.
[1:12:17] >> Yeah.
[1:12:19] and and probably has some limited
[1:12:21] information about maybe type of tree and
[1:12:22] size of tree when that was recorded.
[1:12:24] >> Right. I'm concerned about the loss of
[1:12:26] our tree canopy over the last 10 years
[1:12:28] with all the McMansion building that clear cuts the lots. I know that
[1:12:32] many on the council are concerned about
[1:12:34] that too.
[1:12:35] >> Has storm water implications as well. So
[1:12:38] >> that tree inventory seems to me like
[1:12:40] something we ought to be able to do.
[1:12:42] >> Well, the question is what do you do
[1:12:44] with it once you've got it? Why have it
[1:12:46] >> that that that you can't do anything
[1:12:48] until you do know what you got. You
[1:12:50] know, not knowing what you got. We had
[1:12:52] like 10 15 years ago a LAR survey of the
[1:12:55] tree canopy done by the county. And I
[1:12:58] don't think the county is still doing
[1:12:59] that. They're not finding
[1:13:00] >> No, they don't.
[1:13:01] >> So, what do we do instead to update our
[1:13:04] >> Marty? What they did? They had a they
[1:13:05] had a view of the canopy. They didn't
[1:13:07] know the number of trees. All they knew
[1:13:09] was percentage coverage. And what they
[1:13:12] found for Martin's edition was
[1:13:14] interesting that even though there was a
[1:13:16] notable loss of trees, there was an
[1:13:19] increase in canopy because
[1:13:21] >> bigger trees got older and bigger.
[1:13:23] >> Exactly. Trees grew up uh and spread. So
[1:13:27] >> doing a tree audit's a good idea. I
[1:13:28] would have to do a bunch of research to
[1:13:30] figure out that. I know DC and I've met
[1:13:32] with DC um they they they partner with
[1:13:34] Casey Trees and I go to the tree summit
[1:13:38] every year with Casey Trees and
[1:13:40] Montgomery um urban forest division of
[1:13:44] their whatever their department that is
[1:13:47] um they do a conference over spring
[1:13:48] every year. I think I'm going again this
[1:13:50] year. It's in September. Um, so I I can
[1:13:52] definitely start asking these questions.
[1:13:54] And this is a Paula Goldberg question as
[1:13:57] well.
[1:13:58] >> Like an actual like census of counting
[1:14:00] the trees.
[1:14:02] >> So could I like hold up my iPhone, take
[1:14:05] pictures and upload it to Grock and just
[1:14:08] say, okay,
[1:14:10] >> any any tree bigger than than X
[1:14:12] circumference. Yeah.
[1:14:14] >> Because that's really valuable for the
[1:14:16] entire village. It's part of, as Jean
[1:14:18] says, the nature, the character of our
[1:14:19] community that makes this valuable is
[1:14:22] the the amount of tree coverage that we
[1:14:24] have. And on Chestnut Street, we've lost
[1:14:26] half the lots have lost their big trees
[1:14:28] in the last 10 years. I can't speak to
[1:14:30] the whole village, but I can tell you
[1:14:31] Chestnut Street is noticeably um lost a
[1:14:34] lot of canopy. So, I think it's useful
[1:14:37] to have a baseline um as we move forward
[1:14:40] here with the next steps on true water
[1:14:42] management and all the rest of it. Thank
[1:14:43] you for pursuing that.
[1:14:45] the uh the old tree committee from 10
[1:14:48] years ago when we looked in this what we
[1:14:51] what was noted by some of our
[1:14:54] consultants that we had is that old
[1:14:56] trees die as a normal course of of
[1:14:59] having but the way to come you know to deal with that is to plant and this
[1:15:03] was where we came in up with the idea of
[1:15:06] subsidizing private tree plantings and
[1:15:09] now we've had several hundred trees
[1:15:12] planted under that program that that's
[1:15:14] which is great. That's terrific. Yeah,
[1:15:16] that's really really great stuff.
[1:15:18] >> And and given that these 100redy year or
[1:15:21] 50year storms happen every other week
[1:15:24] during the summer,
[1:15:25] >> some of these trees more
[1:15:27] >> that we lose are not fully mature trees
[1:15:29] either
[1:15:29] >> and so we can accelerate some of the
[1:15:31] tree planting as well.
[1:15:33] >> Can you take down the timer now so we
[1:15:35] can see? Okay, Elizabeth Goldberg.
[1:15:40] Uh I agree with Marty that the tree
[1:15:44] inventory would be useful as a baseline
[1:15:47] if it's going to accompany also any
[1:15:49] changes in future changes in ordinance
[1:15:52] and storm water management. I mean trees
[1:15:54] are really important for absorbing their
[1:15:58] root systems for absorbing water and
[1:16:00] particular species. So to know what
[1:16:02] species they are and you know some
[1:16:04] whatever would be the description of it but to have that
[1:16:09] as a a base of reference what is here
[1:16:12] now and also in view of construction.
[1:16:15] So, you can always have a look at, you
[1:16:17] know, what was here this year and and
[1:16:19] what disappeared that might have been
[1:16:21] linked with construction and it might
[1:16:23] link to uh some permits on uh tree
[1:16:27] removal in the future on on um building
[1:16:31] lots. Okay.
[1:16:32] >> Okay. The other thing I wanted
[1:16:33] >> Oh, go ahead. Yeah, go ahead.
[1:16:35] >> The other thing I wanted to ask,
[1:16:36] Michael, what about the annual report?
[1:16:38] Did I miss what you said that you were
[1:16:40] publishing it in the newsletter?
[1:16:43] >> Yes, that's correct. It's in the
[1:16:45] newsletter
[1:16:46] >> coming up in August. The
[1:16:47] >> No, no, the July 1 newsletter included
[1:16:50] the reports.
[1:16:51] >> Okay. All right.
[1:16:52] >> So, it's already out.
[1:16:53] >> That's correct. Yep. It's live.
[1:16:55] >> Okay. All right. Well, I will go back
[1:16:56] and look for it because
[1:16:58] >> if I haven't if I haven't yet, I will
[1:17:00] post it on the front page of the website
[1:17:02] as well.
[1:17:04] >> I think that I think that would be good
[1:17:06] to put it in front of people's eyes a
[1:17:08] couple of times.
[1:17:09] >> Yeah,
[1:17:09] >> absolutely. Just a very quick comment.
[1:17:11] Um so just putting out there in terms of
[1:17:14] this tree census thing. One thing we
[1:17:17] could do is uh Google maps has a lot of
[1:17:20] geospatial uh data that is for free and
[1:17:24] they also have relationships with
[1:17:26] municipalities. I mean, I don't know
[1:17:28] what their time baseline might be, but
[1:17:30] that might be a real relatively quick
[1:17:32] thing and we could give it to the
[1:17:34] University of Maryland folks if they
[1:17:36] have like a five-year baseline
[1:17:40] >> that could at least do coverage, right?
[1:17:41] I'm just putting out there. It's true.
[1:17:43] And there's there's tons of GIS maps
[1:17:45] where people have done survey uh you
[1:17:47] know, satellite imagery and stuff. So we
[1:17:48] might be able to find additional
[1:17:50] >> different than a census but the idea the
[1:17:52] topography you might be able to get
[1:17:53] which is
[1:17:55] you know a pretty critical
[1:17:57] >> DC um which was referenced earlier set a
[1:18:01] goal of getting to 35% you know tree
[1:18:03] canopy. We're probably way over that.
[1:18:05] DC's pretty far behind us but I believe
[1:18:08] DC has actually upped that goal and and
[1:18:11] has had a ton of progress towards that.
[1:18:13] So
[1:18:13] >> Okay. Okay. Um,
[1:18:17] uh, Steve Howard, you've been lurking
[1:18:18] there. Any comments from you or Nick?
[1:18:22] >> Nothing from me.
[1:18:24] >> Okay.
[1:18:26] Uh, good. With that, I will turn to Oh,
[1:18:30] let me I just want to say one one
[1:18:32] comment. One comment [laughter] unless
[1:18:33] anyone else wanted to. I just very
[1:18:35] quick.
[1:18:35] >> It's up to you.
[1:18:37] >> Okay. I just want to So, first of all, I
[1:18:38] just want to share Well, sorry, I got
[1:18:40] caught in something. So, here I am. But
[1:18:42] um so I just want to say that I
[1:18:44] appreciate you know the only real uh the
[1:18:48] reason why I did not vote and I said it
[1:18:49] on the phone and I know that I was in
[1:18:51] transit so it may have come out a bit
[1:18:53] different than it meant to in terms of
[1:18:55] tone was just the real simple proxy of
[1:19:00] we had more time. And so what I mean by
[1:19:03] this and Ron could verify but like for
[1:19:05] example let's just say out of the blue
[1:19:07] something comes up over the next 6 weeks
[1:19:10] that we were like ah you know we should
[1:19:13] have actually thought about that right
[1:19:16] so now if that happens correct me I'm
[1:19:18] wrong but we we'd have to introduce an
[1:19:19] amendment
[1:19:21] you'd actually have to introduce it and
[1:19:23] then adopt it so then you'd have that
[1:19:25] clock of like 60 minimum 60 days or
[1:19:28] whatever it is and all I'm sharing is is
[1:19:30] that when you have more time. It's like
[1:19:33] in investment banking, if you have more
[1:19:34] money on the table, you take it. Well,
[1:19:37] in municipal or federal government, if
[1:19:38] you have more time,
[1:19:40] >> you take it.
[1:19:40] And so now we voted on it.
[1:19:43] We're kind of locked in. And if
[1:19:44] something comes up, you know, now we'd
[1:19:47] have to do I and but last thing I'll
[1:19:49] just say is do I think
[1:19:53] it was the wrong vote in terms of
[1:19:55] technically will it create havoc?
[1:19:58] Absolutely not. I think it's the right
[1:20:00] thing and I probably would have voted
[1:20:01] for it if we didn't you know if we were
[1:20:04] push came to shove but I just wanted to
[1:20:05] put out as principle that I feel when
[1:20:07] there's more time take it because
[1:20:10] there's really nothing lost in that's
[1:20:12] all. So, and again, I was going to I was
[1:20:16] going to mention we we kind of jumped
[1:20:18] over this your motion not to is that
[1:20:20] we've learned subsequently that nothing
[1:20:24] in this current ordinance is really
[1:20:28] >> deviate or or would impact any other
[1:20:30] aspects like the parking, you know, all
[1:20:33] the stuff. And and speaking of time, now
[1:20:36] we don't have to worry. We're in
[1:20:38] compliance and we have the time to
[1:20:41] entertain amendments. There's no no
[1:20:43] pressure on entertaining amendments and
[1:20:45] a new clock because because we're good.
[1:20:48] We're in compliance. And by the way,
[1:20:49] September 10th, Jewish holiday starting
[1:20:51] September 11th. Some people might be
[1:20:53] traveling. So there's a lot of pressure,
[1:20:54] time pressure on that end. So So this
[1:20:57] conversation isn't over, right? It's going to continue,
[1:21:00] >> right?
[1:21:01] >> And I did grow up with my grandmother,
[1:21:02] so I tend to worry more than the average
[1:21:05] member. So here
[1:21:07] >> Okay. You had emotion.
[1:21:09] >> I did have a motion. Do you want to hear
[1:21:10] it?
[1:21:11] >> Yes. Let's hear your motion to adjurnn,
[1:21:12] please.
[1:21:13] >> Do we have a second? I Okay,
[1:21:16] >> thank you all.
[1:21:18] >> Thank you.